Examination of Witnesses (Questions 14800
- 14819)
14800. Can we put up EWS 18, please?[42]
This is the area Mr Watson conceded last Tuesday was the real
problem. Can you explain to the Committee the nature of the problem
and existing layout?
(Mr Smith) Passenger trains,
both commuter services to Essex, Southend, Chelmsford, Colchester
and Clacton and Intercity services to Norwich and Yarmouth and
inner London commuter services, use the route that travels from
left to right and right to left. Freight trains coming from Felixstowe
and Harwich wanting to get to the West Midlands and the north
west also use this route but turn right at Stratford and go on
to the north London line. Services coming from Thameside, mainly
containers but also petroleum products, will come from the route
in the bottom right hand corner. A couple will use the route that
goes over the Great Eastern Main Line, the Barking to Hampstead
line, but most will turn left on to the Great Eastern Main Line
and right on to the north London line, thereby having to cross
the commuter routes which are to the south, at the bottom of this
diagram, and on to the fast lines.
14801. We can see the lines which show the crossings
as the trains go across to get on to the north London line?
(Mr Smith) That is correct,
yes.
14802. What is required? I think it is common
ground between both sides as to what is required.
(Mr Smith) The route is
busy. Freight will make it busier. The Timetable Working Group
stated in its interim report that Crossrail will make it even
busier and even worse. We are not as a freight industry hung up
on using a particular route if another one is available and does
not lead to a significant deterioration in journey time or the
amount of goods that we can carry. We believe that an enhancement
that allows our freight trains to cross the Great Eastern Main
Line, to avoid it essentially, to go on the Barking to Hampstead
line and then to reach the north London main line and on to the
West Coast Main Line via Gospel Oak would be beneficial to all
parties, freight and passenger.
14803. That way, the containers from the Thameside
ports could come straight up across an existing bridge and on
to the Barking and Hampstead line and would not interfere with
the Great Eastern line at all.
(Mr Smith) That is correct,
although this is only the first solution. There is a second solution
which keeps freight away from London altogether that is coming
out of Felixstowe and Harwich.
14804. To see that we need your EWS 20.[43]
This is a matter which Freightliner are going to come back to.
Could you explain it?
(Mr Smith) By using the cross
country route from Felixstowe, Ipswich, Bury St Edmunds, Ely,
Peterborough and then to Nuneaton, freight trains carrying containers
from the east coast ports can avoid using London altogether. At
the moment that route does not have the capacity or the signalling.
The loading gauge of the route, which is the width and height
of the vehicles on the trains, is inadequate to enable containers
to be carried on that route. If that route were to be enhanced,
that could take traffic from the east coast ports. If the previous
route we described, the Gospel Oak to Barking route, could be
enhanced that could take traffic from the Thames ports and avoid
conflict with not only Crossrail services but the commuter services
into Essex and the long distance services to Norwich.
14805. EWS 19, please.[44]
You set out the works that are required on the Barking to Willesden
via the Gosport Oak route, the gauge enhancement, electrification,
bridge strengthening and capacity improvements and, for Felixstowe
to Nuneaton, gauge enhancement and capacity improvements.
(Mr Smith) I should mention electrification.
It is a policy of the Mayor that freight should be encouraged
to use the Channel Tunnel Rail Link to bring freight traffic in
from mainland Europe through the Channel Tunnel, onto the rail
link, joining the existing network above the East London line.
The traffic then needs to move beyond Barking on the classic network.
Because these trains will be electrically hauled, which is necessary
to achieve what is necessary on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link,
we would then continue electrically hauling those trains. To avoid
using the Great Eastern Main Line, we would need to use the Barking
to Willesden route with our international services. That is why
the route needs to be electrified.
(After a short adjournment)
14806. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr George?
14807. Mr George: Thank you, sir. Mr
Smith, looking at EWS19 which was on the screen before the adjournment,
you have dealt with the first item, Felixstowe, Nuneaton, the
second item, can we turn to Acton and there are two separate matters
I want to ask you about. The first is the Acton dive under which
is works 317A to B in the Bill. That is the dive under so the
freight can enter the Acton goods yard on top of the Crossrail
service proceeding up towards Paddington. Is that right?
(Mr Smith) That is correct,
whereas Barking to Gospel Oak, Felixstowe up to Nuneaton are succinct
with the operation—(inaudible). On the east coast and on
the Thames the active dive under simplifies the operation in the
Acton area and therefore benefits traffic on the Great Western
Main Line coming from South Wales and the West Country.
14808. Mr George: Last Tuesday, Mr Watson
said that was essential and this morning Mr Lieven virtually gave
an undertaking about it. Do you recall, she said it would be constructed
provided freight levels at the time when the decision had to be
made were as high or higher than they are at the present time?
Do you have any comment upon that reservation?
(Mr Smith) It would be interesting
to see how freight levels are to be measured as in tunnel kilometres,
trains, number of piles and it would be interesting if there was
one train less than there is now whether that would impact on
the undertaking. Presumably if the dive under was built it would
then be removed later if there was any change in freight activities.
We do really need to understand the detail of that caveat. I am
very confident as I have described throughout this that freight
will continue to grow in line with the economy in London. I would
very much hope that is an unnecessary caveat.
