Examination of Witnesses (Questions 15200
- 15219)
15200. I am beginning to get that feeling myself
and I am a little interested to hear what the Promoters say about
this. I think it is slightly outside our remit, but I am interested
to hear what they say.
15201. Mr George: Sir, can I interrupt.
The approach seems to have been taken that this is highly desirable
and that the likelihood is that it will be done in any event,
but the unsatisfactory feature is that no one is committing the
money or putting forward a timetable as to when it will be done
and it is being shuffled off, and that is our complaint.
15202. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Then I take
your point on board, that you would like this done and I think
the Promoters will have heard you again, Mr George.
15203. Mr George: Could I just ask that
we put up on the screen the same page from the examination of
Mr Watson which went up in my opening because at the top of that
page, and it was paragraph 13714, we have got Mr Elvin, "So
the purpose of GOB is to take out of the existing network those
freight services . . . ", and Mr Watson said that, and that
was all in the context of it being improved. Then if you look
down to the further discussion, it is that there is a need for
it and what is required, so all we are asking, Ms Durham, I think,
is for the Committee to indicate the concern that there is and
the importance that something is done about this enhancement of
the Willesden-Gospel Oak-Barking line so that freight is safeguarded.
Is that not right?
(Ms Durham) That is correct
and the cost of this scheme or parts of this scheme could be very
little indeed. We have been asking Network Rail if they could
give us approximate costs of this scheme and we first asked them
last July and we have not been able to get the costs, but we have
an indication that, for instance, the gauge clearance work could
be as little as £5 million and the track and structures work
another £5 million.
15204. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Ms Durham,
I think you have made your point.
15205. Mr George: So you regard it as
not a very expensive improvement, but an essential one?
(Ms Durham) Yes.
15206. What is its relation to Crossrail?
(Ms Durham) Its relation
to Crossrail is that it will enable the traffic from Tilbury and
Shellhaven to completely avoid the Crossrail route.
15207. Therefore, that reduction in freight
capacity brought about by Crossrail which we saw on that table
will be reduced?
(Ms Durham) It will be reduced,
yes.
15208. Now, the other matter which you want
to speak about is the Felixstowe to Nuneaton line and can you
just say a few words about that because that is a particular concern
to you, an even greater concern than to EWS.
(Ms Durham) Yes, it is. If we could go back
to FL1.[15]
The traffic from Felixstowe and Bathside Bay will not be helped
by the upgrade of Gospel Oak-Barking because you cannot get from
the Great Eastern route actually on to the Gospel Oak-Barking
route, not until you get past Stratford in any event, so although
capacity on the Great Eastern is eased slightly by the Tilbury
and Shellhaven track diverted away from this route, in order to
allow the growth at Felixstowe and Bathside Bay, it has, in the
decisions made on those ports, been indicated by the Secretary
of State that, I think it was, 26% for Felixstowe and 22.5% of
traffic for Bathside Bay should go by rail. In order to reach
those figures by rail, we also would need the route from Felixstowe
to Nuneaton via Ely, Peterborough, Melton Mowbray and Leicester
to be upgraded and this allows freight services from Felixstowe
and Bathside Bay to completely avoid London.
15209. So there is another enhancement and it
is mainly gauge enhancement again, is it not?
(Ms Durham) Yes, it is mainly
gauge enhancement, but I think the capacity would also have to
be looked at because again it is quite an antique signalling system
on that route.
15210. Again is it the same link to Crossrail
that, if you could go across by that route, you would not need
to use that bit of the Great Eastern and, therefore, Crossrail
would not be reducing your capacity?
(Ms Durham) That is correct.
The majority of the services from Felixstowe and Bathside Bay
which go to the Midlands, the North West and Glasgow could be
completely away from the Crossrail route.
15211. Given that TfL are now going to run these
extra services, and indeed it appears that is now a commitment
that they are going to run those and run them by the Olympics,
does that make it the more important that these two schemes you
have identified, the Gospel Oak one and the Felixstowe/Nuneaton,
are prioritised?
(Ms Durham) Yes, it would seem absolutely sensible,
if the Government and TfL want to enhance services through London,
which is absolutely understandable, that you try, if possible,
to divert freight so that it does not have to come through London.
15212. I think the Committee have probably heard
enough about that matter and are seized of the point. That, I
think, then deals with your undertaking six. If we move to undertaking
seven, yesterday Mr Smith and Professor O'Keeffe explained deficiencies
of the existing railway clauses and you do not intend, I think,
to traverse that ground again.
(Ms Durham) No, I do not.
15213. Is there any point on that though which
you wish to refer the Committee to?
(Ms Durham) Yes, I would
just like to think about the compensation and—
15214. We will come to compensation in a moment,
but is there anything on regulation and undertaking seven that
you want to say or can we just leave it as per the evidence yesterday?
(Ms Durham) I think it is
as per the evidence yesterday.
15215. Let's move on then to compensation for
temporary disruption. Undertaking eight is an area we went through
yesterday, Network Code Condition G5 and you remember at the end
of the day that the position is that Ms Lieven says that Crossrail
do not themselves intend to invoke Condition G5. You remember
that matter?
(Ms Durham) Yes, I do and
I do not quite understand why an undertaking on this point cannot
be provided, and I seek clarification about what was said yesterday
because I think what we need is an undertaking that Network Rail
will not invoke this clause.
15216. The key thing with Condition G5 is that
the people who would invoke it would be Network Rail to deny you
compensation because of a legislative change. Crossrail and the
Department regard that as being unfair and what you want is an
undertaking that, in the context of Crossrail, Condition G5 will
not be invoked by any regulatory authority. Is that right?
(Ms Durham) That is correct.
15217. Then we need not say any more about that.
Then insofar as condition nine is concerned, as yesterday, we
need to write some words in, do we not, in the penultimate line
and after the phrase "is entitled", as yesterday, we
need to insert the words, "or the method by which it is calculated".
Is that right?
(Ms Durham) Yes, it is.
15218. Yesterday Ms Lieven dealt in her closing
with eight and 10 and I think on nine you still have concerns
and that matter was rather bypassed yesterday. Do you understand
any reason why an undertaking in the terms of nine should not
be given?
(Ms Durham) No, I do not.
15219. All you are asking is that the existing
system, whereby you are entitled to compensation, should not be
changed. Is that right?
(Ms Durham) Yes.
15 Committee Ref: A170, UK deep sea container routes
(LINEDW-17205-001). Back
| 
