Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16280
- 16299)
16280. The last paragraph of the undertaking
says, "Any material changes to planned enhancements would
be modelled to check that there is no adverse impact overall and
capacity of available for users as a whole nor to the formats
as established in the TWG report. The TWG would be recalled to
review this".
(Mr Garratt) That is correct. It also seems
still to be talking about commitment to secure overall levels
of operational capacity identified in the report, but that is,
I think, at existing trade levels and there is a reference to
performance in that latter and I think that should be read in
conjunction with appendix C of the Working Group report.
16281. Why?
(Mr Garratt) That is because that is the only
table in the Working Group report which discussed performance
modelling, the use of rail assist, and it is quite clear looking
at appendix C that the number of trains being tested there is
the existing number of trains and not a future number of trains.
16282. So existing no future again, infrastructure
related to that sort of performance. What do you want the Committee
to do, first of all, please, you describe the capacity assessment
that you would like undertaken, let us just take that as read
as part of this exercise.
(Mr Garratt) Yes.
16283. The second matter with regard what the
Promoters should be required to do in terms of identifying the
infrastructure which is needed to accommodate Crossrail and freight
interest, what do you want the Committee to do?
(Mr Garratt) I want to be sure that the interested
parties have had every opportunity to participate in a future,
perhaps now, working group, so that it is established on all sides
what infrastructure is required to accommodate future levels.
16284. We know, and the Committee has made it
clear on at least two or three, if not more occasions that it
cannot require that infrastructure should be provided, but one
of the things it could do, Mr Garratt, is to ensure that Crossrail
services do not function unless and until the infrastructure required
to accommodate the interest you have been talking about has been
provided. What do you say about the appropriateness of that, please?
(Mr Garratt) I think that is an appropriate
mechanism and is, I think, similar to a planning permission.
16285. So, in essence, Crossrail services not
to run until such time as the infrastructure necessary to achieve
the timetable performance is in place, is that right?
(Mr Garratt) Yes, that is right.
16286. Those, Mr Garratt, are the four points,
I think, you wanted to make by way of a summation of your evidence
in the context of what the Committee has heard since you last
appeared but, as I indicated a little earlier, the Committee has
also had, and perhaps not had time to study it in any detail as
it only appeared yesterday afternoon, the document I referred
to as the Crossrail Timetable Working Group and access option
process next steps. Have you had the opportunity of at least reading
that through?
(Mr Garratt) Yes, I have, well briefly.
16287. Do not let us descend to the minutiae
at least at this stage, but one of the discussions that took place
on day 52 involved Miss Lieven and Mr Liddell-Grainger in the
context of that discussion, one of the things that Miss Lieven
said was, having said she would like to respond briefly to a point
in this regard, "As far as commitment to do the timetabling
work is concerned, unless I get grabbed from behind"—and
I have no idea what she had in mind in that context—"we
have a clear commitment to work with the ORR to produce the necessary
timetabling information, so the ORR can carry out its normal functions".
16288. So far as if we do not get what we want,
we will come back with a concern, I would suggest that we cannot
make any judgment on that until we have been through the ORR process.
It was that reference to a commitment to work with the ORR to
produce the necessary timetabling information that I wanted to
ask you about. The document which has been produced, which was
in response to the Committee's queries, does it proceed on the
basis that the timetabling information will be produced?
(Mr Garratt) I was a little puzzled by the
reference to the ORR because my understanding of the process is
that Network Rail would be expected to do the timetabling. Other
parties may or may not agree with that exercise and the ORR act
as a sort of tribunal to decide who is correct.
16289. What about this document and any commitment
in it to producing the timetabling information? Does it commit
to the production of the timetabling information as you understand
it?
(Mr Garratt) No, I do not think it does.
16290. On that basis, will the Committee get
what is needed in order to consider whether or not there is adequate
capacity to accommodate, for example, freight interests?
(Mr Garratt) No, I am not satisfied this covers
it.
16291. Thank you.
Cross-examined by Mr Elvin
16292. Mr Elvin: Mr Garratt, the purpose,
as you say, is Network Rail has to be satisfied with the timetabling
and the robustness of the timetable?
(Mr Garratt) That is correct.
16293. That is done in discussion with the party
applying for the Access Option. When that is done there is consultation
with the ORR. When the ORR is satisfied that what has been produced
is robust and shows operational viability, there is then consultation
with other interested parties.
(Mr Garratt) I agree.
16294. The ORR is involved because if the ORR
is not satisfied about operational viability which includes timetable
robustness, it goes back to the person seeking the Access Option,
in this case, Crossrail and Network Rail, to work it out until
it does work.
(Mr Garratt) Yes, that is right. My point was
that it would be Network Rail who does the timetable exercise
for the ORR.
16295. The ORR has to be satisfied and will
send it back if the ORR does not think it is robust?
(Mr Garratt) Yes.
16296. There are workings with the ORR to satisfy
the independent adjudication of the ORR? There is then only consultation
with industry once the ORR is satisfied in its mind that this
will work?
(Mr Garratt) There is a consultation with the
industry at that point, yes.
16297. In fact the ORR is involved in the process
and will not allow consultation until robustness is demonstrated?
(Mr Garratt) Yes.
16298. Thank you. Therefore, and I mean no disrespect
to the Committee, whatever the Committee says or does the ORR
still has to go through this exercise with Network Rail and the
Promoter because the ORR is the independent regulator. These matters
still have to be proved to the ORR before there will be consultation
and before an Access Option will be granted?
(Mr Garratt) Yes.
16299. The Committee could spend weeks on this
and it will mean nothing because the exercise has to be demonstrated
to the independent regulator?
(Mr Garratt) There has to be such an exercise
in the first place.
| 
