Examination of Witnesses (Questions 14560
- 14577)
14560. It is done in this specific instance
using the GB freight model, which is audited by DfT. On that basis,
how reliable are these figures?
(Mr Garratt) I would hope
that they would be reliable, yes.
14561. In terms of potential impacts of Crossrail,
how significant is what we are looking at here?
(Mr Garratt) I would say
that figure is very significant. If you consider that annually
the Department is planning to spend something like £25 million
a year on measures or, if you like, environmental subsidy to the
rail freight industry then to see a figure of £168 million
a year is high relative to such expenditure.
14562. Let us move from that to the working
timetable. First of all, as far as the working timetable is concerned,
would it be appropriate to regard the number of freight paths
defined in the working timetable as an absolute definition of
capacity?
(Mr Garratt) No. As I explained before there
is the scope for finding further paths within the timetable in
white space.
14563. How does the industry work with regard
to freight paths? Do you keep them forever whether you use them
or not?
(Mr Garratt) No. There is a "use it or
lose it" principle so that if an operator has a path but
does not use it, he loses it.
14564. With regard to looking at a working timetable
and seeing the extent to which there is or is not available capacity,
can we learn anything from the exercises that were undertaken
in relation to the Bathside Bay and Felixstowe South Port development
proposals?
(Mr Garratt) Yes. That illustrates
what I was describing really. What happened in the case of the
Felixstowe and Bathside Bay proposals—I go back to what
was said a few minutes ago—the Promoter, Hutchison, did
commit to railway works related to the amount of rail freight
traffic it was expected to generate on the route between Felixstowe,
Peterborough and on to Yorkshire. In the case of traffic through
London, the timetable was examined and further freight paths were
identified and that was taken as a given in the context of the
inquiry.
14565. Both terminals together providing, I
think, about 2,800 metres of additional container per quay, is
that right?
(Mr Garratt) That is right.
14566. When you said there was an exercise undertaken
to examine the extent to which the working timetable could offer
additional capacity, was that an exercise just by the Promoters
of the port proposals or did it involve other people?
(Mr Garratt) No, it was known as a statement
of common ground between the Strategic Rail Authority, the Promoters
and the relevant local authorities.
14567. The conclusion of that work involving
the Strategic Rail Authority and the Promoters, with assistance
from Network Rail, what conclusion was reached with regard to
accommodating that additional port related rail traffic through
London, please, to 2015?
(Mr Garratt) The conclusion that was reached
was that for that year there would be adequate capacity. That
was an exercise in which Network Rail was also engaged. Hutchison
will be putting some more evidence to the Committee.
14568. Hutchison, I think, are coming before
the Committee a little later in July.
(Mr Garratt) Next week.
14569. We know Crossrail has issued a freight
operations information note, it is E6, is that right?[40]
(Mr Garratt) Yes.
14570. That has told us, among other things,
that they would ensure that adequate capacity was available for
existing rail freight making no allowance, we understand, for
underlying growth or growth from the ports such as the ones you
have spoken of. Is that correct?
(Mr Garratt) That is correct, yes.
14571. And that, in broad terms, freight services
will continue to operate at broadly existing levels is what we
have been told, is that right?
(Mr Garratt) That is correct. That is what
the note said.
14572. The process the Committee has heard about,
we do not need to recite it at any length. There was, I think,
an outline timetable issued in relation to Crossrail, is that
correct?
(Mr Garratt) That is correct.
14573. Subject to criticism?
(Mr Garratt) Subject to considerable criticism.
14574. Then the Timetable Working Group was
set up in the way that has been described and Mr Watson was its
chairman, yes?
(Mr Garratt) Correct.
14575. The Working Group and the representation
on it, Mr Garratt, to what extent, as it were, were the customers,
people like Tarmac, represented on it?
(Mr Garratt) They were not.
14576. Why, if at all, does that matter?
(Mr Garratt) I think the
interests of the train operators and their customers, and particularly
the terminal owners, are likely to be different, not necessarily
in conflict but certainly different. I think terminal owners and
operators particularly because in a sense they cannot go anywhere
else, their assets are totally fixed to the network.
14577. Chairman: Mr Kingston, before
you move on I am going to have to stop you there. It has been
a most informative session. We will have to choose another day.
I understand there is a day being set for you to come back in
the future, as yet to be confirmed. I am going to end the session
for today. This Committee will next sit at 10am next Tuesday morning
with another petitioner.
40 Crossrail Information Paper E6-Freight Operations,
billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk Back
| 
