Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20440
- 20459)
20440. Mr George: Sir, I mentioned in
my opening the case of Luxembourg v Linster Your Clerk
now has a copy and I understand, formally, it needs a number.
20441. Chairman: A232.
20442. Mr George: Secondly, sir, we can
distribute a revised undertaking which we would seek, which we
have given to the Promoters. The Committee will see that it is
in exactly the same form as the last document in our bundle, except
that there is a cap added, so that at the end of the proposed
undertaking the words are added: "save that the Promoter
shall not be required to pay more than £83 million at 2002
prices in complying with paragraphs 2 and 3", which means
we are, in other words, prepared, effectively, to commit to our
figures.
20443. Chairman: That is A233.
20444. Mr Elvin: I will call Mr Berryman,
if that is convenient.
Mr Keith Berryman, recalled
Examined by Mr Elvin
20445. Mr Elvin: Mr Berryman, you are
well-known to the Committee and to this process. Can I just go
through some of the issues with you relating to Old Oak Common,
North Pole, and the revised Depot Strategy. The first issue is
the general concern that has been expressed about the impact of
trains from Crossrail running into Old Oak Common and accessibility
for the depot. What is the current situation, please?
(Mr Berryman) The current situation as it sits
now is that trains going into Old Oak Common from the Paddington
direction have to run over the relief lines, that is the second
pair of tracks in the set-up. We are proposing to provide two
additional tracks which will make an independent route into the
depot, all the way from Westbourne Park, where many of our trains
turn round, to, actually, right into the depot. So any concerns
about disruption to train services because of our trains going
in and out of the depot will be ameliorated by that, if not eliminated
altogether.
20446. Can I then turn to the main issues. Can
I first ask for you to give your views as to the current level
of usage by EWS of its Old Oak Common facilities?
(Mr Berryman) Yes. I have to say I have been
rather surprised to find out the low level of use that exists
at this depot. As we saw when we went on the tour last week, it
is used for a number of different things, some of which need to
be there in the London area, some of which do not. Perhaps the
most noticeable thing is that there are a large number of locomotives
there waiting to be scrapped or to be allocated to new projects
in Europe. There is obviously no reason why they need to be in
London, it is just a convenient place to put them. The second
use which had already been mentioned by Mr Smith is the heavy
maintenance and lifting equipment, and you recall we went into
the shed where that was done, and one locomotive was on the jacks
having things checked at the time we were there. However, in the
same shed there were two other locomotives, both of which do not
belong to EWS, they belong to heritage societies. Clearly, the
premises is also used for maintenance of the charter fleet which
is also stabled there, and I understand is, to some extent, pitted
there, if that is necessary. It is obviously used for refuelling
of freight locomotives but in very small numbers, and I think
that coincides more with the operation of charter trains than
anything else. It is also used for some storage of the yellow
plant, which is the equipment which works on the track and does
the maintenance of it. I think the most prominent thing we can
see there are the several rakes of heritage rolling stock which
are used for the charter operations.
20447. The Committee has already seen, because
I put the summary table to Mr Smith earlier, that the average
number of train movements associated with all of EWS's activities
at Old Oak Common is of the order of two or three movements a
day.
(Mr Berryman) Indeed, yes. It is of that order,
on average, a day. I think some of those are freight locomotives
coming in for maintenance, but out of that total it could not
be more than one or two, and some of those trains are going out
for charter operations.
20448. Mr Smith said he did not regard the train
movements as a proxy for the busyness or otherwise of the site.
What view do you have, Mr Berryman, please?
(Mr Berryman) It is difficult to see how else
you could decide how busy a site is. Of course, the fact is when
a train comes in for significant maintenance, which may take two
or three days, it is sitting there for two or three days before
it goes out again, but the numbers of movements that are occurring
are so very low that the site cannot be particularly busy. Do
not misunderstand me; I am not saying that the activities that
are done there are not important or significant, but I would say
that the site is not very busy.
20449. We have already seen the pie chart at
exhibit 04A-027, which compares the likely movements from Crossrail
trains to being 92 a day rather than EWS's 3.[41]
We can see First Great Western at 52 (they are already on site)
and the Heathrow-associated traffic at 10 and 20 for Heathrow
Express and Heathrow Connect.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct.
The same area that is being occupied by EWS at present would have
roughly 92 movements in or out every day. As Mr Smith said, many
of those would be associated with stabling but quite a lot of
them would also be associated with maintenance and rolling stock.
Those 92 movements would indicate a fairly busy site—busy
all day.
20450. In terms of the stabling function, how
does that compare with the use of the site at the moment for the
storage of charter rolling stock?
(Mr Berryman) I suppose,
on one level, you could say it is the same, it is parking of the
trains, but the difference would be that our trains would go out
every day. They would be there overnight, of course, and some
might be there inter-peak during the day, whereas the charter
stock stays there for significantly long periods of time—I
think, quite often, some of the stock does not go out for several
weeks.
