Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence

Examination of Witnesses (Questions 9040 - 9059)

  9040. MR ELVIN: Ms Durham, do you understand why the Department wrote that letter?

   (Ms Durham): No.

  9041. Do you understand the modelling assumptions which led to that letter being written?

   (Ms Durham): I understand the modelling, yes.

  9042. You are aware that what was modelled was all the paths that were applied for in the access option?

    (Ms Durham): I am aware that what was modelled was based on all the enhancements --

  9043. Just answer my question. What was modelled were all the paths that Crossrail sought in the access option?

   (Ms Durham): That is correct also.

  9044. What was, therefore, modelled were the capacity issues which arose from all the paths being granted by the Regulator?

   (Ms Durham): Yes.

  9045. What the Regulator granted, though, was not all the paths that had been modelled. That is right, is it not?

   (Ms Durham): That is correct.

  9046. Two of the offpeak paths have not been granted?

   (Ms Durham): That is correct.

  9047. So, in fact, what the modelling at the moment does is it models the two paths which have not been granted, so it is modelling for a capacity which will not be impacted upon, in fact, as much as the modelling shows because two of the paths have not been granted?

   (Ms Durham): That is correct, and the reason those two paths were not granted is that Crossrail could not demonstrate to the Rail Regulator that there was demand for those paths.

  9048. But you will understand that the infrastructure improvements that were modelled were predicated on the basis of all the paths being provided and, therefore, there may be scope for adjustment. If those paths remain ungranted, the question of how you achieve the 92 per cent may not require all those infrastructure improvements when you take the two paths out if they are ultimately left out of the access option. That is the only reason for this letter.

   (Ms Durham): I think it is true to say that the model without the two per hour has not been done and, therefore, we do not know what has been done --

  9049. Exactly.

   (Ms Durham): -- but I think it is also true to say that it is very likely that Crossrail will subsequently reapply for those two paths an hour, and we would be very concerned if they did that and these works had not been done. It would be very wise to undertake these works at an early stage rather than very shortly before Crossrail services begin and you would have to do them later.

  9050. I am sorry, Ms Durham, the position is this; if the ORR decides at a future review to include those paths, that will be on such terms as the ORR decides are appropriate having regard to representations from the industry, will it not?

   (Ms Durham): I think it is also important to say --

  9051. What is the answer to my question?

   (Ms Durham): Can you repeat it, please?

  9052. It would help if you would listen; it is the third time you have gone off on a tangent. I would be very grateful if you would do me the courtesy of just focusing on my question, and we will get on much more quickly.

  9053. What the ORR has done is said you may not have two offpeak paths; you will then have a situation where the infrastructure improvements may not be required to the same extent but, if the two extra paths are to be granted, that will be on the basis that the industry will be consulted, and the ORR will grant it on such terms as are appropriate in the circumstances having regard to industry concerns.

   (Ms Durham): The Regulator has not exactly said that. What he has said is that he is not at this stage prepared to grant the two paths an hour, and he has laid out his decision on the modelling process. He has not made a judgment as to whether certain infrastructure will be required or not, because the modelling has not yet been done and no judgment can yet be made.

  9054. Thank you. And, therefore, if he is going to go back to it he will have to follow the procedure under the Railways Act which requires him to consult industry, and then to apply such terms as are appropriate?

   (Ms Durham): Yes. As I said earlier we do not have any problem with the Rail Regulator process. However, we do think that the issue of enhancements is an issue for the Select Committee to decide whether they wish to deal with this issue.

  9055. Now, you told us fifteen minutes ago that your organisation, your company, fully supports the ORR's decision?

   (Ms Durham): Absolutely.

  9056. And it does not want any amendments to be made to that decision?

   (Ms Durham): I would say broadly no. We are still waiting, as we put in our letter to the Regulator, we would like to discuss with him the detail of the modelling because the decision was only a very outline decision and we would like to understand more details.

  9057. I am only reading your own words back to you. You said, "No amendments to that decision", but I understand your qualifications. Can we look at the letter you wrote to the ORR after the original decision, please, exhibit 4B-002, the letter on 16 March.[40] This is Mr Jones in your company?

  (Ms Durham): Yes.

  9058. Who attended the hearing on behalf of your company?

   (Ms Durham): He did.

  9059. And he goes paragraph by paragraph where your company wishes to comment on the provisional decision?

   (Ms Durham): Yes.

40   Crossrail Ref: P63, Correspondence from Freightliner to the Office of Rail Regulation, 16 March 2008 (LINEWD-034_04B-002) 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