Examination of Witnesses (Questions 14740
- 14759)
14740. Could you explain what you are seeking
from the Promoter through the Committee in respect of Acton Yard?
(Mr Smith) We ask that the
Bill should be amended or that the Promoter should be required
to give to the Committee or to EWS an undertaking to the effect
that, point one, the Promoter's powers of compulsory acquisition
are restricted to that part of the site that it needs to the south;
and to acquire Lafarge Roofing's interest—which is one of
our tenants—and to rearrange our other tenants and revest
the superior interests in EWS. Essentially, compulsory purchase
rather than this entire area which even extends beyond our leasehold
boundary, just to be limited to that to make the arrangements
and to provide the land for the dive under. Point two is at the
north end of the site where the Promoter is looking to compulsorily
purchase. We believe that is only needed temporarily to provide
temporary road access and therefore that part of the site should
be moved from schedule six to schedule five. All the rest of the
site not affected by either compulsory or temporary purchase,
which is the vast majority, could be excluded. It could just be
taken out.
14741. Site seven is Old Oak Common.[28]
The Committee has heard about Old Oak Common in connection with
it as a possible depot site and the additional provision relating
to that matter. What is the present position at Old Oak Common?
(Mr Smith) It is the largest
of our sites. It is virtually a freehold interest. We have six
sub-tenants. It has significant potential for rail freight growth
but its primary use at the moment is for the maintenance, repair
and stabling of locomotives and carriages. This is our service
station for the western part of London.
14742. What are Crossrail now planning for this
land?
(Mr Smith) They want to
take it all away from us.
14743. The Minister has announced that that
is to happen, has he not?
(Mr Smith) The Minister
has announced the intention that Crossrail will occupy this site
and that EWS will move to another site which is perhaps slightly
premature as we have not had any detailed discussions on the subject
with Crossrail, but that is politicians for you.
14744. To be fair, Crossrail have written to
you apologising about the Minister's premature statement?
(Mr Smith) Yes. It was a
perfectly understandable mistake at a busy time. It was a slight
embarrassment because it led to the customers that we serve on
this site waving bits of paper and saying, "What is all this
about?" We had to apologise and say that the whole thing
was a bit on the premature side.
14745. The Minister said that you would be moving
to North Pole. Is that right?
(Mr Smith) That may be the
Minister's view. We have some detailed, comprehensive discussions
to be had with the Promoter before, and if at all, that becomes
a reality. North Pole is to the south of the line here.
14746. If we turn to EWS 11, you have listed
certain comments about the suitability or unsuitability of North
Pole as a replacement site for EWS.[29]
(Mr Smith) The North Pole depot
was designed and built for the use of Eurostar. You may be aware
that Eurostar are moving from this depot to Temple Mills as part
of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link development. North Pole was designed
for maintaining very long trains that use quite complicated electrical
equipment. Although it is adjacent to the Great Western Main Line,
those trains never go on it. They just need to get to and from
Waterloo. This is a maintenance depot but it is not a depot that
is suitable for what we need in this area. The list of issues
here is lack of access to the Great Western Main Line, lack of
overhead crane. You may think turntables are something out of
the past. We do run steam locomotives for charter trains out of
Old Oak Common. More importantly, the turntable is used for moving
a number of Network Rail's on track machinery around. It cannot
handle the emissions. There is a lack of proper carriage cleaning
facilities for our sorts of vehicles and a lack of fuelling point
and road access. It is very close to residential housing, leaving
aside Wormwood Scrubs Prison. It would be very expensive to operate
and maintain this depot.
14747. How important is the Old Oak Common land
for EWS at the present time?
(Mr Smith) It is fundamental
for our service station for the west of London. Without that depot
there we would have to run our locomotives many miles to keep
them maintained. We would have to stable our carriages elsewhere.
Our servicing contract for the passenger operators would have
to be moved somewhere very inconvenient for them and in addition
it is a site with very good road access which is developable for
rail based warehousing and transhipment facilities. Old Oak Common,
if it was not being touched by Crossrail, would be an ideal facility
for developing and building rail freight in London.
14748. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Is this part
of AP3?
14749. Mr George: I am told it is.
14750. Mr Liddell-Grainger: We have not
been petitioned on this.
14751. Ms Lieven: This has nothing to
do with what is before the Committee.
14752. Mr Liddell-Grainger: This has
been petitioned in the summer. We do not have any of this.
14753. Mr George: I will not pursue that
matter further.
14754. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I do not
want anything of AP3 mentioned now because this is going to come
back in the autumn. If I come across AP3 again, I will stop you.
14755. Mr George: I am grateful for the
indication. We will simply reserve our position to come back.
Let us stick with the Bill as it is before the Committee because
that still involves, does it not, Crossrail acquiring Old Oak
Common for stabling trains?
(Mr Smith) Taking a significant
proportion of our site to the point where the remaining work on
the site would be unviable and we would have to move anyway.
14756. Leave aside altogether AP3. At the present
time, what would you be seeking in respect of Old Oak Common?
(Mr Smith) We need a suitable
replacement site that enables us to continue to maintain our locomotives,
maintain and service carriages for our own services and for the
passenger railway.
14757. Let us come on to site eight, Paddington
New and West yards.[30]
This is concerned with additional provision two which has already
been introduced to the Committee on 15 May and therefore is formally
before the Committee. Could you explain the position in relation
to these yards?
(Mr Smith) Paddington New Yard
is very close to central London. It is one of the very few rail
terminals in central London. The site is required as part of the
Crossrail works. Therefore, the Promoter wishes to move us and
our customers to another part of the yard.
14758. That is to the area marked green on this
plan?
(Mr Smith) That is correct.
In moving us to another part of the yard and enabling the concrete
batching plant to continue, we welcome additional provision two.
14759. What do you seek in respect of this proposed
transfer?
(Mr Smith) This impacts
on the existing strategic freight site. There is going to be a
strategic freight site taken to allow a relocation of our facility
so that Crossrail works can be put in place on a permanent basis.
Otherwise we might have had an expectation, along with the other
rail freight operators, to use this strategic freight site to
develop our rail freight business. Instead, it is just going to
be used to replace one that already exists. We seek that the call
of strategic freight sites that is held by Network Rail on behalf
of the rail freight industry should have added to it a site that
rail freight can call down in the future as a replacement for
the strategic freight site that is lost.
28 Committee Ref: A168, EWS Site 7-Old Oak Common
(LINEWD-19605-022). Back
29
Committee Ref: A168, The Eurostar International Depot at North
Pole: suitability as a location for EWS (LINEWD-19605-041). Back
30
Committee Ref: A168, EWS Site 8-Paddington New and West Yards
(LINEWD-19605-023). Back
| 
