Examination of Witnesses (Questions 13880
- 13899)
13880. And is that absent with Crossrail or
with Crossrail?
(Mr Watson) I think to restate
the point already made, with or without Crossrail, on the analysis
we did, or Freightliner did for the Working Group, shows that
with or without Crossrail there is not enough capacity to accommodate
freight growth at 2015, therefore there is no point in performance
modelling it because if you just throw trains into a timetable
and they are not, to use jargon, "conflict free", they
are basically not far enough apart to create a timetable compliant
with the Rules of the Plan. If you performance model it all it
will say is "this is not a very good timetable", as
night follows day.
13881. You were asked about not timetabling
for 2015. Has the freight industry come up yet with its timetable
for 2015 to allow you to carry out modelling?
(Mr Watson) I do not think
the freight industry was specifically asked by the Working Group
to provide a timetable for 2015.
13882. Bearing in mind EWS and Freightliner
were members of your committee did they say: "We want to
model 2015 and we will supply the data if you request it"?
(Mr Watson) They did say
they wanted 2015 modelling and that is why it is in the further
work. It was clear in the time available before this Committee
that we were not going to get that performance modelling done,
so the exact detail of how that timetable was put together was
not discussed.
13883. You were seeking information from Freightliner,
one of Mr George's clients, recently and I think received it two
weeks ago but did not put it into the final version of the report,
is that right?
(Mr Watson) That is correct.
13884. How long had you been waiting for Freightliner
to provide that information?
(Mr Watson) I think—when
did they offer? Let's be clear, they offered to do it. I am sorry,
this is not an exact date, but I think we had a meeting on probably
31 May or it might have been 1 June at which they undertook to
provide that.
13885. What was the information?
(Mr Watson) As I think I
have already mentioned under cross-examination, we, the Working
Group, found that looking at standard hours was not giving us
the kind of certainty we were looking for, therefore we moved
to look at individual hours, the whole 0600 to 2300 period of
the day, and it was at that meeting, 31 May or 1 June, at which
it was agreed the methodology that would be followed to create
the spreadsheet which you now see in the appendix.
13886. Can I ask you about a number of these
issues? Are these issues in relation to capacity, infrastructure
improvements, how paths are allocated and the like, ie how capacity
is parcelled out amongst those who are competing for use of the
paths, is that something looked at all as part of the access option
exercise in the role of the ORR?
(Mr Watson) I should probably
say the Working Group has not spent very much of its time looking
at the access option—
13887. I did not ask you that. I said are any
of these matters which would be looked at by the Regulator when—
(Mr Watson) I am sorry.
Yes, they were, undoubtedly.
13888. So will the industry have further input
when the question of the access option is being negotiated with
Network Rail and the ORR?
(Mr Watson) If the access
option route is adopted, then yes.
13889. And can the access option specify as
a condition of getting access option that certain infrastructure
requirements should be carried out as part of granting that access
option?
(Mr Watson) My understanding is that is the
case, yes.
13890. One of Mr George's later questions related
to wanting an undertaking about specific works. Now, this is not
a matter for you, it is not your role in this exercise, but just
looking at the matter generally, from your experience, would it
be sensible to set in stone now some years before the timetable
is actually finalised, some years before design is finalised,
what exact improvements are going to be carried out?
(Mr Watson) The answer to
that must be no.
13891. Would the better mechanism in terms of
being flexible and meeting the requirements of what is actually
going to happen be that the matters be dealt with at this stage
or at the stage when the Regulator is looking at the matter?
(Mr Watson) Well, if the
access option route is to be adopted it will be looked at at that
stage and the Regulator will take the final decision.
13892. Mr Elvin: Thank you very much,
Mr Watson.
The witness withdrew
13893. Chairman: Do you want to outline,
Mr Elvin, the next part?
13894. Mr Elvin: As I understand it,
the next Petitioner is the Association of Train Operating Companies.
I have already outlined the industry concerns generally; I do
not think I need to say anything more. As I understand it, the
sort of concerns that ATOC has relates to matters such as the
Network Code and compensation and the question as to the Regulator
and the use of Bill powers, all of which I have outlined. I think
the only matter I have not mentioned to the Committee is that
there was some concern about the wording of the Compensation Code
under the network arrangements, which is information paper H2,
and that is or is in the course of being amended. Apparently there
was concern about lack of clarity as to whether the principle
of "no net benefit/no net loss" will apply, which I
can confirm will be the case, and H2 is being clarified to make
sure that point is picked up. Other than that the concerns that
ATOC have will broadly fall within the categories I have already
described.
13895. Chairman: Mr Thompson?
13896. Mr Thompson: Thank you, sir. My
name is Paul Thompson, Bircham Dyson Bell, parliamentary agents,
and I represent today the Association of Train Operating Companies,
ATOC, Petitioner No 49, and also LER, or One Railway, together
with C2C and Silverlink railways. Petitioner No 75. I have one
witness to call and I would like to proceed straight to call that
witness, sir.
The Petition of the Association of Train Operating
Companies.
Mr Paul Thompson appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.
Bircham Dyson Bell appeared as Agent.
The Petition of London Eastern Railway Ltd (trading
as One Railway), c2c Rail Ltd and Silverlink Train Services Ltd.
Mr Paul Thompson appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.
Bircham Dyson Bell appeared as Agent.
Mr Theo Steel, Sworn
Examined by Mr Thompson
13897. Mr Thompson: Mr Steel, you are
Theo Steel. Would you like to introduce yourself to the Committee?
(Mr Steel) I am projects director
for One Railway, with 36 years of railway experience, previously
managing director of First Great Eastern and was in charge of
the railways in East Anglia in 1980. I have also been involved
in project planning for the Channel Tunnel rail links and that
Bill and its timetable construction. Today I am representing both
ATOC and One Railway and its associated companies, the petitioners,
two in one.
13898. Can you tell us a bit more about ATOC?
(Mr Steel) ATOC is the Association of Train
Operating Companies, an association owned by the train operating
companies that provide franchise rail passenger services through
Great Britain, as well as EWS railway who also operate charter
trains and certain non franchised operators like Eurostar. It
is the official voice of the passenger rail industry; it also
provides its members with a range of services that enable them
to comply with conditions in their franchise agreements and operating
licences. In particular, ATOC has a role in providing information
systems for passenger railway, ticketing support for through or
inter-available fares with other operators, including London Underground,
and in providing technical input to planning rail services and
network enhancements on behalf of passengers. ATOC also has a
planning role and capability under which it considers issues beyond
the franchise term of its members and to provide professional
input to planning by Government and Network Rail on behalf of
future train operators. This expertise has been particularly valuable,
we think, in considering the implications of the Crossrail project
on the national rail network.
13899. And which ATOC members are particularly
affected by Crossrail?
(Mr Steel) We believe seven
of ATOC's members are affected by Crossrail's proposals. First
Great Western, One and Southeastern trains particularly, and c2c,
Virgin Trains, Chiltern Railways and Silverlink are affected to
a lesser extent. Since the Bill has been deposited it has been
determined that Silverlink's North London line services will form
part of TfL's North London railway in 2007, so it may well be
that their relationship with Crossrail is determined as an internal
TfL matter.
| 
