Examination of Witnesses (Questions 13780
- 13799)
13780. So far as the Great Eastern is concerned,
you have done something rather more sophisticated looking at the
period throughout the day but I think stopping in the middle of
the night; but looking at every hour during the day?
(Mr Watson) Yes, that is
right. It is probably worth explaining why there is a difference
in methodology. We adopted the standard hour methodology for both
the Great Western and the Great Eastern initially. For the Great
Eastern it was proving very difficult to actually consider the
standard hour as a standard hour because each hour seemed to be
a little different. Particularly bearing in mind the capacity
issues that were already evident there, a decision was reached
that in fact we would move to the analysis which you have already
alluded to in appendix D4.
13781. Just two matters arising from that. First
of all, I understand why you have used the standard hour approach
for simplicity. First of all, what is fairly early established
is that there are not really such things as "standard hours"
are there, because actually the number of freight movements, certainly
at present, between individual hours even in particular segments
varies hour to hour?
(Mr Watson) That is absolutely
correct. I suppose with 20:20 hindsight if we had the time again
we would have adopted the same approach for the Great Western
as for the Great Eastern. I think I have to say, I do not believe
that looking at it hour by hour would have led to a different
conclusion on the Great Western.
13782. Secondly, I am told that as you move
from one segment to another, that is in the transition period
between the timetable for one segment and the other, there is
at any rate a possibility that in the process of adjustment there
will be some loss of capacity; and, therefore, that that is an
additional weakness of the standard hour methodology?
(Mr Watson) Do you mean
by that particularly if you think about the shoulder peak?
13783. Yes. For instance, as you move from peak
into off-peak or from the evening peak into the overnight, one
simply sees for the hour what is running in each. In the making
of the transition between the two there are going to be some difficulties.
You cannot simply move from one to the other without seeing how
they interlock?
(Mr Watson) Yes, it certainly
is the case that the approach adopted on the Great Eastern is,
to a degree, more accurate than the standard hour approach adopted
on the Great Western. I think it is probably a good point to highlight
at least one other area where there is more work to be done, and
that is how to accommodate engineering access, particularly in
the evenings, where there the timetabling work so far has not
looked at that detail. Network Rail gave an assurance—
13784. I am coming back to that particular matter.
The position so far as EWS is concerned and Mendip Rail, who are
the operators who are most concerned about the Great Western side,
is that they appreciate the work which has been done by the Working
Group so far, but what they say is that because the standard hour
methodology has been used there is simply a need for further work
for further refinement and all that is necessary before the conclusions
are robust enough to reach conclusions.
(Mr Watson) I am a little
bit surprised by the way you are exactly saying that now because
the conclusions of the Working Group were reached and, I think
I will say again, if this is a new piece of work that the freight
operator is proposing is undertaken, I think it is a sensible
piece of further work. There is a need to understand in more detail
but I do not think it changes the nature of the conclusions.
13785. Mr George: Sir, I know you were
going to have a break at about 11.30, we have reached that point
and I am about halfway through my questions.
13786. Chairman: I will suspend the Committee
until 11.45.
After a short break
13787. Mr George: The fourth matter concerns
TfL's services. We have got the slide up and you identified earlier
the North London Line which, of course, runs from Stratford (we
can see it in the green) and eventually joins up with the Great
Western line at Acton.[14]
It has been described to me as something like the North Circular
Road is for cars; it is the North Circular for freight in London.
Is it not?
(Mr Watson) Yes.
13788. You mentioned that Transport for London
have got proposals for that route. The situation is that they
are planning to double the service on Silverlink. Is that not
right?
(Mr Watson) My understanding
is they have an aspiration to do that. I do not know the exact
status—
13789. That is the service which runs between
Stratford and Willesden, and my understanding is that that is
a key element of our Olympic bid proposals and that the strategy
being worked up is to have that increased service in operation
by 2012. Have you heard of that matter, Mr Watson?