20451. Can I come on to the proposals that were
put to EWS for the first time last week as a possible way of seeking
to preserve the freight maintenance aspect on site without necessarily
having to relocate them to North Pole, and that is exhibit 03-035,
please.[42]
(Mr Berryman) One of the parts
of that sale offer document, which you also exhibited this morning,
concerned the retention of a modest maintenance facility on the
site, consisting of three sidings and a shed. We have come to
this fairly late because it was not until we saw those sale particulars
that we started to develop this idea. What we have been able to
ascertain is that we can actually fit in those facilities on our
proposed site alongside the maintenance shed. This is entirely
within our limits of deviation and early indications are that
it is also within our powers, as contained in the supplementary
environmental specification, so we are confident that we could
provide a shed and three sidings there which could be used for
the maintenance of the freight locos and it could be used for
the storage perhaps of some other appliance. It obviously could
not be used for the charter trains, but the other activities which
are carried on on that site could actually be done in that relatively
small area because I think you realise, after having seen the
site, that quite a lot of it is not used very much.
20452. We know in any event that the original
Romford depot proposals involved taking away the charter sidings
from Old Oak Common because stabling would still be required under
the original Depot Strategy at Old Oak Common?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that
is correct. The area down here, which I think is called the `Coronation
Sidings' but I may be wrong there, was the area where the stabling
would have been done.
20453. So that would have gone under the original
depot proposals in any event. Just returning to the blue lines,
which are the proposed new sidings which could accommodate the
freight maintenance operations of EWS, would that, as compared
with their current operations, and we know that they are looking
to capture some additional business from what Mr Smith was saying,
would that not give them additional capacity to grow their business,
the maintenance side of their business?
(Mr Berryman) It would.
We have had a look at some figures as to how it would work, how
it could work, and we think there is a very significant opportunity
to grow the business even with that relatively modest facility
compared to the level it is now.
20454. Just while we are dealing with that,
someone did some digging around in EWS's evidence from the last
committee appearance and I am just going to put it up, so can
we just remind ourselves what their evidence was to the Committee
last time, and this is exhibit 19605-035, and it has been ringed.[43]
We can see in the last sentence the point being made that I have
just been discussing with you. Firstly, it deals with what happens
if Old Oak is taken for the depot, that the entirety of the site
would be required. Then, "Crossrail wish to replicate EWS's
facilities at Old Oak Common with a facility at North Pole",
and that has moved on, as we know, and then, "Even if the
depot is not moved to Old Oak Common", that is to say, if
it remains at Romford, "and the site is still required for
stabling of Crossrail trains, then the amount of land required
would render it unviable for EWS's current operation". So
that supports what I was saying this morning, Mr Berryman, that
EWS's position is that, even under the original Depot Strategy,
there would be a significant adverse effect on their operations.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is certainly
the case. I can understand the point that the charter train operation
would have had to move in any event.
20455. In terms of the issue that has arisen
with regard to North Pole with regard to operating costs and rating,
and I do not want to spend a great deal of time on it because
we spent some time with Mr Smith on that, but can I just ask this:
the estimate of cost which was lodged in accordance with Standing
Orders, that did not include operating costs, rating and the like?
(Mr Berryman) No, it did
not. The Standing Orders require that we submit an estimate of
expense of the cost of the works, but it does not include any
of those peripheral things, such as operational costs or things
of that nature.
20456. When did it become clear that there was
a particular problem with those costs?
(Mr Berryman) It was while
I was in hospital, so it was in November, and I can tell you that,
when I came back to work and got the news, I almost had a relapse;
they were unexpected costs.
20457. What was the expectation at the time
the Bill was deposited about the costs?
(Mr Berryman) We were under
the impression that the operating costs would be about the same
just based on the general operation which we carried out at the
depot. The issue of the rating costs, frankly, had not been raised
at all and we had been unaware that it was rated on a different
basis from the rest of the railway network. It was almost by accident
that we later found out that this was the case.
20458. In terms of the latest estimate that
was produced by Mr Smith this morning and which we saw yesterday
for the first time, that is to say, a possible reduction of the
costs and their bringing down the costs generally, I put it to
Mr Smith, and he agreed, that those have yet to be demonstrated
by any supporting information, and I understand that that is going
to be provided for a meeting on 8 March. Is that correct?
(Mr Berryman) That is my
understanding, yes.
20459. So neither Crossrail nor the Department
has seen the basis for the calculations at this stage?
(Mr Berryman) Certainly
not the detail, no.
41 Committee Ref: P144, Comparative of usage at Old
Oak Common/North Pole with Crossrail (LINEWD-AP3-43-04A-027). Back
42
Committee Ref: P144, Old Oak Common Depot to Westbourne Park
Study (LINEWD-AP3-43-04-035). Back
43
Committee Ref: P144, Crossrail's requirement (LINEWD-19605-035). Back
|
