Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8180
- 8199)
8180. Now, since that time, the Rail Regulator
has in fact reduced by a small amount the freight paths which
Crossrail were seeking, has he not, so that he has knocked off
two per hour over the weekend and two per hour in most of the
off-peak period?
(Mr Berryman) No, that is not quite right. It is the passenger
paths which he has reduced.
8181. Yes, that is what I hope I said.
(Mr Berryman) You said "freight paths".
8182. I am sorry, that is entirely wrong. He
has knocked off two of the Crossrail passenger paths which you
are seeking.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct, yes.
8183. When that works through, my clients welcome
that and are pleased with that because in fact with the spare
capacity opened up by that, we could achieve either all, or very
nearly all, of those 39 extra paths, so, to that extent, that
would be extremely satisfactory.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, of course, but, as you heard from what
I said earlier on, that assumes that those paths were all allocated
to freight and that is by no means certain at this stage, but
it certainly does leave that opportunity open, yes.
8184. That I appreciate because, if there is
not a demand for the paths, the freight paths will not be allocated
to freight, but, as I say, so far, so good. What has to be achieved
in some way is the performance improvement which gets one up from
the 71 per cent PPM to the 92 PPM minimum, that being the figure,
as I say, that the Regulator set and which Crossrail is now set
to achieve.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right. In fact, we are obviously
aiming considerably higher than 92 PPM as we need to for the effective
operation of such a high-density railway.
8185. In the decision as to whether you can
achieve 92 per PPM, the modelling will have to take into account
the requirements of the industry for maintenance of track, will
it not; this will be not only the track for the passengers but
also for freight trains?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, of course it will.
8186. Also for the access and egress into the
various freight terminals which lie off the Main Lines to the
side?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right.
8187. If, at the end of the day, the 92 PPM
figure cannot be achieved then the rail regulator will have to
make a decision as to whether actually he cuts down further on
the paths for Crossrail, or whether he cuts down on the paths
for everyone else. Is that not right? That is, if that situation
were to be reached?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct, broadly speaking.
8188. As far as we are aware, there has been
no modelling at all to date which has excluded those infrastructure
works, which I referred to at the beginning of my cross-examination.
All the modelling has included works such as those Greenford works
and such as those Heathrow works?
(Mr Berryman) Certainly the modelling has included those
two items that you mentioned; but a number of other items which
are scheduled here have been omitted from the model—I think
one of them at the request of your clients in the case of the
Maidenhead sidings realignment—because your clients felt,
quite rightly in retrospect, that the amendments proposed would
prevent them getting proper access to the Slough trading estates.
8189. So far as, for instance, the West Drayton/Langley
works, that is the relief line from Langley to West Drayton, the
other works at West Drayton for the up-relief platform, the airport
junction, the works at Southall, the works at West Ealing, those
have all always been included in the modelling, have they not?
(Mr Berryman) They have always been included in the modelling,
yes, that is right.
8190. There has been no modelling whatever done
of a scheme in which either they were left out or in which other
works were put in, in their place?
(Mr Berryman) No, that is correct.
8191. We are not aware of having seen any list
of any alternatives to those works, or any report suggesting and
showing how it might be possible to achieve the proper functioning
of Crossrail, and that 92 PPM, and a proper amount of other passenger
services and freight without those particular works which I have
just identified to you?
(Mr Berryman) That is true. There is no such modelling that
has been done. What we are saying is that, if such modelling were
done, and if such modelling provided equivalent or perhaps even
better performance then that should not be a barrier to doing
those works in an alternative way. That is all we are saying.
We are not saying what bits we are going to do and what bits we
are not doing to do. What we are saying is that we intend to achieve
a 92 PPM at least and the necessary works will be input into the
system, if you like, to achieve that output.
8192. Mr Berryman, we entirely understand the
ORR's approach, but what we do not understand is why this Committee
should necessarily reach the same conclusion on these matters.
If a), and I think we are all agreed, it is desirable to achieve
the 92 PPM, and b) it is desirable to have not only the Crossrail
services but the other services I have spoken of, that is a reasonable
number of other passenger and freight services, it seems to us
that at the present time there is no evidence at all that that
can be achieved without these key freight infrastructure works
which we have been talking about?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, you are absolutely right; there is no
evidence that that could be achieved without doing the works which
you have outlined. If we were to delete any of these works it
would be only on the basis of modelling agreed with all the parties
through the Timetable Reference Group, as I think it is now called.
