Examination of Witnesses (Questions 15640
- 15659)
15640. Mr Straker: Thank you, sir. That
is all I wanted to call by way of evidence.
15641. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Garratt,
you may stand down.
The witness withdrew
15642. Ms Lieven: Sir, can I call Mr
Berryman.
Mr Keith Berryman, recalled
Examined by Ms Lieven
15643. Ms Lieven: Mr Berryman, you are
well known to the Committee. Can you just start by explaining
the general approach of Crossrail to this issue of pinchpoints
on the network for freight?
(Mr Berryman) I think anybody
who starts looking at freight capacity in the UK generally will
quickly recognise that there are a number of serious pinchpoints
and they are scattered in various parts of the country. Lord Berkeley
was sitting in here a few moments ago, he has left now unfortunately,
but if he was still here he could give you a list as long as your
arm of pinchpoints which exist for freight. In London there are
several, some of which you have heard about in evidence already.
This was recognised when we first started planning the Crossrail
project and is mentioned in the London East-West Study Report
which formed the basis of the scheme going forward. The scheme
based on the premise that there should be no worsening of the
present position as a result of Crossrail. In other words, the
present capacity plus existing growth capacity should be provided
for by the scheme. The design is based on that starting point.
15644. Then if we take that down to the next
level of specificity, how does the situation differ between the
Great Eastern and the Great Western?
(Mr Berryman) There are
several differences in what is going on here and there are two
main areas which we focused on dealing with freight in the design
of the scheme. The first thing on the Great Eastern was to make
sure that capacity for container traffic coming from the east
coast ports is maintained at the level now plus maintaining the
existing potential for growth, and that is very significant traffic
and very important to the country, as I think you have heard already.
The other thing was to maintain capacity and also the freight
terminals on the Great Western where the issues are very different.
It might be worth just talking about the issue of organic growth
here and non-organic growth. On the Great Eastern we were and
are aware that there are a number of port developments which have
taken place which will lead to step changes in the amount of containers
being shipped through this route, whereas on the Great Western
we expect the pattern of freight to more or less as it is. It
may wax and wane as the economy changes and goes up and down,
but we do not see any big step changes coming which would have
a sudden impact on the level of freight on that side. What we
can do in providing the Crossrail infrastructure is to provide
the capacity for developments which would not have been there
absent Crossrail. In other words, if something could not be done
before Crossrail was built, we are not able to provide the capacity
to do those things as part of the Crossrail scheme. This was recognised
again in the London East-West Study by suggesting various upgrades
which should take place. One of these is the Gospel Oak-Barking
line which we have heard a lot about which I think is generally
agreed between all parties in the rail industry, including Network
Rail, that this needs to be upgraded, but this does not need powers,
it does not need a Bill or even a transport Works Order. It is
an existing line, so all it needs is to be made to work properly
and that will be taken care of by other industry processes, for
example, the Transport Innovation Fund where a decision has recently
been announced that this scheme will be shortlisted for improvement.
15645. I think the last point on the generality,
before we come to the issue of Forest Gate, is just on timetabling.
Does it make sense to be going down the line being suggested by
this Petitioner and others to timetable in detail for 10 or 15
years in advance?
(Mr Berryman) I does not,
and I can give you a couple of examples. My wife, Mrs Berryman,
is woken every morning at 2.30am by a freight train which comes
into Luton. That is a freight train which is delivering aggregate
and stone for the widening of the M1 motorway. That traffic did
not exist 10 years ago and there would have been no way anybody
writing the timetable 10 years ago could have forecasted that
that traffic would exist. Traffic, as we have heard, on the freight
trains runs when there are loads available and it does not just
run willy-nilly. If I take another less happy example, although
Mrs Berryman being woken up at 2.30 in the morning is not very
happy, but anyone planning the timetable 10 years ago would have
included Post Office traffic in the timetable, and that traffic
has been lost to rail. Therefore, freight traffic goes up and
down according to the economy and according to the vagaries of
the business climate. What we can take into account, and what
we have tried to take into account are the, if you like, overall
trains, so if you take the evidence given by the aggregates industry
gentleman yesterday, he is forecasting a growth in the rise of
aggregates and yes, we can take that into account, but not the
exact terminals to which it will go. Similarly, with containers,
we can take an overall view that container traffic will grow and
we are prepared to accept that, but we cannot design the timetable
to the minute detail which would ultimately be needed.
15646. Can we move from there to the very specific
point at what has become the Forest Gate pinchpoint, and I am
sorry, sir, to have to trouble you with this drawing, but, Mr
Berryman, can you explain what this shows.[54]
(Mr Berryman) Yes, the top drawing
here shows the layout as it now is.
15647. Just orientate us a little, would you?
(Mr Berryman) This is Stratford and this is
the route towards London and this is the route towards Shenfield.
