Examination of Witnesses (Questions 15380
- 15399)
15380.—and Crossrail is not anticipated
to open until 2015—
(Mr McLaughlin) No, I appreciate
that.
15381.—so the impact of the Crossrail
operation will not in any sense have to take into account the
Olympics' aggregates movements.
(Mr McLaughlin) No, but
the point I was making in terms of the Olympics is that the Government's
forecasts of aggregates demand in London do not yet fully take
the Olympics into account and when they are reviewed, they may
well be higher as a result. Looking at the Olympics as one part
of a wider development project throughout east London and the
Thames Gateway, it is the wider issue we are concerned about.
15382. Thank you very much, Mr McLaughlin.
Re-examined by Mr Honey
15383. Mr Honey: First, Mr McLaughlin,
you have exhibits which have been provided to you and can I have
up please an extract of Information Paper E6 which is in the exhibits,
I believe. It is page 15 of the exhibit, and page 2 of the paper
E6.[27]
It is headed, "E6—Freight Operations". Mr McLaughlin,
if you could just look at that last sentence at the very top,
at the end of paragraph 3.3 and also what is said in paragraph
3.5 about the level at which freight services will continue to
operate, what is your understanding of the extent to which Crossrail
say they have taken into account future growth in their timetabling
commitments, Crossrail's own commitments?
(Mr McLaughlin) I believe, as
I say, that the timetabling exercise has taken into account the
total organic growth of services which is a modest growth over
the period.
15384. I am going to come on to the Timetable
Working Group in a moment. My question is: what are Crossrail
themselves saying in terms of the level at which freight services
are going to be operated?
(Mr McLaughlin) Well, they
are saying clearly that they are planning so that freight services
operate no less than at the present level once Crossrail is operational.
15385. I would like to go back to the Timetable
Working Group Report which was up on the screen a little earlier
and go back to the page we were on a moment ago. You were asked
about your source for the level of growth that had been factored
into the Timetable Working Group Report. Can you have a look at
the third paragraph. What level of growth does it appear that
the Timetable Working Group took into account?
(Mr McLaughlin) Well, I
guess it depends on your definition of "organic", but
that suggests to me that it is just a continual growth perhaps
reflecting growth in aggregates demand, whereas we suspect that
the growth of rail traffic may be higher because the rail network
may take a greater share of the deliveries into London.
15386. Are you aware of the level of growth
taken into account being set out in any more specific terms than
just that reference to organic growth?
(Mr McLaughlin) No, I am
not.
15387. Can we go to page 2 of the Timetable
Working Group Report which is probably page 3 of the exhibit as
there is a cover sheet, and the penultimate paragraph, towards
the end of that paragraph.[28]
I know you are not a timetabling expert, but looking at this document
at the end of that paragraph, what does it appear the Timetable
Working Group based their assessment of freight train levels on?
(Mr McLaughlin) I am not sure.
It is based clearly on an existing 2005 timetable.
15388. If we go over the page to page 3, the
paragraph just before the heading "Consideration of Future
Growth", again what there does it appear that the timetabling
exercise for the Great Western Main Line was based on? [29]
(Mr McLaughlin) Again it is based
on the operation of the current timetable, whereas of course our
concerns are the implications from 2015 onwards.
15389. Mr Honey: Thank you, Mr McLaughlin.
That is all I have.
15390. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Honey,
thank you very much indeed, and thank you, Mr McLaughlin, you
can stand down.
The witness withdrew
15391. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Ms Lieven,
we are now waiting, are we, for the Thames Gateway presentation?
15392. Ms Lieven: Yes, sir, but shall
I close on this one?
15393. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I believe
that Mr Pout is not going to be here until 3.45 anyway, or at
least he had better be here by 3.45, otherwise he is going to
be standing outside a locked door! Yes, please close, Ms Lieven.
15394. Ms Lieven: If I could, sir, very
briefly because I think they are all points we have been through
before, but just so that there is something on the record pulling
them together on this Petition.