14809. Mr George: Can we turn to the
creation of an up freight line which is the bottom line of EWS19.
Can you explain to the Committee what you are referring to there?
(Mr Smith) This would be
a freight line that would avoid the dive under, I will explain
why it is necessary. The dive under, which is used by Crossrail
trains going to Paddington, is likely to be built with a gradient
of one in 38. That is a very demanding gradient, particularly
of freight services. Not all freight trains stop at Acton. At
the moment we have at least 30 trains a week, and there may be
more in the future, that carry on straight past Acton and would
not be able to use the dive under because of the restrictions
on the trading load given the steepness of the gradient. Avoiding
the dive under by going out of the relief sidings in Acton yard
is unacceptable because it would disrupt the operation of the
yard. Whilst welcoming the dive under, we do need to have a facility
that allows freight to continue non-stop past Acton, either before
it continues into Paddington or in most cases then proceeds to
the North London line.
14810. Mr George: I referred to a representative
of Crossrail, a Charles Devereaux gave to you the gradients for
the dive under and told you, did he not, that it would be unsuitable
for freight trains?
(Mr Smith) Yes, at the meeting
at Acton on 9 March where we had an internal vote—and I
am not sure whether there are any formal minutes of the meeting—Mr
Devereaux made a statement about the gradient and expressed the
view that freight trains would be unable to use the dive under
given that gradient.
14811. Mr George: I think he made a reference
to the possibility, it is no more than that, of providing an up-bypass
freight line to allow freight to use the upper relief line crossing
the inward and outward Acton yard access lines agreed?
(Mr Smith) During discussions
at that meeting on 9 March that was one of the options discussed.
Certainly in our view it is the best solution to the problem that
is faced by gradient within the dive under.
14812. Mr George: Have you heard anything
more back from Mr Devereaux or Crossrail on that matter?
(Mr Smith) I am not aware
of any formal communication from either Mr Devereaux or Crossrail
on the subject.
14813. Mr George: Is that essential?
(Mr Smith) It is essential
for the reasons I described. Without it freight trains that do
not need to call at Acton will have to stop there because they
will not be able to go on the dive under and will congest the
yard.
14814. Mr George: Turning to those three
matters which are on EWS19, again, what is it you are asking the
Committee to do in respect of them?
(Mr Smith) EWS asks the
Committee to require the Department for Transport to undertake
that it will provide funding to enable these enhancements, that
is Barking to Willesden via Gospel Oak; Felixstowe to Numeaton
in the up freight line at Acton, to enable these enhancements
to be carried out by Network Rail, and in the case of Acton up-freight
line to bring forward for the Committee's consideration an additional
provision so that necessary works for the up-freight line can
be added to the Bill.
14815. Mr George: I think it is our understanding
that no additional land-take would be required for that up freight
line, is that correct?
(Mr Smith) That is correct.
14816. Mr George: That brings to an end
the points on capacity. The last part now which is the question
of the railway clauses and the question of regulation. Again,
can you briefly explain to the Committee your concerns?
(Mr Smith) Even if EWS's
property and capacity concerns are met in the way we have been
describing, unfortunately that is not the end of the problem.
EWS and other rail users have entered into long-term access contracts,
framework agreements, approved by the Office of Rail Regulation
which gives us the right to use railway tracks. These are known
as railway access contracts. They allow us to use stations, known
as station access contracts and other rail facilities, known as
facility access contracts. They in turn guarantee the connections
from EWS's freight terminals to the rail network. These are known
as connection agreements.
14817. Mr George: In connection with
this matter of regulation, are you concerned about the private
interests of EWS as a rail freight operator?
(Mr Smith) That is my primary
concern. Essentially an excess contract is just that, it is a
private interest. It is a property right to use the network to
access a terminal to use a station. Our concern is that the railway
powers of the Bill undermine the stability and certainty that
we have through these very essential contractual private rights
to use the network.
14818. Mr George: How long do these access
contracts last for?
(Mr Smith) Several years
at a time. In the past they have been for five years, but recently
the Office of Rail Regulation has issued policy guidelines saying
that the Office of Rail Regulation would expect to approve contracts
for up to 10 years. This is in accordance with European Directives
now transcribed into UK legislation, but no more than 10 years
because there is a concern about discrimination. We have a track
access contract which when added to the one that we currently
operate will together give us rights to the network for the next
10 years.
14819. Mr George: How essential to you
is it to be able to rely on those contractual rights?
(Mr Smith) It is fundamental.
The access rights are the only way that we know we have access
to the network. Without those rights we cannot offer long-term
access to our customers, we cannot invest because in terms of
the access rights it gives the certainty that we, EWS, other freight
users and users of the network can use the network. They are a
fundamental property right more important than anything that we
have.
42 Committee Ref: A168, Map showing route currently
taken by freight trains between North Thames Side and the North
London Line and beyond, and the route of the Barking to Hampstead
Line, proposed for enhancement (LINEWD-19605-063). Back
43
Committee Ref: A168, Nuneaton to Felixstowe Line (LINEWD-19605-065). Back
44
Committee Ref: A168, Offline/additional capacity enhancement
details (LINEWD-19605-064). Back
| 
