Examination of Witnesses (Questions 14600
- 14619)
14600. Can I come to B and D, which is the independent
regulation and the industry processes. Regulation of the network
is closely linked to the efficient and effective management and
operation of the network as a whole. As the Committee will no
doubt appreciate, the examination and modelling of the effects
of the change or new services on the network are highly technical
and detailed, but critical. We, Network Rail, are ultimately responsible
for that under the Government's new structure. The effects on
the London network in particular can have implications far afield
across the national network, including our main rail arteries
such as the Great Western, the West Coast Mainline and the Great
Eastern.
14601. The rail industry has developed highly
sophisticated and proven procedures for dealing with these considerations
under the expert supervision of the Office of the Rail Regulator.
It is a system which allows for and encourages investment and
changes in the network which itself has to be organic. Equally,
one cannot expect investment to take place without assurance as
to future access rights, thus we have urged, and the Promoters
now propose, that they should apply the established industry procedures
and seek an Access Option. One thing that we believe is clear
is that the detailed modelling would be wholly inappropriate for
examination of in this Committee. It is essential for the Statement
of Principles, which we have looked at, that we, Network Rail,
should have that responsibility in the first place for examining
whether the proposed services are operationally viable. That will
depend upon the detailed modelling of the Access Option when it
is provided by the Department. In fact, they have not yet provided
it, although we have been expecting it for some time now. As a
result, we have not been able to start our detailed modelling
work considering its operational viability in discussion with
the industry.
14602. However, I can say that following the
completion of the Timetable Working Group in June the Promoters
have now released a model to us and we have been able to make
progress on validation and the Committee can be assured that there
will be no delay on that account once the Access Option is finally
provided to us.
14603. I must emphasise to the Committee that
it is a process which may take some time. A particular issue is
what is required to make the proposed access rights operationally
viable.
14604. Can I ask if NR6, Crossrail Access Option,
a Policy Paper, be put on the board. If we can go to paragraph
8.6 on page 29 of the Committee's bundle, but on page 12 and 13
of the document itself.[8]
I have one final sentence to draw out and this is dealing with
service levels. The Committee will see the end of paragraph 8.6:
"The Access Option will, however, need to contain specific
conditions precedent in relation to infrastructure provision.
Given that not all design work will have been completed by that
stage, these conditions will need to provide flexibility for the
Secretary of State to vary the infrastructure provision to something
of equivalent performance overall". One of the key matters
we have to consider is what is required for operational viability.
If it is not operationally viable as proposed, then steps will
be required to be taken, either to secure the infrastructure or
vary the Access Option. We believe it is of fundamental importance
that this proposal is based on an operationally viable basis.
Or, at least if it is not, that the Committee knows that that
is the basis on which the proposal is proceeded with.
14605. Once the process of verification is complete
then the access option is to be submitted by the Promoters to
the Office of the Rail Regulator for consultation with the industry
and final decision. All of that we firmly support. The problem
is, as I have said, that we have yet to see the Access Option
itself.
14606. I should just add in parenthesis the
Timetable Working Group work, of which we were part and supported,
was not that examination. It simply looked to see if there was
an "in principle" potential.
14607. Our concern is to an extent increased
by the absence of clear assurances from the Promoters. The letter
from the Minister dated 29 June 2006—can I have that shown;
I know the Committee has seen it before—this is NR11, page
53.[9]
I was not going to read it again but it expressed in broad terms
dealing with the general intent of the Minister to follow the
Access Option route. However, we wrote to the Promoters on 28
June 2006 seeking specific clarification of the status of assurances
in the response to our Petition. On 3 July we had a meeting with
the Department, and on 7 July our agents again sought confirmation
of what had been discussed at the meeting from the Promoters.
It is a matter of concern to neither matter have we had a reply.
It is not a matter of semantics.
14608. To give an example, in a response paper
(and I do not show you; it is the example I am interested in)
it is said, importantly, that in periods of disruption the fast
and slow lines will be managed together, and that Crossrail will
not have absolute priority. It is an important principle to ensure
that the network is used to its best ability. That principle,
to ensure that the network is operated for the public as a whole,
is one we want to be clear about. That is why we have asked for
the Department to state what its position is in that respect.
As I say, at present we have not had an answer. In short, therefore,
we believe the Committee does not at present have the assurance
of a service that is operationally viable; and that the industry
processes are essential to resolve that issue.