(Mr Watson) Yes, I am aware
that certainly during the period of the Olympics they need to
operate or they want to operate an increased service. That is
right.
13790. On 7 June 2006 they went public that
they had short-listed four companies to proceed with the next
phase of bidding for that, and that the plan was that they have
a successful bidder by 2007 and they have what they describe as
a metro service—a higher capacity metro service—in
place by 2012. Does that surprise you at all?
(Mr Watson) It does not
surprise me, no.
13791. What we can probably agree is that if
there is to be a high frequency and a higher frequency service
on the North London Line than at present that that is something
we could impact on the availability of capacity for freight on
the North London Line.
(Mr Watson) Depending upon
what TfL's proposals are for infrastructure improvement, then
yes.
13792. Also, it has a knock-on effect, does
it not, on to freight on the Great Eastern line?
(Mr Watson) Yes. I have
already mentioned it makes it more complex to timetable the freight
trains both between a higher intensity of a North London Line
service and services on the Great Eastern.
13793. Could we put up, please, page 4 of the
Working Party report, under the heading of "Passengers"?[15]
It is the second paragraph down there. We can see the Working
Group is clear that "Many of TfL's plans and aspirations
if taken forward would interact with Crossrail and analysis must
be undertaken to understand and take account of this interaction,
particularly at Stratford." The next sentence says why that
is important, because of ensuring that there are appropriate freight
paths provided. That work has not yet been done by anyone, has
it, in connection with the timetabling for Crossrail?
(Mr Watson) That is, to my understanding,
correct, not only for Crossrail but, also, for interaction between
TfL's plans and freight, even if Crossrail does not happen.
13794. TfL are a joint Promoter of this Bill
but have not, in my understanding, so far, had placed before the
Committee any evidence relating to how their metrolink, high frequency
service on the North London Line would inter-react with the Crossrail
proposals and the freight proposals. Am I right on that?
(Mr Watson) I am sorry,
I have not been following the detail of the hearing well enough
to know. I am sorry.
13795. Provided your Working Group were given
details of TfL's plans and confirmation that it was an increase
from four trains to eight trains in each direction, that is something
that you have the ability and the technique then to model its
effects.
(Mr Watson) That kind of
modelling is something which most definitely needs doing. I think
the question which is not for me to answer is whether this Working
Group is the right place to do that, bearing in mind that for
a number of these factors—and they are nothing to do with
Crossrail at all—there is a wider issue about aspirations
and plans in East London, which is a network issue and, therefore,
I would be envisaging Network Rail taking the lead on that.
13796. The important thing is that someone does
it and does it soon, is it not?
(Mr Watson) Agreed.
13797. If Crossrail is to open in 2014/2015
and if one of its Promoters says it is going to be running a double
service on the North London Line by 2012 then that is highly material,
is it not, to the sort of matters with which your group has been
concerned?
(Mr Watson) I think there
is a lot more work to do in that area. That is absolutely true.
13798. Also, TfL, we understand it, have got
plans for a passenger service from Liverpool Street to Barking
and to Grays, which would involve, again, crossing and using the
Great Eastern Line on the way to the Barking. Is that right?
(Mr Watson) A presentation
was made to the Working Group by TfL which set out a range of
what I would have to describe as aspirations for service enhancement
east of London, and certainly a service from Liverpool Street
to Grays was one of those aspirations. What we were unable to
ascertain at that stage or subsequently—it is fair to say
we have not asked the question subsequently—is whether that
is an aspiration or whether it is a planning assumption. It is
certainly not, at the moment, a committed scheme.
13799. I understand that a four-train per hour
movement is what TfL are talking about. Is that a figure which
you remember from the presentation?
(Mr Watson) Yes, my recollection
is that it was four trains per hour.
14 Crossrail Ref: P106, Cross London freight routes
(LINEWD-GEN14-012). Back
15
Crossrail Ref: P106, Crossrail Timetable Working Group Report,
Growth Forecasts-Passenger (LINEWD-GEN13-005). Back
| 