8193. Mr Berryman, what we are asking the Committee
to do is simply to require Crossrail to construct those works,
as I say it is the principal infrastructure works, the ones which
have been modelled, unless they were able to demonstrate something
else, because otherwise you have got a possibility that time moves
on, you do not start away on these works in a timely manner, because
you are keeping all your options open, and time moves on and then
suddenly in 2015 or 2016, with opening date coming in 2017, you
are back to the rail regulator saying, "Can't do it; there
isn't time to do all those works. Crossrail's terribly important,
can we cut the cake in a different way?" Whereas it seems
to us, that provided you are tied to doing the works which you
have relied on so far, the only ones which are in the Environmental
Statement, the only ones which have so far been modelled and which
have been repeatedly included in the model for the last two and
a half years since the Bill was deposited, then that can give
some reassurance to freight, to freight customers and the public
at large. Do you understand the point?
(Mr Berryman) I understand the point, but I would put it
to you another way: as you said earlier in your remarks a moment
ago, it would be up to the discretion of the rail regulator to
decide how the capacity that had been created was allocated. If,
through some oversight or mischance, we failed to build all of
the bits and pieces which were necessary, then it would be up
to him to allocate the space that we could have and the space
that other operators could have. I have found, and I am sure your
clients have found, that the rail regulator takes a fairly robust
line with the infrastructure owner about matters of these sorts;
and I have no doubt he would take an equally robust line with
us.
8194. Mr Berryman, the rail regulator has no
power to make you construct the works. All he can say is, "I
won't give you the paths". If he was doing that he might
say, "You can have X paths but there will have to be a contraction
in the freight paths". Is it not, frankly, much the simpler
course and the clearer course that you commit now to those works
which are the only works you have modelled—you have had
time to think about other ones and have not done so—that
you now commit to them so that we and everyone knows what the
Crossrail scheme is? That is the simple point.
(Mr Berryman) I think my personal response to that would
be, as you just said, circumstances can change between now and
2017; all sorts of things could happen. I will give you a good
example: supposing the Greenford Line, the branch to Greenford,
was converted into a tram train, which is one of the possibilities
which has been considered in the past, then it would be silly
to do all the works which you have just drawn attention to at
West Ealing because it would be no longer needed. Of course that
work is neutral as regards freight movements anyway. Circumstances
may change between now and 2017 as you describe, but the point
is that the mechanism has been set up to use a normal industry
process through the rail regulator to make sure that the paths
which are available are allocated properly in line with national
priorities and with the requirements of the other operators.
8195. CHAIRMAN: Mr George, sooner or
later, you will have to tell us what it is that you want us to
do. The Rail Regulator will be there in 2017, I dare say, but
I can tell you that the Select Committee will not, so therefore
you will have to make it clear what it is that you are asking.
8196. MR GEORGE: We will give you the
precise words of the undertaking we want, but Mr Berryman, I cannot
let you off about Greenford and a tram just for a moment. Let
us just pause for a second. There is no proposal in the Mayor's
Transport Strategy for a tram to Greenford, is there?
(Mr Berryman) Not at the moment, no.
8197. And the Mayor has just delayed work on
the West London Tram and there are at present no proposals for
trams anywhere in west London, are there, within the sort of horizons
which we are thinking about, i.e. up to 2020?
(Mr Berryman) No, of course there are not and I was taking
that as merely a hypothetical example of something which may change.
It just happened to be the slide that is in front of me. The point
you were making and the point that I would agree with you on is
that things may change between now and 2017 and it is up to the
people at the time to make those kinds of decisions. If we have
not achieved or demonstrated that we can achieve 92 per cent PPM
by infrastructure improvements and other mechanisms then, as you
know, we are not entitled to those paths which the Regulator has
allocated to us. They are only allocated to us on the basis that
we achieve that level of output.
8198. Completely theoretically all sorts of
things could change. Indeed, there might not be a need for Crossrail
then but we have to plan on the basis of this. Take that flyover
into Heathrow, there may be a Sunday Times campaign to
shut it down but it is likely that Heathrow is going to be there,
and this Committee can sensibly plan on the basis that Heathrow
will be there with rail services into it, and in that connection
that particular work in your Bill is going to be necessary, is
it not, because otherwise one is going to have chaos on the line?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, absolutely.
8199. All we are saying is if there is going
to be chaos without them, why do you not commit to it? That is
really the limit of the point and you say no, we want flexibility,
is that not right?
(Mr Berryman) That is right, yes.
|
