Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8440
- 8459)
8440. My Lords, I am in your hands as to how
we then deal with that matter.
8441. CHAIRMAN: If you think that you
are going to be able to reach an agreement on the text within
the next few days, I certainly do not want to detain you now.
8442. MR EVANS: Thank you, my Lord. What
we would suggest is that we then write to you within the next
few days to say either that we have received agreement on these
words here, or that we have not received that agreement by the
end of the Committee, at which stage we would be asking you to
recommend or to require the Promoter to enter into an undertaking
in this form, or the form that had been at that stage agreed.
8443. CHAIRMAN: Mr Elvin, how much difficulty
do you envisage?
8444. MR ELVIN: I do not. It is just
going through the formal processes within the various parts of
the Department franchising group to get formal approval. I do
not anticipate there should be any significant difficulty with
this.
8445. CHAIRMAN: If we can avoid re-opening
it it would obviously be a very good thing.
8446. MR ELVIN: We will know this week
and I am sure, if there was an issue, it would not be a long one
and we can deal with it either by correspondence or by a short
appearance next week, but I cannot see there is going to be a
difficulty with this because the principle is just not in dispute.
We are just trying to get the words right.
8447. CHAIRMAN: Very well.
8448. MR EVANS: I agree entirely.
8449. CHAIRMAN: In that case, I think
that is probably the end of the matter for the moment, until we
see the text.
8450. MR EVANS: Quite so. My Lords, we
have a couple of other general points to make.
8451. CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
8452. MR EVANS: Perhaps I may introduce
the one witness I intend to call, Theo Steel, projects director
of National Express East Anglia, who will speak on behalf of ATOC
as a whole.
8453. In the first House, One Railway, now National
Express East Anglia, petitioned separately from ATOC and Mr Steel
spoke on behalf of both. He here represents only ATOC, as the
points have become more general.
MR THEO
STEEL, sworn Examined by
MR EVANS
8454. MR EVANS: Mr Steel, would you introduce
yourself, please?
(Mr Steel) Yes. I am Theo Steel. I have 38 years
of railway experience, previously being managing director of First
Great Eastern. Actually I was in charge of the railways in East
Anglia and put the Parliamentary Bill for Stansted Airport Rail
Link through in 1986 and, as a matter of history, we only got
Stansted airport linked in because we got Manchester linked in
and Tony Lloyd, the member for one of the Manchester constituencies,
is still as active as he was then in promoting the North West
with some success. I was also Managing Director in South Wales
and West in the early 1990s and remember Dame Janet with fondness.
I have also been involved in project-planning the Channel Tunnel
Rail link and its timetable construction. Today I am representing
both ATOC and its members. Following the ORR decision to approve
the proposed track access option, which we welcome, the issue
with which I am concerned today is the impact of construction
of Crossrail. The Association of Train Operating Companies is
an association owned by the train operating companies that provide
franchised rail services throughout Great Britain, as well as
EWS as Mr George mentioned this morning for their charter operations,
and certain non-franchised operators like Eurostar. It is the
official voice of the passenger railway industry and it also provides
its members with a range of services that enable them to comply
with conditions in their franchise agreements and operating licences.
In particular, ATOC has a role in providing information systems
for the passenger railway, ticketing support for through or inter-available
fares, including London Underground, and providing technical input
to planning rail services and network enhancements on behalf of
passengers. ATOC also has a planning role and capability under
which it considers issues beyond the franchise term of its members
and to provide professional input to planning by Government and
national rail on behalf of future train operators. This experience
has been particularly valuable in considering the implications
of the Crossrail project on the national railway network. Five
of ATOC's members are affected by the Crossrail proposals: First
Great Western, National Express East Anglia and London & South
Eastern and Railway are particular affected, and c2c, that is
the railway from Fenchurch Street to Shoeburyness, and Chiltern
Railways are affected to a lesser extent. Franchise changes since
the Bill was deposited have meant that the North London line services
are now part of London Overground Rail, part of the TfL family;
whereas the Integrated Kent Franchise (formerly run by the Strategic
Rail Authority) was won by London & South Eastern Railway.
The map shows the interfaces between Crossrail works and the franchises.[54]
First Great Western's franchise extends until 2016; National Express
East Anglia's until 2014; and London South Eastern until 2012,
but may be extended.
8455. Mr Steel, I wonder if you could point
out where each of the franchisees is, just to make it clear to
their Lordships.
(Mr Steel) That (indicating) is First Great Western; that
is National Express East Anglia; South Eastern, Abbey Wood, along
there; and the affected bit is actually from Stratford into Ilford
because they use the carriage depot at Ilford; and then Chiltern
runs the one train a day from Paddington up to High Wycombe and
Banbury. I think it is worth stressing at this point our strong
support for the principle of Crossrail. It is a major investment
in the railway network and represents a great opportunity to improve
services for passengers in a congested part of the national rail
network; and certainly improves access from the west of London
to the east of London with a lot of benefits. While Crossrail
is important so are the affected franchises which, between them,
operate approximately 1,800 trains per day through the affected
area—almost three times as many as Crossrail proposes. So
in participating in the development of Crossrail we have striven
to balance not only the interests of Crossrail but also the interests
of the passengers of the Great Western, including those from the
South West and south Wales, East Anglia and the integrated Kent
franchises, as well as the Department for Transport's aspirations
for Thameslink, the High Level Output Specification, as was mentioned
this morning Network Rail's rail utilisation studies, the new
successor to the high-speed train, the IEP, and numerous other
not always compatible passenger interests.
