Examination of Witnesses (Questions 9740
- 9759)
9740. Is it your concern to ensure that the
introduction of Crossrail services does not disadvantage your
rail freight and the growth of rail freight services?
(Mr Smith) We want a solution that enables the freight services,
the Crossrail services and the other passenger services to be
accommodated on all the routes in question.
9741. Can we then move on to the capacity enhancements
in the Bill and we are going to come to a number of exhibits dealing
with this matter. I think first you have a comment to make generally?
(Mr Smith) I think the only way, to follow on from my previous
statement, that we can ensure that Crossrail services, other passenger
services and rail freight can co-exist in the future is through
the provision of additional infrastructure to cope with the increased
demand for all kinds of rail activity. This is a high level problem
that, as a rail industry, we are facing with growth in passenger
numbers, the highest for 50 years, the highest level of freight
activity at the moment we have had for 30 years and expectations
of growth supported and endorsed by government in all sectors.
Providing the appropriate infrastructure is the way that growth
can be accommodated.
9742. Can you just tell the Committee briefly
about the Acton Yard dive-under?
(Mr Smith) The Acton Yard dive-under is important. It will
be used by Crossrail services travelling to London that will effectively
leave the surface and dive underneath a line which will enable
freight trains leaving Acton Yard and travelling away from London
both to operate without conflict. We were very pleased when the
Promoter gave a commitment to provide the Acton Yard dive-under;
without it, it would have been a major conflict on that part of
the Great Western Main Line.
The Committee suspended from 4.15 pm to
4.26 pm for a Division in the House
9743. CHAIRMAN: Mr George, shall we see
if we can finish Mr Smith's evidence-in-chief this afternoon?
9744. MR GEORGE: Yes, my Lord. If we
could go straight, then, to exhibit 22, that, I think, lifts the
totality of the freight works which are included in Schedule 1
of the Bill.[69]
Is that right?
(Mr Smith) In Schedule 1 of the Bill, correct,
and, also, in the Environmental Statement which assessed the effects
of Crossrail on the basis that these enhancements to the rail
network would be constructed. Not only has provision been made
by the Promoter in both the Bill and the Environmental Statement
for infrastructure works, the timetabling work has also assumed
that nearly all of these capacity enhancements will be constructed
by the time Crossrail services become operational.
9745. Just pausing there: their Lordships will
be able to see in the right-hand column there that you have explained
the position as to whether they were included in the timetable
work, and in the case of most of them there is a straight "yes";
in the case of some of them there is a "partially",
in which case there is a note at the end of the table dealing
with it, and in, I think, just one case a "no" appears.
We can see that so far as most of them are concerned, they were
in the timetabling, and so far as the five, in effect, of which
you are seeking an undertaking, they are all within the category
which has been timetabled.
(Mr Smith) That is correct.
9746. Can we turn to the position about the
ORR?
(Mr Smith) Yes. During the Bill's passage through the House
of Commons, it was made very clear that the Promoter was not prepared
to commit to Parliament to undertake the infrastructure works
for which powers are being sought. The Promoter did offer one
commitment, and that was to build the new dive-under at Acton.
The Promoter suggested that the appropriate mechanism for addressing
infrastructure requirements would be through the imposition of
conditions by the Office of the Rail Regulator, upon the grant
of any access option to the Promoter. When we first appeared in
the House of Commons, the Promoter's counsel, Nathalie Lieven
QC, told the Committee (I am quoting from the transcript here):
"If Petitioners, through the Crossrail Bill, remain concerned
about access option issues after it has been considered by the
ORR then they will have the opportunity to raise that in the House
of Lords Committee. I do, therefore, say that it would be both
premature and probably pointless to spend time on that at this
stage."
9747. That was Day 51, 11 July 2006, paragraph
14651.
(Mr Smith) It seems to me that the Promoter's message at
that time was this: these infrastructure discussions are for another
day. The Committee will appreciate the unfinished nature of these
discussions, and this was reflected in the final report of the
House of Commons Select Committee at paragraph 141, which says:
"We look to the Committee in the House of Lords to ensure
that the access option and any other remaining issues relating
to the freight industry are adequately evaluated."
9748. We come on to the ORR's decision.
(Mr Smith) As the Committee knows, the ORR has now decided
to approve the Crossrail track access option. The ORR's approach
was not to make the grant of the Crossrail access option conditional
upon the construction of specific enhancements to the rail network.
