Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20380
- 20399)
20380. There was a site visit by Crossrail a
few weeks before the members' site visit when some of the drawings,
including this drawing, were still up on the walls. Had they been
removed by the time of the site visit? Are you sure there was
not a photograph of the model included in those?
(Mr Smith) I have absolutely
no idea what you are talking about, Mr Elvin.
20381. Very well. Let us go to the usage of
the site. Can we put up 04-017, please.[35]
I appreciate that some of the rolling stock is not taken straight
in and straight out and it is not a station, but you will appreciate
that usage by the others at Old Oak Common is not simply on that
basis as well. We estimate on the basis of the period which includes
Cheltenham Week in March last year, the sort of average amount
of traffic in and out of the site is about three movements a day,
is that right?
(Mr Smith) If those are the figures
which you have been supplied by someone who says that is what
the truth is, then I have to agree with you. These are not figures
that I have had an opportunity to study myself, but I presume
they are accurate.
20382. You know that an initial set of figures
was put to your company last week in one of the meetings and they
were asked to comment on them.
(Mr Smith) Yes, that was
a set of movements for the month of January.
20383. Which show a similar pattern, do they
not?
(Mr Smith) January is not
one of our busiest periods.
20384. But Cheltenham is, is it not?
(Mr Smith) Cheltenham is
one of a number of the busiest periods and, as the Promoters are
aware, is during the summer.
20385. If the average during Cheltenham Week
is in the order of three movements a day as opposed to the 90-odd
proposed for Crossrail, can you give us a handle on how much that
grows to in the busiest period in the summer?
(Mr Smith) I cannot give
you that information.
20386. Would it be double that? Might it be
six movements a day?
(Mr Smith) It could well
be that. I do not know.
20387. You knew we were going to raise the point
about the number of movements because we put some of the figures
to you last week.
(Mr Smith) Yes, and it is
interesting to see that, of course, Crossrail trains will be coming
off the depot in the morning to form the peak service, coming
back on to the depot off-peak because the off-peak frequency is
not the same as the peak, coming off the depot again for the evening
peak service and then going back again after the evening peak,
so each unit there will be able to secure four movements a day
on and off the depot as part of operating a standard hour advertised
passenger service. I am not at all surprised that the number of
movements you show for Crossrail is the one you put in that pie
chart.
20388. Mr Smith, all we are trying to get is
a handle through a proxy of numbers of vehicle movements as to
the relative busyness of this depot. The members will have seen
how busy or not the depot is, we have got photographs and a number
of the items in the depot comprise of old locomotives that have
been kept for scrap for example. If we can look at the pie chart
again which is 04-027, you will bear in mind, of course, that
Crossrail, Heathrow and First Great Western are not simply using
this as a depot for taking the trains in and out but there will
also be maintenance and other similar activities going on this
site, will there not?[36]
It is not just take the trains out in the morning and take them
back in the evening, the depot will also be used for maintaining
and servicing them?
(Mr Smith) If you say so.
20389. In reality, what this shows is EWS's
usage and we have got the logs, we know how long the trains were
on site and how long it was before they left. The reality is this
is a very lightly-used site, which is the reason why you were
considering it as a development opportunity, is it not? This was
not a site that, in fact, bears the sort of importance which you
seek it to attach to it.
(Mr Smith) The number of
movements on and off the site is not a proxy for the use. I am
afraid, that is an incorrect assumption. The number of movements
merely relate to the timetable to which the majority of those
movements are connected.
20390. Can I just put it this way, and we will
move on to another topic. The Committee have had a site visit,
have seen some photographs of the site and may have an idea of
the level of the usage; we say this helps, you say it does not.
There is a difference between us. Would you agree with my description,
that EWS's usage of Old Oak Common is light?
(Mr Smith) I would not agree
with that.
20391. The Committee can judge for themselves
from the evidence they have received as to whether that should
be accepted or not.
20392. Can I move, please, to the question of
costs. Can we look, please, at your new table, it is EWS 47, page
05-016.[37]
There have been continuing discussions between Crossrail and EWS.