8456. Perhaps for the benefit of those of us
who are not railway experts, the IEP stands for?
(Mr Steel) Intercity Express Project.
In addition, while we do not claim to represent freight interests,
we do recognise the importance of their flows on the route and
the need to ensure that infrastructure is in place to handle them.
ATOC was concerned that the Bill as it was introduced gave the
Department for Transport scope to prejudice the operation of the
existing rail passenger services during their franchise term,
and also the integration of the national rail network. We therefore
petitioned against the Bill in both Houses, setting out our support
for the principle but also our concerns about the way in which
it might be implemented, in particular about the construction
impacts on existing services for passengers, the modifications
for the railways' regulatory regime, and the potential hiving
off of parts of the national rail network to Transport for London.
Since we appeared in the House of Commons there have been a number
of further positive changes. There has been a considerable amount
of joint working. In particular, on 3 March 2008 the rail regulator,
ORR, announced that it was minded to approve the Access Option
that would grant Crossrail services the necessary access rights
over the national rail network without the need to use Bill powers.
The Department for Transport gave a statement on 11 April that
it would remove clauses 23 to 34 and add new provisions dealing
with a perceived issue on blocking rights, the Office of the Rail
Regulator reporting: "if the Crossrail Access Option as finally
approved by the ORR is not materially worse for Crossrail than
set out in the proposed decision dated 3 March 2008". ATOC
therefore warmly welcomes the confirmation on 14 April by the
ORR that its 3 March proposed decision would stand, and the Department's
subsequent confirmation last Friday, and repeated this morning,
that it would bring forward the proposed amendments, and we look
forward to seeing them. On this note, ATOC is particularly encouraged
that the Department for Transport has identified section 17 of
the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 as an appropriate
precedent for a new ORR duty, as this is the precedent that we
proposed when I appeared in the House of Commons, see paragraph
13911 of the Commons evidence; and Mr Elvin for the Promoter at
the time said it had "much the same effect" as the Bill
provisions, paragraph 13936. So we have been very happy to see
that change. In addition, the Timetabling Reference Group and
the Timetabling Working Group, which I have been a member of,
have concluded that Crossrail services can be accommodated. Agreement
has been reached in principle that the operation of Crossrail
should be managed by Network Rail as part of the national rail
network and we welcome that. However, we do have still one or
two concerns, in particular the impact during the construction
period.
8457. I think we can move directly on to that
now in view of the words we have heard on the compensation undertaking
earlier today.
(Mr Steel) Regardless of how Crossrail
is constructed, there remains the possibility of construction
interfering with the train services in a way that makes proper
compensation impossible. In particular we were concerned that
the existing powers might make it impossible to access the depots
at Old Oak Common and Ilford at times that enable ATOC members
to run their services effectively. I am minded that Mr Berryman
earlier mentioned that there was a maximum amount of hours, 24,
that the depot at Beckton could be inaccessible on each occasion,
and we are very much under those same sorts of constraints with
our single main depot at Ilford. As an example, we are also concerned
that it may become impossible to meet the Department for Transport's
aspirations for Thameslink, as set out in Key Output 0, and the
increased services on the Redhill to Tonbridge lines envisaged
by the Department for Transport's High Level Output Strategy if
the Plumstead sidings are acquired without reasonable alternatives
being available. The Promoter has already given an undertaking
to the Heathrow Express operating company that she "will
use all reasonable endeavours in the planning and the construction
of the works authorised by the Bill to ensure that such access
to and from Old Oak Common depot, as regards timing and capacity,
is maintained as is required to support the train services operated
by" that company. This undertaking, we believe, should be
extended as a general assurance to cover the depots and services
operated by all the train operating companies, so that if access
to any particular depot is lost replacements elsewhere on the
network will be sought.
8458. Mr Steel, I understand you also still
have some concerns about clause 6 of the Bill?
(Mr Steel) Yes, that is true. ATOC agrees
and believes that, following the clear statement on access rights
for running Crossrail services on the existing Network Rail network,
that the Promoter should now give a clear undertaking that she
will not use clause 6 Bills over train operating companies' running
rights.
8459. Just to assist your Lordships, clause
6 is a provision of the Bill that confers compulsory purchase
powers, unless we have a typo in our reference. Among the rights
and interests that may be acquired compulsorily under that clause
are the current train operating companies' running rights over
the national rail network. In their petition response document
the Promoter said that they had no intention of using these powers
over those running rights; and indeed they thought it was difficult
to see how this could be workable for regulated railway. This
is the clear statement to which Mr Steel, I believe, was referring
just a moment ago?
(Mr Steel) It was indeed.
54 Committee Ref: A47, Crossrail route adjacent franchises
(LINEWD-68_05-001) Back
|
