Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16300
- 16319)
16300. Whatever the Committee does, the ORR
has to go through this exercise by law.
(Mr Garratt) The ORR has.
16301. Thank you. Can you tell me what Tarmac's
timetable is for 2015, please?
(Mr Garratt) No.
16302. So, if you do not know what Tarmac's
timetable is for 2015, do you know what it will be for 2030?
(Mr Garratt) No.
16303. Does Tarmac have an Access Option that
runs to 2030?
(Mr Garratt) Tarmac is not the train operator.
16304. Does Tarmac have access to a timetable
that will guarantee its services in 2030?
(Mr Garratt) No, it does not.
16305. Access Options do not run to 2030, do
they?
(Mr Garratt) There are no Access Options yet
agreed on the network.
16306. You cannot do an indicative timetable
for 2015 or 2030 until you know what all the other demands of
the industry are on timetabling?
(Mr Garratt) I would disagree with that. The
way Network Rail approach this on any scale—and I have experienced
this elsewhere—is to see if the new proposal can fit into
the existing timetabling.
16307. Which is what we have done.
(Mr Garratt) The new proposal, and I am speaking
from the freight side now to illustrate the point, will take into
account growth and will make a projection of the original destination
which will be covered. It seems to me that you are able to forecast
the Crossrail trains but because it is having an impact upon commitments
already made, then it is reasonable to take into account those
forecasts running in parallel. Network Rail knew full well about
this and they were holding the Timetable Working Group.
16308. Mr Garratt, my point to you is that you
are confusing taking account of growth on capacity which we have
done with producing a timetable in principle for a period for
which there simply is not information to draw an indicative timetable.
Clearly, growth has to be taken into account and it has been taken
into account. What you cannot do is what you have complained about
is produce a timetabling exercise which stands good for 2030 because
nobody has got an Access Option that takes you until 2030 so to
do a timetable is non-sensical but, of course, to take account
of capacity does make sense. Do you agree with me?
(Mr Garratt) I agree that it is impossible
or impractical to forecast the precise pattern of every freight
train in the UK in 2030, of course.
16309. Thank you very much.
(Mr Garratt) However, it is not impossible
to go through an exercise which takes those issues into account.
16310. You know full well that the TWG having
done an indicative timetable for 2015 that looked at the implications
of growth.
(Mr Garratt) I am not sure I am satisfied with
that.
16311. Mr Garratt, let us assume, because I
do not want to take up Committee time, for a moment that the TWG
set its face against looking at growth—and I do not accept
for a moment—the Committee has got the report—it can
make its own mind up—the position is it will be taken into
account by Network Rail when negotiating the Access Option and
it will most certainly be taken into account by the ORR when deciding
whether or not to accept operational viability, will it not?
(Mr Garratt) I would trust it would.
16312. Again, without any disrespect to the
Committee, it is a job which is better suited to Network Rail
and to the regulator to resolve issues such as operational viability
and timetabling robustness rather than the Select Committee?
(Mr Garratt) Without question, it is an area
of detail, I agree, which is more appropriate to Network Rail
and a group of informed and interested parties.
16313. Thank you. I only have one other question
for you. Can we disinter from two and a half weeks ago. Your figure
eight, your forecast part utilisation 2030, it is LINEWD-33005-009.[68]
Can you zoom in on table one, please? The figure we want to look
at is 2015. We have got 2014 which is your forecast absent Crossrail,
is it not?
(Mr Garratt) Yes.
16314. If we look at the forecast Barking to
Willesden or Kings Cross we see 86, that is two-way trains against
the number of paths which is 87. You reminded the Committee when
you gave evidence for the first time that 98% capacity effectively
was full utilisation, you could not get that level of usage out
of the paths.
(Mr Garratt) Yes,
16315. At 2014, with or without Crossrail, the
system is already at capacity?
(Mr Garratt) Yes, that is right.
16316. So Crossrail does not break the system,
if that is regarded as being broken, the system is in that position
in any event and has to be addressed by other means?
(Mr Garratt) Let me make something clear here.
16317. Do you agree with my proposition?
(Mr Garratt) I would like to try to give an
answer which makes my position clear.
16318. I would like you to answer my question.
(Mr Garratt) Can you ask the question then?
I do apologise. I do understand the way these things work.
16319. The position is that 86 two-way trains
taking up 87 paths. You have already told the Committee that 90-odd%
utilisation is more than the practical capacity in any event.
The system without Crossrail in 2014 requires assistance whatever
happens and that must be achieved by other means.
(Mr Garratt) The number of paths shown in 2005
is the number of paths in the Working Timetable at the moment
and that is not to say more paths cannot be found. The illustration
of that is the exercise related to the Havenport inquiry which
shows that further paths could be found within the existing Great
Eastern which would raise the number of paths. To regard the number
of paths in 2005 as capacity is not accurate.
68 Crossrail Ref: P108, Forecast Path Utilisation
2030 (LINEWD-33005-009). Back
| 
