Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1280
- 1299)
1280. So 4.4 per cent of 5,000 is 220.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right.
1281. The difference between having an upgraded
station at the cost of £12 million, or not, is something
in the region of about 110 people. Is that right? In the 3-hour
forecast. Is that right?
(Mr Berryman) If you calculate it in that way, it is, yes.
1282. That is the calculation that you did.
You said so earlier on; you did a general analysis of what the
cost was and what the benefit was.
(Mr Berryman) I think you are missing a fundamental point
here.
1283. Am I?
(Mr Berryman) I really did not want to get into the way these
models work, but I will do if you wish. What this model assumes
is that people making a decision on how to travel make the most
rational decision for them, and the rationality of that decision
is based on the idea that everybody is equally able and can get
around in the same way. The kind of people who will use PRM access,
whether they are people who are handicapped or people who are
encumbered with heavy luggage, may make a different decision to
that decision which assumes a rational decision based on absolute
ability to use any route. So a lot of the people who may have
used Manor Park on this analysis, in real life, more than likely,
would not use Manor Park, they would instead use, as we have described,
the bus routes which go and take them directly to Stratford Station.
So modelling always has limits because it is based on rational
choices that equally able people would make. Although it is good
enough to get a very good idea of how things work, it does not
necessarily give you the answer to plus-100 people or minus-100
people.
1284. CHAIRMAN: Mr Reed, I am sorry.
You have to realise that slide 019 relates to the peak 3-hour
period.
1285. MR REED: Indeed.
1286. CHAIRMAN: Therefore, you must take
account of what you are being told by way of an answer as to the
decisions of people travelling in that period.
1287. MR REED: Indeed, my Lord. Whilst
that may be right for Manor Park, it would equally be right for,
say, Forest Gate in an un-upgraded situation
(Mr Berryman) Yes, it would. Again, if you missed out both
Forest Gate and Manor Park you are getting quite a long gap where
there is no station with PRM access. The next station on the line
is Ilford, which is quite a good way away. I think it might be
worth mentioning that Custom House, which is in your client's
borough, also gets PRM access, and that will be quite an expensive
job as well.
1288. Tell me this, Mr Berryman: this analysis,
in terms of the forecast, is presumably the forecast with upgraded
stations at each of those locations. Is that right? It is the
works you intended to do, in short.
(Mr Berryman) No, it would just assume that the trains that
stopped there would have a certain capacity.
1289. It does what, I am sorry?
(Mr Berryman) It would just assume that, as I say, it is
based on rational decisions of an able-bodied person, so it does
not necessarily take into account the works which are done at
the station; it just takes into account the fact that trains stop
there and that buses and whatever else will deliver people to
those stations.
1290. What I wanted to know was, is there a
factor in this model that takes into account the relative attractiveness
given its upgraded nature, or not?
(Mr Berryman) No, there is not.
1291. So it is equally the same for all. Is
that right?
(Mr Berryman) That is correct.
1292. Can we go on then to the question of the
capital cost at Manor Park? The cost that you have given it is
some £12 million.
(Mr Berryman) That is right, yes.
1293. That is £12 million for the upgraded
works. You are now proposing certain works for Manor Park which
are different from that which were previously proposed. Yes?
(Mr Berryman) We are not now proposing to extend the platform,
yes, that is correct.
1294. Can you tell me, please, when those changes
were formulated? I do not mind a rough date.
(Mr Berryman) It was a couple of years ago. It would be two
years ago, I should think. It would be about the time when we
were discussing selective door opening with your client.
1295. Two years ago. Are you sure about that?
(Mr Berryman) No, I am not sure. I am just trying to think.
It was about the time we were discussing selective door opening
with your client and we had subsequent discussions with the Railway
Inspector, and we took on—
1296. That was last year, was it not, Mr Berryman?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, it would be just over a year ago, actually,
not two years ago. At that time, once we had realised that selective
door opening would be permitted, we looked again at other alternatives
and we have now got several stations with selective door opening,
where we will not be extending the platforms.
1297. When did the change actually happen in
terms of the—
(Mr Berryman) I cannot give you the exact date, I am afraid,
but it would be, as you say, probably just over a year ago.
1298. It was as a result of the position you
took on Maryland on selective door opening and that being approved
by the Inspectorate. Is that right?
(Mr Berryman) That is right. It is not actually approved
by the Inspectorate, it is approved subject to the safety case,
which we fully expect to get.
1299. I am sorry "it is approved subject
to the safety case"?
(Mr Berryman) Yes. I do not know how familiar you are with
railway legislation but on each piece of railway you have what
is called an Infrastructure Manager—I think this is the
Railway Act 2002?
| 