Instead, its approach was to focus upon outputs—that is,
the number of train paths the network ought to be able to accommodate
when Crossrail services became operational. We understand why
the ORR has adopted this approach; it is the duty of the ORR to
regulate the use of the rail network to ensure that the cake is
sliced up fairly, so to speak. The ORR can only ensure each operator
is given a portion; it cannot determine the size of the cake itself.
That, in this case, is a matter for Parliament, and that is why
provision has been made in the Bill for the construction of network
improvements.
9749. Do you see any reason why the Promoter
should not be required to construct at least some of the infrastructure
works?
(Mr Smith) I think it is perfectly reasonable to be required
to; it is not as if these infrastructure works are only going
to benefit one party. When we look at the detail, all the users
of the network will benefit from the infrastructure works. I should
also make the point, of course, that the capacity enhancements
are assumed in the timetabling work that has been carried out.
I am referring to the timetabling work done a couple of years
ago now, but, also, and more importantly, the more recent timetabling
work carried out by Network Rail and relied upon by the ORR in
reaching its final decision on the access option.
9750. What is the latest position so far as
train paths are concerned?
(Mr Smith) Network Rail's performance and systems modelling
report that 357 out of the 396 freight paths that were needed
by 2017 could be accommodated although, as has been raised a number
of times, this could only be done at this stage with a public
performance measure of 71 per cent.
9751. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, Mr Smith,
whose model is that?
(Mr Smith) This is Network Rail's performance and systems
modelling report. Network Rail, effectively, has—
9752. Submitted to the ORR?
(Mr Smith) Indeed, yes. Now that the ORR has concluded that
the Crossrail off-peak service ought to be reduced, all 396 freight
paths ought to be able to be accommodated. But that will only
be the case if the capacity enhancements upon which the timetabling
work relied are actually constructed.
9753. MR GEORGE: How long has this timetabling
work been going on for?
(Mr Smith) It seems like forever but it is actually only
two-and-a-half years, with at least two different groups convened
by the Promoter. This is not a swift process. I think our concern
is that the Promoter's unwillingness to commit to construct the
infrastructure is only going to result in more and more timetabling
runs taking place, with the uncertainty continuing as to whether
the paths for all operators—freight, other passenger and
Crossrail—will be accommodated on the routes in question.
However, if the Promoter agreed to build the infrastructure, or
just some of the infrastructure—we are not arguing for all
of it, by any means—then this would provide a firm basis
upon which to complete the timetabling work; rather than assuming
that the capacity and the modifications will be there, we actually
know they will be. It just seems to us it would be extremely frustrating
and fruitless for the Promoter to realise in nine years' time
that the timetabling does not work and that they really ought
to have constructed the infrastructure in the first place. I suppose,
really, our concern here is the ORR has proposed a mechanism which
if, nearer the time, the model were to show that the Crossrail
paths and freight paths could not be accommodated, then there
are solutions available, but there certainly, by that time, would
not be enough time for the infrastructure improvements to be put
in place to correct the problems found in nine or ten years' time.
Now, we hope that in the circumstances where there was a conflict
or there was too much traffic for the capacity available that
the decision would be made that the rail industry's freight paths
would be retained. However, the ORR has made it very clear that
we cannot rely on any freight paths. The ORR goes out of its way,
in its final conclusions, to say that the capacity that it is
calling "freight" in its conclusion does not belong
to the rail freight industry and might not be used for rail freight
industry purposes. Indeed, it is possible they could be used for
the restoration of the two off-peak paths that have currently
been caused by the ORR to be withdrawn. So we have no guarantee
that the ORR will hold Crossrail to the decision that has been
made. We need some assurances that new infrastructure will be
constructed because that way, rather than saying to our customers:
"Don't worry, there is an industry model in place, there
is an objective test and there are lots of administrative mechanisms
to protect your interests", the building of the infrastructure
says we can go to our customers now (and operating freight by
rail is not something that is done overnight, it is something
that requires some planning) and say: "In the future we will
be able to operate your services on the Great Western Main Line.
Without the commitment on the infrastructure we are left relying
on a process that is untested and uncertain. Of course, it is
going to be eight or nine years from now before it is put to the
test, by which time it is really going to be too late.
9754. What do you say about the Promoter's argument
on flexibility?
(Mr Smith) Certainly, the Promoter mentions flexibility quite
a lot, but what is curious about this is that the Promoter says:
"We are not sure about the infrastructure or the design or
whether we want this bit here or that bit there", but we
have not yet got any evidence to suggest that the infrastructure
works which the Promoter is seeking powers for are anything other
than absolutely necessary. The Promoter has not identified alternative
works, he has not environmentally assessed alternative works.
