Examination of Witnesses (Questions 9140
- 9159)
9140. MR TAYLOR: Good afternoon, Mr Garratt.
(Mr Garratt)
Good afternoon.
9141. I want to start off by asking you some
questions about the issue about infrastructure. As I understand
it, the railway timetable models, like Railsyst, which is being
used in this case, can be sensitive to changes in impetus options.
Would you agree with that?
(Mr Garratt) The timetabling exercise
we are talking about today was not Railsyst.
9142. The system that is being used by the ORR
to determine the 92 per cent objective test is Railsyst, as I
understand it.
(Mr Garratt) That will be Railsyst, but
the exercise we are talking about today, which the ORR took comfort
from and so forth, was not Railsyst.
9143. Let us go back to my question about the
railway timetable modelling as opposed to the model that you used
to forecast freight growth. Railway timetable models can be quite
sensitive to changes to their input assumptions.
(Mr Garratt) Are we talking generically
about Railsyst? Yes.
9144. Even small changes in the input assumptions
can have quite significant consequences for network performance
in the model, can they not?
(Mr Garratt) Yes. I repeat my caveat before.
9145. Let us take a hypothetical example of
a hypothetical freight loop that is being added to an existing
network. Precisely where the new junctions for the loop were going
to be located relative to existing junctions may be important
in terms of the timetable modelling, might they not?
(Mr Garratt) They are. May I expand on
that answer?
9146. Yes, certainly.
(Mr Garratt) We are well aware that the
infrastructure measures that we are discussing here today have
not been completely designed. Certainly, there may be means whereby
their designs can be improved upon, so we are not actually asking
today (or I am not asking today, anyway) that every fishplate,
so to speak, is exactly specified. What I would say, though, is
that there needs to be, one, a commitment to replicating the functionality
of each of these measures, otherwise the timetabling exercise
upon which this exercise is predicated is invalid. I think the
ORR's exercise or support and approach here, in going along with
this timetabling exercise, agreed by both parties, carries with
it the implication not just the timetable movements of trains
but on the infrastructure.
9147. The railway timetable models contain assumptions
about signalling, do they not?
(Mr Garratt) They do, but the exercise
that was conducted in this case simply used the Rules of the Plan.
So the implications of improvements in signalling, which Railsyst
could have been sensitive to, would not have been a feature in
this case.
9148. But improvements in optimisation signalling
is something that can be examined as part of the exercise to look
to see whether we can get an uplift from the 71/72 per cent figure
that has been discussed now towards the 92.
(Mr Garratt) Yes, of course.
9149. Other assumptions—let us see. The
assumptions made about the intervals between trains can be changed,
can they not?
(Mr Garratt) Well, if you resignal you
can change the intervals between trains.
9150. The assumptions about the speed of turnout,
across junctions—again, those can be altered, can they not?
(Mr Garratt) That is right. That is my
point. I am not suggesting that the designs are complete, only
that the principles of the infrastructure measures which were
used in the timetabling exercise have to be kept in there, otherwise
the timetabling exercise is useless.
9151. Where we have got to is that when we look
at your client's request for a commitment to specific infrastructure
enhancements, you are unable, at this stage, to produce a design
showing exactly where the junctions are going to go, how long
the freight loop is going to be, you cannot tell me what the speed
of the turnout is going to be. All of those are matters which
you are unable to specify at this stage. That is right.
(Mr Garratt) We took it on trust that
the timetabling exercise done by Crossrail took into account those
infrastructure measures and treated them or modelled them, so
to speak, in a realistic manner.
9152. All of those are matters which, as I understand
it—signalling, precise design, assumptions about train intervals,
assumptions about speed of turnout—that your clients are
happy to leave to the detailed design stage to come, are they
not?
(Mr Garratt) I do not think my clients
would wish to precisely specify every detail. However, what they
would want to be assured of is that their functionality was in
no way compromised.
9153. What I am struggling with, Mr Garratt,
is to understand why it is, then, that your clients say it is
appropriate to allow further detailed work to be done in relation
to signalling, the precise design and layout of the infrastructure,
speed of turnout, intervals of trains, all for optimisation in
the future, but it is saying that we have to specify that particular
items of infrastructure should be committed to at this stage.
(Mr Garratt) My view is it is the functionality
that matters.
9154. Is it not better to adopt the approach
that the ORR has adopted of putting everything into the pot so
that all aspects of the inputs into the timetable modelling can
be considered at one go and looked at as a whole, rather than
taking one little piece out of the equation?
(Mr Garratt) Well, one, that varies from
the practice in a normal planning situation. Hutchison have explained
their experience in that respect. Secondly, it removes a lot of
certainty around other people around the industry, so that we
cannot know whether various measures are going to take place if
Crossrail proceeds. So we could end up with a sort of planning
blight in some cases around some terminals where we do not know
whether Crossrail will proceed and if there are works, and therefore
it is difficult to build on those assumptions in making people's
own plans.
9155. Can I take you, then, in regard to the
issue about certainty, to paragraph 79 of the ORR's final decision,
which is at 05-111.[47]
In terms of the certainty to your client, what they want certainty
in relation to is to particular train paths. That is what they
want certainty in respect of, is it not?
(Mr Garratt) They want certainty as to rail
freight capacity.
9156. They want certainty so that particular
paths are available.
(Mr Garratt) Quantum of paths? Not particularly—
9157. The ORR's decision requires assumptions
to be made that guarantees the current level of freight services
and allows for growth up to 2015.
(Mr Garratt) That is right, yes.
9158. So they already, through the ORR's decision,
have certainty, do they not?
(Mr Garratt) I am not sure I am confident
about that because if these infrastructure measures are not undertaken
and the services start and are discovered to not deliver adequate
performance, and there is inadequate freight capacity, it will
be a bit late then to retrospectively introduce those measures.
9159. If Crossrail starts and capacity enhancements
are not being provided to the extent that the 92 per cent figure
is not achieved, Crossrail loses its access rights, does it not?
(Mr Garratt) So does freight, effectively.
Freight services will also be compromised.
47 Crossrail Ref: P63, The Office of Rail Regulation's
decision on the application for a Track Access Option for Crossrail
passenger services on Network Rail's network, Para 79, 14 April
2008 (LINEWD-34_05-111) Back
| 