You will bear in mind the question, as you say, cost is a difficult
issue. Mr George and yourself have been very careful to say, of
course, there are other interests than simply producing the cheapest
option, but it is also necessary to bear in mind before significant
sums of public money are committed to something such as North
Pole the level of usage it is supposed to be supporting to see
whether it is proportionate. That would be fair, would it not?
(Mr Smith) I do not know, if
you say so.
20393. Would you not expect the expenditure
of public money to be proportionate to the importance and the
level of usage which it is replacing?
(Mr Smith) If all of the
costs involved were absolutely variable with use, that would be
an idea worth exploring but, of course, as you will be aware,
Mr Elvin, most depot costs are fixed. Infrastructure is a fixed
cost, you cannot have half the infrastructure, you cannot build
one line, you have to have two lines for a train to run on.
20394. If there are a number of options and
we are looking at the public interest in what option do we take,
the level of usage of what it is we are supposed to be replacing,
that is to say your level of usage at Old Oak Common, is a relevant
factor in weighing the balance of whether the extra costs are
incurred, say, over the costs of displacing you altogether. That
is a relevant factor.
(Mr Smith) I cannot accept
the concept of displacing us altogether, extinguishing EWS and
removing from a good railway-connected site in West London the
ability of one of the principal freight operators and given these
sites would be open access other people would want to use it as
well. To extinguish us and say there is no role for this kind
of rail or rail freight potential in the future, I cannot accept
that as a statement.
20395. You appreciate it is not the Department's
wish to displace you. "Extinguishment" is a bit of an
emotive term, I know it is a technical term for compensation.
It does not extinguish your business. What it does is displaces
you altogether from this site, but you will appreciate it is not
the Department's intention to do that, it is the Department's
intention to be prudent in terms of public resources. Can I get
your confirmation that although the way the matter has been presented,
it might appear to some that this has all come to you as a great
surprise; the fact is the Department raised its concerns about
the costs and its implications in December, did it not? It is
in the correspondence, which we can produce if necessary.
(Mr Smith) No need to produce
the correspondence. We know the Department was concerned about
the costs being higher than the ones previously estimated we found
out subsequently. That is why we worked closely with the Department
and the Promoters to identify ways of reducing the cost.
20396. We wrote to you on 21 December and we
told you that. The concerns over North Pole and the uncertainty
which that gave rise to, you have known of for many months. It
has not just appeared in the last week.
(Mr Smith) Many months might be a slight exaggeration.
20397. 21 December, that is three months. No,
two months, I do apologise. Arithmetic was never my strong suit,
Mr Smith. Two months. It has been known to you since then. Can
I ask you this, the table that you produced today, 016 of the
exhibit, EWS 47, we were given a rather simplified version of
this at the end of last week at the meeting, were we not?[38]
(Mr Smith) Yes.
20398. I think at page 04-012 which does not
have any explanation in it, is a list of two column costs.[39]
(Mr Smith) At the meeting you
mentioned, I described to the representatives of the Promoter
and the Department for Transport the reasons why each of the cost
lines have come down and agreed to meet the representatives of
the Promoter, a meeting which I believe has been arranged.
20399. For 8 March.
(Mr Smith) I believe so, to go through this
in more detail.
35 Crossrail Ref: P144, Analysis of EWS moves in and
out of Old Oak Common depot 5 February 2006 to 30 April 2006 (LINEWD-AP3-43-04A-017). Back
36
Committee Ref: P144, Comparative usage of Old Oak Common/North
Pole between EWS and Crossrail activity (LINEWD-AP3-43-04A-027). Back
37
Committee Ref: A231, Comparison of Costs for Old Oak Common Relocation
to North Pole Depot (LINEWD-AP3-43-05-016). Back
38
Committee Ref: A231, Comparison of Costs for Old Oak Common Relocation
to North Pole Depot(LINEWD-AP3-43-05-016). Back
39
Committee Ref: P144, Comparison of Costs for Old Oak Common Relocation-Original
cost and reduced scope (LINEWD-AP3-43-04A-012). Back
| 
