Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1300 - 1319)

  1300. MS LIEVEN: I am sorry, Mr Berryman, you are on your own!
  (Mr Berryman) It is an Infrastructure Manager and you have a train operator, and they have to produce safety cases for every activity that they do. A safety case is a document which explains how safe running of the railway is achieved, and that safety case can only be produced by the infrastructure manager and the operator. The infrastructure manager has only just been appointed in the last few weeks—Network Rail—and it will be a long time before the operator is appointed, and that will be a train operating company.

  1301. CHAIRMAN: Crossrail is the infrastructure manager?
  (Mr Berryman) Crossrail will not be the infrastructure manager, my Lord, in the long term.

  1302. Who has just been appointed?
  (Mr Berryman) Network Rail. Perhaps I should explain that.

  1303. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: It has been transferred across from the Health and Safety Commission, has it not?
  (Mr Berryman) Not exactly.

  1304. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: I am trying to help!
  (Mr Berryman) The infrastructure manager takes responsibility for safe operation of the railway, planning of the train services, in other words how many trains run and what the timetable is, and various other matters which are set out in the 2002 Act. The issue has been who should be the infrastructure manager for this section of railway. It has always been accepted that Network Rail are the likely infrastructure manager, but it has only recently been agreed by the Department and others that it should be Network Rail who take that role. The train operating company will not be appointed for probably seven or eight years. Network Rail and the train operating company will have to produce the safety case. HM Railway Inspectorate gives an indication that things will be approved or that they do not object to things, subject to a safety case, and that is the position we are in now. We will still have to make a safety case but we already have an assurance from HMRI that, subject to a satisfactory safety case, there will be no objection. I ought to explain that the HMRI never actually approve anything; they always issue a letter of no objection. I can see Lord Snape nodding, he must have some experience of that.

  1305. BARNONESS FOOKES: Is it analogous to outline planning permission subject to details being supplied subsequently?
  (Mr Berryman) That is an absolutely accurate analysis, yes.

  1306. CHAIRMAN: Except that the timetable here is going to be a great deal longer because you have got to have the conjunction of the train operating company and the infrastructure manager, and we will not have that for many years.
  (Mr Berryman) That is correct.

  1307. MR REED: You said a little while ago that you think it was about a year ago that you made these changes. Tell me, when did you first deliver those changes as expressed on drawings to Newham Council?
  (Mr Berryman) I am not sure that we ever did. Certainly it would be as a result of this Petition I would imagine.

  1308. So the first time that these drawings were seen by Newham is when you sent through the slide, was it, on Monday morning?
  (Mr Berryman) Quite likely, yes.

  1309. I see. Just to understand then what the original proposals were, I think I understood what it was but just to be clear about it, the original proposals involved—and I will just make reference to the Environmental Statement, although I do not think we need to particularly turn to it unless we get bogged down, although I think it would be worthwhile having the Manor Park plan turned up, which is number 10 in the bundle.[30] Do you have that, Mr Berryman?

  (Mr Berryman) That one there, yes.

  1310. Thank you very much. The proposals originally were for --- in fact I think we can probably start the process at 012 where we see demolitions.[31]

  (Mr Berryman) I am sorry, this is not the plans that were part of the original scheme. This is what we would have to do if we were to put MRP access in.

  1311. Absolutely, but if we can start the process please at 12, which if I understood you correctly was describing the position as was understood to be the case in the original ES?
  (Mr Berryman) No, that is not the case. Let me see if I can find the right one.

  1312. I do not think you will find it there actually.
  (Mr Berryman) Let me explain what the position was originally.

  1313. MR REED: Perhaps if I can—

  1314. CHAIRMAN: Why do you not let him explain what it was originally?
  (Mr Berryman) The idea was that this freight loop which runs along here (indicating) would be closed and the platform would be widened here (indicating) and extended out that way. In addition, we would have had to have a short platform extension here (indicating).

  1315. MR REED: Yes and the result was, in terms of the staircases?
  (Mr Berryman) There would be minor alterations to this staircase here (indicating).

  1316. Did you say minor alterations; is that right?
  (Mr Berryman) Yes.

  1317. What is described in the ES is "existing footbridge and walkway between platforms one and two/three will be modified with stairs to platform one."
  (Mr Berryman) That is here (indicating).

  1318. I see, it is just that little bit.
  (Mr Berryman) Just that little bit there.

  1319. There was also going to be a replacement goods loop, was there not?
  (Mr Berryman) A replacement goods lift?



30   Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park Station-Proposed details for the provision of PRM lifts without platform extensions (NEWMLB-53_04-010) Back

31   Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park Station-Extent of demolition (NEWMLB-53_04-012) Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008