Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 15580 - 15599)

  15580. One final question on a subject that the Committee know an awful lot about by now. Slide 24, exhibit 25, it is something I feel impelled to pick you up on, the fourth bullet point "Access options give exclusive rights to Crossrail".[28] I must say that came as a massive surprise to us. Are you saying that Crossrail is seeking exclusive rights on the Great Eastern through the access option? That is certainly not our understanding of what we are doing.

  (Mr Harston) Exclusive rights to the access options you were seeking.

  15581. Exactly in the same way that any train operator who seeks an access option gets exclusive rights to their own access option?

   (Mr Harston) I cannot argue with that, but the points I have seen made in the transcripts is that standing on its own, that is fine, but with the powers currently sought under the Bill there is no certainty that the access option will only relate to those tracks.

  15582. The point in that bullet point is not really about the access option, it is about the railway clauses in the Bill, is that fair?

   (Mr Harston) It has the same effect as powers.

  15583. Ms Lieven: Thank you very much.

  15584. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Straker, anything else?

  Re-examined by Mr Straker

  15585. Mr Straker: Can I ask this, you were asked about questions that touched on Doncaster and the fact that trains go through Doncaster. Help the Committee, please, in this way, as far as trains from the Haven ports going anywhere throughout the United Kingdom is concerned, do they travel through London?

   (Mr Harston) I think it is a very important point, Mr Straker, and the reason that we are undertaking the works or are required to undertake the works between Felixstowe and Peterborough is the timetabling work and the capacity work, which we undertook with the strategic rail authority and the Network Rail Strategic Access Planning team verified, validated and the agreed the number of paths that are available to us, is because ordinarily that traffic would do the same as road traffic, it would go via the north London lines and up the west coast mainline or the east coast mainline to be distributed nationally. Having identified the number of paths that are available on those routes, it was identified that there would be a shortfall and that shortfall could be met by carrying out the works across country so the east coast mainline could be joined at Peterborough and effectively create a bypass for the north London line, but that was on the basis of the capacity being made available to us, from which Crossrail undoubtedly takes away a significant part of that capacity.

  15586. Mr Straker: With Crossrail taking away that capacity, what difference is there between the situation which confronted you at Harwich and Felixstowe in terms of the trains on the line crossing through London and Crossrail deflecting trains from London?

   (Mr Harston) I do not think there is any difference.

  15587. Mr Straker: Thank you very much, sir. That is all I want to ask by way of re-examination.

  15588. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Harston, please stand down.

  The witness withdrew

  15589. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I think you have a second witness?

  15590. Mr Straker: Yes, that is correct, sir. The second witness, sir, I think has already at least started in another context to give evidence to your Committee. Mr Mike Garratt.

  Mr Mike Garratt, Sworn

  Examined by Mr Straker

  15591. Mr Liddell-Grainger: If I may make a point to Mr Straker and Ms Lieven, I think Doncaster and Nuneaton can stay off the menu for the rest of the afternoon. I think the point has been well made in three days. We accept the points. There is nothing we can do. The point is understood.

  15592. Mr Straker: I am very grateful, sir, for that indication. The essential point we very much want the Committee to have in mind is that the consequences of putting something into a railway network are felt beyond the need of the present.

  15593. Mr Liddell-Grainger: The Committee has already accepted that. Thank you very much.

  15594. Mr Straker: Can I then simply reintroduce Mr Garratt to the Committee. Mr Mike Garratt, you are the managing director of MSD Transmodel and you, likewise, have produced some slides and, once again, I suspect, sir, you will have the slides as soon as may be. You record your experience. We can pass on to slide two the questions which you were asked and we can deal with that, I suspect, at pace because you were asked questions to help, we trust, the Committee in its consideration of this matter. Can we then look at slide three, please, or number three.[29] You here identify, do you, what happens when one decides whether or not to grant permission or planning permission?

  (Mr Garratt) That is so.

  15595. A route and looking ahead rather than the situation as it is currently. If we go to slide four, please.[30] What will things be like when the development is operating? Has Crossrail asked that question?

  (Mr Garratt) In this context it appears not, no.

  15596. Slide five and I take this quickly, sir, with your leave, you record the growth in port container traffic with the need to accommodate that and figure one continuing gives the container volumes once again in TEU 20-foot equivalent units up to 2020.[31][32] You have done in a forecast of train movements, figure two, for Felixstowe.[33] Bathside Bay, sir, is also known as "Harwich International Container Port".




  15597. Let us look at figure three, please.[34] I want your help, Mr Garratt, about this one. If we look at all rail freight in 2005, we have got something in the order of 20 million tons?

  (Mr Garratt) That is correct. What this slide is attempting to show is there are currently about 20 million tons of rail freight in, at and through London of which about half, 10 million, pass through. Of those 10 million tons passing through, the majority, 5.7 million tons, is contained traffic and, therefore, in the long run and is available to bypass if you like. They do not necessarily have to be there.

  15598. Ten million tons passing through London with the capacity, therefore, to be affected by other trains within London?

   (Mr Garratt) That is correct.

  15599. Then we have the Haven port rail traffic, please, which records where that goes and one can take this, I suspect, to some degree of speed as well.[35] That records where it comes from and what is presently the position. We get to slide seven, please, where you have recorded certain rail volumes going through Forest Gate? [36]


  (Mr Garratt) Yes, if I can make a small correction here. The first bullet should read "27 paths in each direction on the Great Eastern through Shenfield to accommodate up to 24 trains in each direction".


28   Committee Ref: A173, Rail Regulation and Access Option (LINEWD-11705-025). Back

29   Committee Ref: A173, Rail Capacity and Planning (LINEWD-11705A-004). Back

30   Committee Ref: A173, Rail Capacity and Planning (LINEWD-11705A-005). Back

31   Committee Ref: A173, National Port Container Demand (LINEWD-11705A-006). Back

32   Committee Ref: A173, Forecast Container Volumes GB Ports (excluding 3rd country transhipments) (LINEWD-11705A-007). Back

33   Committee Ref: A173, Forecast Container Train Movements/day (LINEWD-11705A-008). Back

34   Committee Ref: A173, London Rail Freight Traffic: million tonnes 2005 (LINEWD-11705A-009). Back

35   Committee Ref: A173, Haven Port Rail Traffic (LINEWD-11705A-010). Back

36   Committee Ref: A173, Base Line Rail Volumes-Forest Gate (LINEWD-11705A-011). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007