Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16320
- 16339)
16320. We know there are two extra paths because
we can see that in the table below. That is 86 out of 89.
(Mr Garratt) No, the table below is on a per
hour basis.
16321. Do you also have the figures—I
will come back to that in a second—in the first line? To
reach the north London line at Stratford, 53 paths, 170% capacity.
(Mr Garratt) That is correct.
16322. Then we see net demand, 197%. Do these
figures not simply make it abundantly clear to anybody with any
sense looking at this that that the system is already at, or in
access of, capacity? There may be things that you can do to improve
paths in terms of signalisation and the like but the system is
already at or over capacity.
(Mr Garratt) I am not sure I can agree with
that. If we take that top line, I have got a document here which
has been produced by Network Rail which shows that they could
find 27 further paths without disturbing any existing trains in
2005. That would raise that 53 to 80 which would be greater than
the 75. That is before any further optimisation of the network.
This is not my evidence, this is a Network Rail study done by
the same team that was part of the Timetable Working Group.
16323. That is all very interesting but you
spent a lot of time telling us that these were your predictions,
here in this figure, about what capacity would be.
(Mr Garratt) No. The number of paths is not
my prediction, I have got the Working Timetable extract with me
which identifies every one of those 53 paths. This is Network
Rail work in all respects.
16324. Whatever the optimisation, whatever the
improvements, they have to address the net demand, Forest Gate
to Stratford being at 2030, 197%. It is nearly twice over capacity.
It will have to be something fairly major in terms of improving
the number of paths or optimisation to get that down to a situation
which is less than 100%, which is the situation that will allow
for growth.
(Mr Garratt) I do not deny that further works
either on this route or on other routes will be required to reach
that level of utilisation, but that was not the argument that
Crossrail was putting, it was that it was over capacity by 2015,
which contradicts the evidence of the Havenport's inquiries and
more recent work done by Network Rail.
16325. Mr Garratt, what is Tarmac's interest
in all of this? You and Mr Kingston have given an interesting
dissertation on paths. As I understand it, 90% of Tarmac's business
is on the Great Western, is that right.
(Mr Garratt) It is. You are asking me these
question, sir—
16326. I am asking you questions about your
evidence?
(Mr Garratt) I am answering questions about
my evidence. This table covers both the Great Eastern and the
Great Western. You continue to ask me questions about the Great
Eastern. Tarmac contracts from trains running on the Great Eastern
between Essex and London. It is concerned about being squeezed
out by the situation which is emerging.
16327. No doubt it will make those representations
to the ORR in due course. Thank you Mr Garratt.
Re-examined by Mr Kingston
16328. Mr Kingston: With regard to the
exercise which the Promoters indicate they are going to go through,
that is an exercise which will involve discussion with Network
Rail and then a submission to the regulator, is that correct?
(Mr Garratt) Yes.
16329. Is that an exercise which will be able
to be carried out without producing the "timetable information"
which has previously been referred to?
(Mr Garratt) That timetable information will
be required.
16330. As far as the Committee is concerned,
what is the context for the regulator and, indeed, Network Rail,
for the exercise of the regulator's powers here? Does the Crossrail
Bill contain anything which, at the end of the day, might make
the regulator somewhat less than useful or redundant if Crossrail
does not like the outcome of the exercise?
(Mr Garratt) My understanding is that danger
does exist, that, at the end of day, the regulator's powers could
be set to one side.
16331. The Promoters have got to produce a timetable
which will have to be viewed and considered by the regulator.
If that has got to be done, is there any reason why Petitioners
should not be permitted to the secrets of that process in order
that they can understand and make representations on whether or
not, for example, Crossrail should continue to have the powers
to override the regulator?
(Mr Garratt) I think it is most important that
such interested parties be able to protect their position by so
participating.
16332. With regard to 2015, 2030, the process
that you have referred to in relation to paths, is optimisation
a particularly unusual thing to be considering when looking at
whether or not anything could be accommodated on the rail network?
(Mr Garratt) No, it has just been achieved
on East Coast Main Line, as I referred to, with useful effect.
16333. If it is not done here, what is the upshot
from the point of view of what Crossrail, in effect, is not required
to do, whereas any other Promoter of a particular project which
would have an impact on the railway would be required to do if
they went through the conventional exercise?
(Mr Garratt) The upshot is that they could
leave the freight industry without the capacity it would otherwise
have enjoyed.
16334. Is that, as you understand it, consistent
with what the Secretary of State says should be happening in circumstances
such as this?
(Mr Garratt) Absolutely not, the Secretary
of State has asked the industry to come forward with forecasts
so that in specifying time levels at the specification to Network
Rail the Government can ensure that rail freights achieve its
potential.
16335. With regard to what was taken into account,
I have read to you what was contained in paragraph 3.5 of the
information paper E6.[69]
That is that freight services will continue to operate at broadly
existing levels. Have you seen any amendment of that information
paper indicating that is not the position?
(Mr Garratt) I see very confusing
positions in the latest paper, the Next Steps paper, where growth
is referred to but not consistently so.[70]
For example, I think the easiest way of explaining this is on
the first page of the Next Steps paper, the remit of the working
group was reiterated in A and B, and B says: "To accommodate
Crossrail services when the effect of growth in freight and other
passenger services is taken into account". In the conclusion
this paper states that that remit was achieved, but I cannot see
that it has been because neither the growth in other passenger
services—and that must mean the TfL services being proposed—as
well as the freight growth has not been, as it were—no satisfactory
demonstrations have been made that the requisite capacity will
be available.
16336. Mr Kingston: Thank you, Mr Garratt.
Sir.
16337. Chairman: Mr Kingston, we initially
had two witnesses, but now it has been decided to have a third
witness for today.
16338. Mr Kingston: No, we have always
had three witnesses, and I explained to you on the first day that
we had three witnesses. The final one is Mr Peter Dixon. You will
recollect someone told you we had three timetabling witnesses
and I said that at least two of the three witnesses we had would
be very surprised if they were so described, and Mr Dixon is one
of those two.
16339. Chairman: Your next witness will
be dealing with environmental—
69 Crossrail Information Paper E6-Freight Operations,
billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk Back
70
Committee Ref: P108, Next Steps, Timetable Working Group (SCN-20060718-002). Back
| 
