Examination of Witnesses (Questions 13860
- 13879)
13860. Now, the last matter is maintenance and
engineering. That traditionally takes place at night, does it
not?
(Mr Watson) And at weekends.
13861. The Crossrail service is going to run
from 5 am to 1 am, is it not, which is a longer period than the
passenger trains have been running at present?
(Mr Watson) That is the
plan, yes, certainly.
13862. Therefore one has a reduction of the
night time period available to do maintenance work?
(Mr Watson) It means that
there will have to be changing to the way Network Rail undertake
their maintenance work if they are to meet the commitment, perhaps
"commitment" is the wrong word, but the statement they
have made where they are looking to ensure there is no degradation
of access for their operators as a result of those changes to
engineering—
13863. And you referred to this when you were
giving your evidence but it is page 6 of the report, that so far
Network Rail have simply said that they anticipate that they can
achieve their engineering work, it is halfway down the page under
"Engineering Access": "Network Rail anticipates
accommodating engineering requirements within existing allowances",
and they say that this will be possible because of continued improvement
in engineering efficiency and technology.[22]
Now, your group have simply taken that as a given, have they not?
(Mr Watson) That is correct.
13864. Now, we do know, do we not, that elsewhere,
for instance, in work being done on the Great West main line,
Network Rail produced a document called "Efficient Engineering
Access" and are, in fact, requiring rather longer time for
engineering and maintenance than has been the case in the past?
(Mr Watson) For a period
of time I believe that is the case. I think, though, Network Rail
have made this statement, and if you do not believe them can I
suggest you ask questions of Network Rail?
13865. But it concerns us so far as robustness
of the timetable because it seems to us that one ought to be testing
alternatives here. One: assume that Network Rail's anticipations
prove justified, but, secondly, assume that is not the position.
Crossrail running longer, more wear and tear of the lines, more
work to be done, higher standards to be achieved, and should one
not be at any rate doing an alternative modelling exercise which
assumes they require rather longer, because if that is so it will
impact on freight, will it not?
(Mr Watson) If that were
so it would either impact on freight or on other operators, or
on Crossrail's ability to run the service it is seeking to, particularly
in the late evenings, but not necessarily freight. It would have
an effect clearly on the available capacity.
13866. If we could lastly now go to page 7 of
the working party report, there is a heading "Further Work"
and there are bullet points which run right over to page 8.[23]
Those are all matters which the working party felt were necessary
to be taken forward, this being, as I say, rather work in progress
at the present time?
(Mr Watson) They are all actions
which require to be taken forward without a doubt. I think, as
I have said, there will continue to be timetabling details which
need to be taken forward right the way through to when Crossrail
comes into use, I am quite sure.
13867. And all those matters looking at them
would all appear to be matters that either your group, or a Network
Rail group, it does not matter, or a Crossrail group, but someone,
could take forward and within a period of certainly less than
six months—I am not going to say what could be done in two
months because I just do not know but certainly in six months—produce
something which would be a great deal more final than the report
which you have produced. I do not criticise you for your report
but that is where you have got to by June, so that further work
could have been taken forward, could it not, by December?
(Mr Watson) Clearly subject
to resource availability and, as you rightly say, prioritisation
of that resource, substantial progress could be made on a number
of these items, I am quite sure.
13868. So far as resource availability, given
the amount of money which is involved on the Crossrail scheme
as a whole, it is positively a flea bite, is it, not to get the
modellers and a team of consultants and the others who are involved
to concentrate on these matters?
(Mr Watson) Yes. To be clear
I was not passing any comment on the financial implications of
doing it. I am just conscious of resource limitations in terms
of bodies capable of doing this kind of work, which is specialist.
13869. Mr George: That is what we shall
be seeking. I am grateful. Thank you.
13870. Chairman: Might I ask if there
are any other Petitioners present in relation to this witness
who wish to cross-examine at this point?
13871. Mr Elvin?
Re-examined by Mr Elvin
13872. Mr Elvin: Mr Watson, have you
had a large catalogue of requests and complaints about lack of
robustness of EWS, Freightliner and Mendip? EWS and Freightliner
we recall were members and are members of your Working Group.
(Mr Watson) Indeed, yes.
13873. And members of the Stakeholder Forum?
(Mr Watson) Yes.
13874. Did the Stakeholder Forum set the terms
of reference or assist in doing so for the Working Group?
(Mr Watson) Yes.
13875. So EWS may be asking through Mr George
an hour and a half's worth of questions of clarification, but
they were responsible for setting terms of reference for your
committee?
(Mr Watson) That is correct.
13876. And they were also participants in the
process which led to the report which our Committee has before
it today?
(Mr Watson) That is correct.
13877. Other than the reference that the Committee
has seen this morning to "further performance modelling will
be required", the various caveats you have heard entered
today on—Mr George said there were 10 issues, I am going
to say more like 150, but the 10 issues you have heard this morning,
had EWS or Freightliner clearly made these caveats known and,
if they had been made, would they have been reflected in the report?
(Mr Watson) Clearly if they
had asked for a further wording change it would have been made.
We had to close down the wording of the document just to meet
the sensible time for people to be able to look at it, the 22nd.
I think, just to be helpful and to move this on, the issue here
appears to be one of degree rather than one of absolutes, does
it not?
13878. Mr Watson, I am asking you the questions
in re-examination; I am not asking for a general thesis. Will
you just stick to my questions, please? If the Committee wants
to pursue them then no doubt the Committee will pursue them further
with them. Can I take up one caveat we discussed about further
modelling and further information? Looking at P106, exhibit page
7, page 6 of the report, the sentence Mr George referred you to,
what is the significance of what comes after that sentence and
the rest of the paragraph: "However at present it has not
been possible to demonstrate that the freight rail predictions
can be accommodated on the Great Eastern", et cetera?[24]
(Mr Watson) I can explain that.
There is absolutely no point in performance modelling a timetable
which is not Rules of the Plan compliant. We were not able to
produce a timetable which would actually accommodate all of the
2015 freight growth.
13879. Why is that?
(Mr Watson) Because there
is not enough capacity.
22 Crossrail Ref: P106, Crossrail Timetable Working
Group Report, Engineering Access (LINEWD-GEN13-007). Back
23
Crossrail Ref: P106, Crossrail Timetable Working Group Report,
Further Work (LINEWD-GEN13-008 and -009). Back
24
Crossrail Ref: P106, Crossrail Timetable Working Group Report,
Performance Modelling (LINEWD-GEN13-007). Back
| 
