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
| 
