Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 9160 - 9179)

  9160. I hear what you say on that and I will make submissions about your understanding of the ORR access option in a moment. Let me just put one more point to you on this. Would you accept that if the Committee were to require specific infrastructure to be provided now, that has the potential to tie the ORR's hands—and, indeed, Network Rail's hands—for the future, because it would have to continue its planning for the Great Western Line and the Great Eastern Line taking into account that particular requirement and those particular items of infrastructure?

   (Mr Garratt) Yes, it would form a commitment, yes. That is quite normal in the planning environment.

  9161. Presumably you would want to ensure that once that commitment is given that nothing is done by Network Rail or the ORR that would prevent the works that are committed to from coming forward.

   (Mr Garratt) I am sorry, could you put that in a different way?

  9162. Once the Committee, following your client's case, has required that specific infrastructure works do come forward, you presumably would also like to ensure that Network Rail and the ORR in the future do nothing that would preclude those works from coming forward.

   (Mr Garratt) That is right.

  9163. I see. Thank you. Can we turn, then, please, to the pathing exercise that you have undertaken. As I understand it, there is no dispute between us as to the growth figures to 2015 for freight.

   (Mr Garratt) That is right. I believe the DfT—

  9164. You have already explained to the Committee today that, in effect, Crossrail makes, I think, one path difference.

   (Mr Garratt) Yes.

  9165. I am right in saying that the calculation of that one path difference assumed the Crossrail service as it was applied for to the ORR rather than what the ORR actually granted.

   (Mr Garratt) Yes. Lindsay Durham was asked the same question and I concur with that.

  9166. You agree?

   (Mr Garratt) Yes.

  9167. So the one path difference is a number arrived at not taking into account the two off-peak services that the access option, the ORR, did not grant?

   (Mr Garratt) That is right, but we have no other timetabling evidence to go on, so we have no idea whether that makes much difference. I might say, in that respect, the DfT seemed to indicate there was still a wish to run eight trains rather than six in the off-peak on the relevant sections, so that the Promoter's wish is still to achieve the level of train frequency on which the timetabling exercise was predicated. Here again, we would have a difficulty if subsequently those two trains were re-introduced and the infrastructure measures have not been implemented.

  9168. Can we turn, please, to 5-058, which is a page from Mr Garratt's report, and just look at the penultimate paragraph on this page.[48] This is where you are talking about the unconstrained paths, which I think is 406 to 2015.

  (Mr Garratt) That is right.

  9169. You identify here that is to accommodate 211 trains?

   (Mr Garratt): That is right.

  9170. So the numbers you gave to the Committee earlier, the 358 and 357 figures—

   (Mr Garratt): I think I gave 396. 406 was the original figure; Crossrail looked through those numbers, argued a handful were exceptional, and we agreed to reduce it to 396.

  9171. Here are the numbers you identified: without Crossrail, 358; with Crossrail and rail enhancements, 357?

   (Mr Garratt): That is right.

  9172. But we need to place those paths against the 211 trains.

   (Mr Garratt): No. The 211 trains, as it were, correspond to the 396 paths, is the easiest way of putting it.

  9173. CHAIRMAN: Mr Taylor, what is the other document you are looking at?

  9174. MR TAYLOR: That is Mr Garratt's reports you have in the exhibits presented to you by the Rail Freight Group today.

  9175. I have one more point, which is this. You are not arguing or suggesting, are you, Mr Garratt, that the loss of one path justifies the upgrade to the Ipswich-Peterborough-Nuneaton line as necessary prior to Crossrail in order to preserve or protect that path?

   (Mr Garratt): No. I do not understand why you are asking that question.

  9176. You are not suggesting that, are you?

   (Mr Garratt): Sorry—no, I am not suggesting one path would justify the Felixstowe-Nuneaton upgrade, but I do not understand where you get that "one" from.

  9177. And the Peterborough-Nuneaton upgrade is not an infrastructure work that has been included in the modelling, is it?

   (Mr Garratt): No, certainly not. The reason it arose, I believe, in this discussion was that quite clearly in the period when most of the Crossrail works would be done post-Olympics will be the point when, as you can see from these numbers, towards the end of that period there will be inadequate freight capacity on the network, and disrupting traffic through doing works will create further problems, which has been referred to, and therefore there is a very good reason for bringing forward the Felixstowe-Nuneaton capacity upgrade so traffic can be diverted on to those routes. That was the point, I think.

  9178. MR TAYLOR: Mr Elvin has already explored that, so I will not take that further. Thank you.

  9179. CHAIRMAN: You will go on tomorrow, will you?



48   Committee Ref: A52, Crossrail: mitigating the impact on rail freight, MDS Transmodal (LINEWD-34_05-058) 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