15395. The single most important thing to emphasise
is that the balance between freight users and Crossrail is, under
our proposal, to be dealt with by Network Rail and the Office
of the Rail Regulator through the Access Option, so there is a
wholly independent process to carry out that balancing exercise.
Every Petitioner has put it in a different way. Mr Honey puts
it as "a fair crack of the whip", and they have an entirely
fair crack of the whip before the ORR, and that is, as I have
already said a number of times, but I will just put it on the
record again, through the normal industry processes balancing
everybody, not with Crossrail having any overriding powers or
anything like that. Then, as Mr Elvin explained last week at paragraph
13676, assuming the Access Option is granted, then the railway
clauses will be considered and, if appropriate, modified in the
light of that Access Option. If the Access Option is not modified,
then we will have to come back in the House of Lords and consider
this situation again.
15396. Now, so far as growth is concerned, Mr
McLaughlin, with all respect to him, and this is probably another
example of why this is not perhaps quite the right place to argue
these points out, has raised an extremely generalised concern
that we are not taking into account enough growth. I do not want
to sound tedious, but it is very difficult to respond in a sensible
way to that kind of argument unless there is some kind of analysis
of how the growth taken into account by the Timetable Working
Group relates to the level of growth that Mr McLaughlin is asserting
should be correct. Now, he has not put forward any levels of growth
to which we can then say, "No, that's too much", or
"That can be dealt with on spare paths", or "Well,
actually that's the level of organic growth that the Timetable
Working Group was taking into account", nor has he given
any specifics on what proportion of total freight growth this
alleged higher level of aggregates growth will be. Just to give
one example of why it is really not a point that can be dealt
with in this generalised way, there will be all sorts of other
constraints of aggregates growth, such as the capacity of freight
yards, planning permissions on the very quarries that are churning
out the aggregates, all sorts of constraints, it is not some unconstrained
free-for-all which then all ends up on the Great Western, so,
in my submission, these kinds of generalised concerns are really
not a matter which the Committee can take any further forward.
15397. It is important to emphasise in respect
of the Timetable Working Group Report that they did take into
account freight growth. I am not quite sure what Mr Honey thought
he was achieving by pointing to page 3 of the Timetable Working
Group Report and the section on accommodating Crossrail services
alongside existing services because what we have here is a two-stage
process. First of all, you look at base and then you look at growth,
so of course when you look at base, you do not take into account
growth, that would be nonsensical, but when you come to the second
stage, it is absolutely apparent that organic growth was taken
into account on the Great Western and that includes aggregates
growth. The distinction between the Great Western and the Great
Eastern, to put it in very crude terms, is that on the Great Eastern
there are quite possibly, and I do not say in any way fettering
the Government's discretion, going to be two planning permissions
for massive new container ports to deal largely with freight coming
from the Far East, and presumably going to the Far East, which
will have a major impact on freight services. That is completely
different from the amount of stone one can get out of Watley quarry
and other quarries in the West Country. It is quite apparent from
this report that in terms of domestic growth, such as aggregates
growth, that was taken into account in the Timetable Working Group.
15398. There is only one other thing to touch
on again, because I am not sure whether all the Committee were
here yesterday when I dealt with this. The suggestion that, for
all the infrastructure proposals that are in the Bill on the Great
Western, we should be required to give an undertaking to do them
all, Mr Berryman explained yesterday, and I do not want to repeat
it—
15399. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Ms Lieven,
I think we will take that as already on the record. I know exactly
what you are going to say. I was here yesterday and I can assure
you that it is well documented.
27 Committee Ref: A171, Crossrail Information Paper
E6-Freight Operations, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-20005-015). Back
28
Crossrail Ref: P106, Crossrail Timetable Working Group Report,
The Base Timetable, (LINEWD-GEN13-003). Back
29
Crossrail Ref: P106, Crossrail Timetable Working Group, Consideration
of Future Growth (LINEWD-GEN13-004). Back
|