The bottom diagram shows what will happen. Now, the interesting
thing here is that it shows the lines which will be used by Crossrail
marked in red and you can see that the electric lines, which are
on the north side of the layout here, cross over by a flyover
and are now on the south side. This is where the conflicting movement
we have heard so much about takes place on the Forest Gate junction
just here. A train coming down the main line, and most of the
freight trains on this route do come down the main line and we
only think there are about six or eight a day which use the relief
lines, but coming down this line here, if it has to be held for
any reason, it has to be put away in a loop which runs round the
back here and it waits then for another train to overtake it.
When that train comes out of the loop, instead of going back on
to the main lines, which are the lines it wants to be on, it goes
on to the electric lines and it then has to make that crossing
movement at Forest Gate which the trains coming from Barking have
to make. If we could look at the layout that we have proposed
to build further out.[55]
You can see that this is Shenfield and this is the route going
out towards Ipswich and in this area here in the Shadwell Heath
area, it is proposed to provide a loop. These are the fast lines,
these are the main lines which freight trains use, so as the train
is put away to allow another train to pass, when it comes back,
it comes back on to the main lines, so avoids that complicated
crossing movement which we have heard so much about. We would
say that this increases capacity on the main lines compared to
what is there now. Moreover, even because Crossrail trains are
using the electric lines, the limited number of freight trains
which do use those electric lines, which are in a form of looping
out, a form of putting them away so that other trains can overtake
them, they can still continue to do that after the Crossrail scheme
is built. Is that making sense?
15648. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Yes.
15649. Ms Lieven: It is a pity Mr Hopkins
is not here or we could get into the detail! Mr Berryman, I think
that is everything I have to ask you. Thank you very much.
Cross-examined by Mr Straker
15650. Mr Straker: Can I just ask you
a few questions, Mr Berryman, please and, first, this: it is right,
is it not, that on any account Crossrail will worsen capacity
for the ability to carry freight east of London?
(Mr Berryman) It will certainly
have some impact on freight which is going off towards Barking.
I would not think it would have any impact on freight which is
going out towards the Haven ports.
15651. The timetable study records, does it
not, that the position is going to be made worse by Crossrail?
(Mr Berryman) Primarily
because of the reason I have just mentioned.
15652. So Crossrail will make matters worse
and making matters worse, Mr Berryman, means, does it not, that
some trains which otherwise would have been able to go and carry
freight will not be able to go?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, if nothing
else changes, yes.
15653. So somebody will be losing the benefit
of capacity which would otherwise be available by the worsening
which occurs?
(Mr Berryman) Yes—
15654. And at the moment, Mr Berryman, the position
is one, is it not—I am sorry?
(Mr Berryman) I had not
quite finished.
15655. I do beg your pardon.
(Mr Berryman) The position
at the moment is that, even with Crossrail, significant growth
can be allowed for, but it is insufficient to allow for the growth
which is forecast not from your clients' ports, but from the Tilbury
and Thameside ports. As I have already explained in my evidence,
that has long been recognised by everyone in the rail industry
and there are rail industry procedures for dealing with that problem
and, as mentioned earlier on, the TIF process is part of that
process.
15656. If we can just travel back for a moment,
Crossrail making matters worse, as we have seen, loses the ability
for somebody to run a train which otherwise would be run.
(Mr Berryman) For somebody,
but not for your clients. From your clients' perspective, the
matter is not made any worse and it remains exactly as it is now.
15657. We can come to that if needs be and it
may be that the matter finds expression in the timetabling work,
but, as far as the situation which we have just described is concerned,
Crossrail making matters worse and displacing someone who would
otherwise be on the railway, there is no present proposal, is
there, that if that benefit of capacity is lost that Crossrail
is going to mitigate that loss of capacity?
(Mr Berryman) Crossrail
is part of the whole railway industry. It is not something which
stands in isolation. We have a Secretary of State for Transport
who is responsible for judging and making decisions about these
points. If the whole rail network did not change and the conflicts
were introduced at Forest Gate, yes, there would be some worsening,
but that is not something which I think the Secretary of State
or the Department for Transport would just leave to lie.
15658. Am I right, Mr Berryman, that if someone
is driven off the railway in consequence of the worsening which
is agreed would occur, there is no present proposal by Crossrail
to mitigate that effect, is there?
(Mr Berryman) No. That is
not what Crossrail is about.
15659. Then, as far as my clients are concerned,
you will have seen, will you not, that there were substantial
inquiries which took place both into Felixstowe and into Harwich
International Container Terminal?
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
54 Crossrail Ref: P112, Hybrid Bill Proposals: Single
Line Diagram-Stratford to Seven Kings (LINEWD-GEN15-002). Back
55
Crossrail Ref: P112, Hybrid Bill Proposals: Single Line Diagram-Seven
Kings to Shenfield (LINEWD-GEN15-003). Back
|