Although we talk about flexibility the only game in town seems
to be the infrastructure that is presumed in the Bill.
9755. Has the Promoter got the power to construct
alternative works unless they are within this Bill?
(Mr Smith) He does not have that power.
9756. If we then go to exhibit 23, please, I
think you have sought to put up a summary, really, of the argument.[70]
Perhaps you can quickly take the Committee through EWS 23.
(Mr Smith) We believe that the current timetabling
position produces a very low performance on the network. So, therefore,
it is in everybody's interests—in fact, need—to increase
the planned performance to 92 per cent to match that which the
Government requires for the whole railway anyway by 2014. Therefore,
there is going to be a need to increase capacity on the network
and on the Great Western Main Line anyway. There are no alternatives.
The works in the Bill are, as we say, the only game in town. The
Bill has been deposited for three years and no alternative works
have been suggested. Nobody has yet said, despite the Bill having
been lodged for three years, that any of the works in the Bill,
other than the switch of the depot from Romford to Old Oak Common,
are unnecessary. There is flexibility in the Bill to vary the
works within their limits. The Environmental Statement assumes
the work will be constructed. The Environmental Statement has
not assessed the effect of a reduction in freight capacity—in
fact, the Promoter has said there is no effect on freight. The
ORR has come up with a series of novel, clever mechanisms to create
assurances for all users of the network. As mechanisms, those
do not, in themselves, increase capacity; they merely work out
who gets that capacity if there is a problem. So, agreeing and
deciding now that some of those infrastructure works should be
put in place gives more certainty to the Promoter, to the Petitioners,
to the current users of the network and the future users of the
network; it reduces the chance of delay to the project and reduces
the chance of cost overruns if at the last moment people are having
to rush around to do things in an emergency to cover shortfalls
in capacity on the network. To repeat the point I made earlier,
the ORR's role is to cut the cake. This Committee can make it
larger. How is that? Because the role of the ORR is to allocate
capacity amongst competing users of railway, whereas this Committee,
in its planning permission role, can balance the interests of
the Promoter with the private interests effected by the Bill and
can ensure that capacity is increased by requiring an undertaking
that certain works are committed to be built.
9757. We then come to Exhibit 24, there are
listed the six works which you regard as most important, is that
right? [71]
(Mr Smith) That is correct.
9758. The first of those is the Acton dive under
in respect of which the Promoters have already given an undertaking,
which I have already referred to. Can we have on the screen EWS-24.
(Mr Smith) We looked at the works that are contained in the
Bill and we have identified six which we believe are crucial for
the capacity for all users of the Great Western Main Line. The
first has already been committed to by the Promoter, the Acton
dive under that we have discussed before, the others, West Ealing,
Southall and Hanwell Bridge, Airport Junction, West Drayton and
Iver are the others. Perhaps I should make the point that we are
not the only people arguing for the importance of these works;
Mr Berryman also presented these works to the Committee on day
21 and spoke to each of them. The paragraph references where Mr
Berryman described the benefits of each of these works is in the
right-hand column of this exhibit.
9759. That may be of assistance for doing some
cross-checking if your Lordships feel it appropriate. Could we
then turn to a brief look at these particular works and could
we first of all go to EWS 25.[72]
We start with the new West Ealing platform. Could we put that
on the screen? I apologise to the Committee that there were two
plans which have needed a small revision to them and that is now
being handed around, but the revision does not apply to the first
couple we are going to look at. It is EWS 25, starting with the
new West Ealing platform. Could you talk us through this?
(Mr Smith) The new platform at West Ealing allows
the service from Greenford to terminate at West Ealing. At the
moment they travel through to Paddington and take up space on
the relief lines in both directions. By going into the platform
of West Ealing it creates more space on the relief lines. It is
not just for freight services, it is for the Crossrail services
as well. Again, this is something which is of benefit to all the
users of the route by cutting short a little used service compared
with the others in West Ealing and allowing more capacity on the
main relief line.
69 Committee Ref: A57, List of Promoter's enhancements
(LINEWD-103_05A-004 to -005) Back
70
Committee Ref: A57, Justification for key railway infrastructure
works (LINEWD-103_05A-008) Back
71
Committee Ref: A57, Key railway modifications in the Crossrail
Bill (LINEWD-103-05A-009) Back
72
Committee Ref: A57, New West Ealing Platform (LINEWD-103-05A-010) Back
|