14609. Because the Department has not yet provided
the Access Option there will inevitably be delay in our being
able to provide any guidance as to the position. So, in the first
place, we raise the question as to whether the Committee would
wish to have evidence on this once the Access Option is produced
and some examination has been able to take place. However, in
any event, we would submit that as far as the Access Option route
is concerned that either the railway powers in the Bill should
be adjusted, or the Promoters should be required to give far more
specific assurances as to their use than at present the Committee
has.
14610. Can I finally and shortly come to the
effect of construction. This project has a seven-year construction
period, to be taking place on the live rail network. Both to the
east and the west of the tunnel portals there are plainly critical
implications for the operation of our network. We believe it is
essential that we are provided with appropriate protective provisions
in that respect.
14611. I have explained the unfortunate history
of the negotiations, and particularly having moved from a position
of agreement last Tuesday to a disagreement at 6.30 last Friday.
I would like just to state formally our understanding which my
learned friend, I think, can confirm and that is, that it is now
agreed that all the clauses are agreed except for three clauses:
one is clause 2(7) and the others are clauses 2(9)-2(11). They
are dealing with the question of transfer and our position, as
I have indicated, is that we are a non profit-making body who
looks for funding and, therefore, our concern is that the requirement
for us to pay should be limited to that extent at the relevant
time. Schedule 2, as to the manner in which disputes as to the
undertaking are given to this House or to Parliament are to be
adjudicated, and the enforcement in particular we should have
directly of those undertakings.
14612. Subject to the Committee's view and to
avoid troubling the Committee unnecessarily the Promoters and
we have agreed that a period two weeks to resolve the outstanding
matters should be provided—if they are not we may need to
trouble the Committee again, but we would not intend to trouble
the Committee today.
14613. Can I briefly turn to Paddington and
finally. The Committee has already received evidence on this and
will be well aware of the difficulties. We have been working with
the Promoters for many months to seek ways in which closure of
the terminal can be avoided, having regard to safety and other
considerations.
14614. I would ask you to look at NR14 which
is a letter of 16 June 2006, page 66, and that has attached to
it a position statement in full and up-to-date terms of what we
are seeking. I do no more than summarise very briefly.[10]
"As presently proposed it is likely that many essential station
services and some station facilities will, at the very least,
be severely compromised and at worst, may not be able to function
at all". Then it goes on in the document and if we can turn
over to the next page, this deals with the situation in the station
and its importance—matters which the Committee will be familiar
with.[11]
If we go to the next page again it sets out the particular interface
of Departures Road, paragraph 2.8, and the essential service that
that provides. Secondly, over the page again, it deals with Macmillan
House and provision made there.
14615. On the following pages we consider the
effects of the works setting out assurances that we require. If
I can go to paragraph 3.7 this deals with our requirement with
the effect on taxis and disabled persons parking. 3.8 deals with
the effect on station servicing. 3.9 the effect upon station parking,
that is operational parking. 3.10, of acute importance, is station
emergency arrangements. Departures Road is the principal evacuation
routine in times of emergency. "[It] is a fundamental requirement
to maintain route station operations and unless Network Rail is
able to demonstrate that it can evacuate users at all times it
may be necessary to close part or all of the station". On
that we want and we look for firm assurances.
14616. 3.11 is the effect upon Macmillan House.
If we go to 3.11.3, what we have done is look for the key operations
and sought assurances in that respect. 3.12 deals with the ticket
office operation. 3.14 is left luggage.
14617. That letter was sent explaining in full
what our requirements were. We have still not received any open
commitment or assurance to give us the confidence that this essential
portal to our city capital is able to be kept operational and
otherwise to minimise the disruption to the network. I am bound
to say we regard that at this stage as clearly unsatisfactory
and we look for a response in the form of the assurances or a
convincing explanation why they cannot be given.
14618. Unless I can assist the Committee further,
that is all I wish to say in opening.
14619. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I am slightly
confused insofar as you have obviously made it clear you are negotiating
still with the Promoters, I cannot quite see what you want us
to do at this precise moment. What we are trying to ascertain
is what you want this Committee to do now. If you feel it would
be more useful to continue your deliberations and come back, would
that be helpful or not?
8 Committee Ref: A167, Department for Transport: Crossrail
Access Option-A Policy Paper, Para 8.6 (LNEWD-21605-029). Back
9
Committee Ref: A167, Correspondence form Department for Transport
to Network Rail, 29 June 2006 (LNEWD-21605A-006). Back
10
Committee Ref: A167, The Impact of Crossrail at Paddington Station-
Network Rail Assessment (LNEWD-21605A-015). Back
11
Committee Ref: A167, The Impact of Crossrail at Paddington Station-
Network Rail Assessment (LNEWD-21605A-016 to -025). Back
| 
