Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8540 - 8559)

  8540. Sir Peter Soulsby: I think it would be convenient in that case for us now to adjourn the Committee until 2.30 this afternoon.

  8541. Mr Elvin: Sir, we shall easily finish during the course of the afternoon and we might have some time to kill before the six o'clock session.

After a short adjournment

  8542. Mr Elvin: I will call Mr Berryman, sir. The Committee are well familiar with Mr Berryman.

  Mr Keith Berryman, Recalled

  Examined by Mr Elvin

  8543. Mr Elvin: Mr Berryman, can you describe briefly to the Committee the reason why, notwithstanding the option consideration in Montague, it was decided in 2004, after Montague, not to proceed for the time being with the Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet element to the south-eastern part of Crossrail?
  (Mr Berryman) Yes, during the same time as the Montague Report was being prepared—and, of course, you will appreciate that was an independent inquiry chaired by Sir Adrian Montague, it was going on in parallel to our own work—we were also doing timetable modelling for the timetable we developed up to that point, and it became very clear during the course of that modelling that the scheme we were proposing at that time, which was to send four trains on beyond Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet, was going to lead to problems not only for the Crossrail service (that was my principal concern, of course) but, also, for the other services which operate down in that area of North Kent. During the Montague Review Sir Adrian's team also investigated this issue quite independently of us and suggested that going down to Ebbsfleet would seriously compromise the ability of Crossrail to run services that require frequency in the central area, and that was really—a combination of those two things—the reason why it was dropped from the scheme at that time.

  8544. How important was it to provide a reliable and frequent service?
  (Mr Berryman) It is very important to provide a reliable and frequent service. So what we concentrated on was improving the interchange between Crossrail trains and North Kent line trains at Abbey Wood so the journey would be, as far as practicable, seamless. I think we have already heard in evidence—and I think Mr Hardie agreed—that the five-minute frequency of Crossrail trains would mean that the average waiting time would be about two-and-a-half minutes for one of those trains going into London. Coming out of London, generally, through most of the day, there is a 15-minute service out from Abbey Wood to North Kent. There are parts of the day, particularly in the contra-peak, where that is not the case but most of the day it is a 15-minute service. Really, whether you are on a 15-minute service which you have to wait for at Abbey Wood, or a 15-minute service you have to wait for at Tottenham Court Road, it does not make much difference; you have still got a service every 15 minutes. From the operator's point of view, it is far better to have people waiting at Abbey Wood rather than having them wait at a deep-level, underground tube station.

  8545. Mr Berryman, in the light of the undertaking we have given with regard to passive provision for the dual electrification, I am not going to ask any questions about that. Can I ask you, briefly, about the costs issue? Certain costs have been put forward today. What is your general view?
  (Mr Berryman) Yes, I think the information was put forward on costs by Bexley based on our published information. We do not generally argue with that very much, but there is a bit of a mix-up between what was MPV costs (that is to say, discounted back to the present day) and what was costs assessed on fixed cost bases. Just to briefly run through the numbers, the costs for the original scheme—that is the scheme we established that does not work very well—to go out to Ebbsfleet would be about £83 million base costs. When we have added the contingency, which the Treasury requires us to add for this kind of project, that comes up to £120 million. That is at first quarter 2002 prices. The costs of the additional works from Crayford Creek to Dartford, which were alluded to this morning, as was said by Mr Hardie, is £95 million plus the Treasury's what they call "optimism bias", which brings it up to £136 million. The optimism bias is the sum that they add to counter the natural exuberance of people like ourselves who are promoting schemes, because they feel they tend to understate the costs. That, in total, brings the cost of a workable scheme that goes down to Ebbsfleet to around £256 million, at first quarter 2002 prices. That is quite a lot of money to pay for the service improvements that are required. It also has impacts on the project itself.

  8546. That cost is not a cost which was assessed by Montague. As we have heard from the Bexley witnesses, at the time Montague assessed the option the four-line solution to the bottleneck was not an issue which had been considered.
  (Mr Berryman) It certainly was not considered by Montague. I think it was probably at the very early stages of being considered by us but it was definitely not considered by Montague.

  8547. If, as has been the case, the decision was made to drop to Ebbsfleet, why is it still proposed—although it is still only in draft—to safeguard the route to Ebbsfleet?
  (Mr Berryman) Clearly, there are advantages to the Thames Gateway of having a through railway which goes down to service that Thames Gateway corridor. Probably the advantages are more psychological than real because the loss of journey time through having to make the interchange at Abbey Wood is actually relatively low. I think there is a psychological issue that you can get on to what will effectively be the London Transport underground-type map, and that has a positive impact on places, but I think it is, as I say, more in the perception than the reality. Having said that, North Kent line services are not the world's best and, irrespective of Crossrail, it is desirable to improve the layout of North Kent, and the safeguarding proposed would allow that to be done.

  8548. Then, just to move to an issue raised by Bexley, which is the "all options consideration"—which is that whichever of their options, if any, is acceptable to the Committee, Crossrail should form part of the first phase of the construction of Crossrail and be brought into operation on the day that Crossrail first comes into operation—whatever "including it in the first phase" means, what Bexley is seeking is that on day one of Crossrail the south-east link should be there. What are your views about that suggestion?
  (Mr Berryman) The first thing to say is that Crossrail is a very, very large project—very large indeed—and it is unlikely that we would bring it all into commission at one go; it would be a period of bringing sections into commission. Wherever the first section is, it needs to have access to a depot, because you need a depot for the commissioning of rolling stock and you need a depot for doing the servicing as you start to build up operating lines. The existing depot at Slade Green is not suitable as a depot for Crossrail, as it is already full, and therefore it is unlikely that the south-eastern branch could be brought into commission first. When I talk about bringing things into commission in stages, that does not necessarily mean a very long gap between stages; it could mean a few months, it could mean a longer period, and that will probably depend on the availability of funding at the time the line is being built.

  8549. Is it possible at this stage, Mr Berryman, to say which, in strategic and construction terms, phase of Crossrail will be brought in first?
  (Mr Berryman) It is very likely, as things stand at the moment—in fact, almost certain—to be the north-east branch which is brought in first. There are two reasons for this: first of all, that is where the depot site is proposed to be, and secondly the north-east branch is already electrified with a 25kv overhead system. It allows us to introduce the rolling stock gradually on that line before it is introduced into the tunnels, so we get running mileage before we start moving to a Crossrail service and we know the rolling stock is reliable.

  8550. The position that Bexley should be favoured above the other branches of Crossrail and brought in on day one—is that a view you subscribe to?
  (Mr Berryman) I feel I should say "they would say that, wouldn't they". Not really, no. I think that the bigger benefits actually come from the central section of the north-east branch; they are the things which give you the biggest hit straight away. Clearly, the south-east branch is quite strong, but I do not think it is not sufficiently strong to say it should have priority over other branches.

  8551. Mr Elvin: Mr Berryman, unless there is anything I have missed out in outlining the position to the Committee, I have no further questions.

  Cross-examined by Mr Cameron

  8552. Mr Cameron: Mr Berryman, can I first of all check with you publicly, so to speak, that you are the only witness who is going to be giving evidence on behalf of the Promoter today?
  (Mr Berryman) Certainly, unless you ask me some questions I cannot answer, in which case it may be necessary for someone else to assist, but, yes, that is the intention.

  8553. The reason I ask that is that if I want to ask questions about the difference in the extent of the regeneration benefit—by the "difference" I mean what you get if you go to Abbey Wood and what you would get if you go to Ebbsfleet—are you the right person to answer those questions?
  (Mr Berryman) Probably not, sir. It depends on the depth you want to go into.

  8554. Can I start with those questions and then if you need to pass on to somebody else you can say so. Can we do that?
  (Mr Berryman) Yes, by all means.

  8555. There is a letter written by your colleague, Mr Anderson, (it is our document A91) of 11 May.[93] What Mr Anderson says, under: "Regeneration benefits arising from current Crossrail scheme" is this: "Analysis of the regeneration benefits accruing to areas in the Thames Gateway beyond Abbey Wood, based on the current Bill scheme, has been undertaken." It focused on accessibility changes and consequent changes in population and employment catchments resulting from Crossrail, and the transport model CAPITAL was used. The same model was used, am I right in thinking, at the time that the 2003 business case was developed?

  (Mr Berryman) It was certainly used for some analysis in that case, yes.

  8556. And that analysis included analysis of the same indicators, namely population and employment increases, at 30 minutes or 45 minutes with the extension to Ebbsfleet. Were you aware of that?
  (Mr Berryman) Yes, I was.

  8557. I wonder whether you could just be given, for the moment, a copy of the working paper which is referred to by Mr Donovan in his evidence: working paper 6.2. This is a Crossrail paper, so it is your own paper, I think. If you would go to page 18, you have figures for population and employment within time-travel distances of 30 minutes and 45 minutes with Crossrail and that is with the extension to Ebbsfleet.[94]

  (Mr Berryman) That is correct, and this would be done using the CAPITAL model.

  8558. These figures can provide one with a direct comparison with the figures produced by Mr Anderson in his letter dated 11 May 2006.
  (Mr Berryman) I think you would have to ask Mr Anderson that question. I am not quite sure whether it is on the same basis.

  8559. As far as Bexley and the Committee are concerned, we have one paper from Crossrail which has figures for population and employment from particular locations. I am going to take as an example Belvedere. You can have Belvedere with and without the extension to Ebbsfleet, and make a direct comparison by having Mr Anderson's A91 and the working paper, A93, one in each hand.
  (Mr Berryman) I do not have Mr Anderson's A91, I am afraid.[95]




93   Committee Ref: A91, CLRL to London Borough of LB Bexley, 11 May 2006 (SCN20060516-002). Back

94   Committee Ref: A93, Population and Employment Figures within time-travel distances with Crossrail with the extension to Ebbsfleet , Transport Model CAPITAL (SCN20060516-004). Back

95   Committee Ref: A91, CLRL to London Borough of LB Bexley, 11 May 2006 (SCN20060516-001). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007