Examination of Witnesses (Questions 9760
- 9779)
9760. When Mr Berryman was giving evidence on
day 21 he said that this particular improvement was neutral in
terms of freights, do you agree with that?
(Mr Smith) I was slightly surprised by that comment because
freight and Crossrail will be sharing the relief lines. If it
is a benefit to Crossrail, then it must also be a benefit to freight
as well.
9761. If we did come on to Southall, which is
the next one.[73]
(Mr Smith) This is a location near Brentford.
The proposal here, and again Mr Berryman explained it and we fully
support the concept, is to place between the relief lines and
the main lines a waiting place for freight trains which are crossing
from the relief lines to the main lines. Why do they cross? Because
the yard at Southall is the only one on the south side of the
line. At the moment, the train will get a green signal here and
will cross all four lines and will hold traffic up in both directions
on all lines. The new freight loop here (indicating) enables a
train to move across into the centre and then, when there is space
on the main line, move across into Southall Yard and it is a much
more efficient use of capacity. Crossrail think it is a great
idea, we think it is a great idea and it is not even one that
requires Bill powers because it is to be built within the existing
railway complex.
9762. This is the one which is dealt with in
the Environmental Statement and they say that it will be built
in the Environmental Statement and we simply ask the Committee
to ensure that. Then if we could come on to Airport Junction,
there is the replacement drawing here at Airport Junction.[74]
We have heard about this on several occasions.
(Mr Smith) This looks like Airport Junction
at night. The difference here is that, because of the intensity
of service from Heathrow Airport, to which Mr Berryman was referring
earlier, some of the services to and from Heathrow will be using
the relief lines, whereas at the moment they are timetabled just
to use the fast lines. The planned additional flyover here (indicating)
will prevent those services from conflicting with services running
up and down the relief lines. Again, like the other two schemes,
this is not something that just benefits freight, it benefits
Crossrail as well and overall increases the capacity on the relief
lines of the Great Western Main Line, so it is something that
all parties want, and I know there were a number of references
to the fact that this is nearly as inevitable as the Acton dive
under and all we are seeking is the commitment and the certainty
that this piece of work will be done.
9763. Is there any obvious alternative to serve
Heathrow?
(Mr Smith) I do not really want to get into a long debate
about the alternatives for serving Heathrow. I think that has
been debated before the Committee, but, if one works on the presumption
that there is to be an increased level of service between Heathrow
and the London area, the only way to get between the two is by
using this infrastructure that has been outlined on this diagram.
9764. We then come to West Drayton please, and
again it is a replacement sheet.[75]
(Mr Smith) There are two associated schemes
here. At the moment, there is a goods loop into which freight
trains will be moved to allow passenger trains to pass and that
allows some measure of flexibility with the existing services,
but it is not ideal and involves conflicting moves around this
junction here (indicating). In the new plan, what is the goods
loop actually becomes the primary operating line to be used by
passenger services, including Crossrail, and freight services,
but now there is a much more effective loop in the centre. It
is a little bit like Southall, I suppose, which can be accessed
from either direction and from both ends and, in so doing, therefore,
prevents trains crossing the paths of what train is coming the
other way. It is a layout which is being used elsewhere on the
UK rail network. For example, it has been introduced at Tring
on the West Coast Main Line and it is being introduced at Milton
Keynes as part of the West Coast Main Line upgrade. Associated
with the construction of the loop is the need to make sure that
the platforms, which already exist, now have platform faces at
which passenger trains can stop and passengers can join or alight,
so at the moment a goods train will pull up from either side of
the platform, but the platform is not fit for purpose for passengers
getting on and off. So there are two pieces of work here, one
to create this bi-directional loop, that is, a loop which is signalled
for trains to go in either direction, but not at the same time,
plus the upgrading of the platform faces to allow them to be used
by passenger trains.
9765. Again, how valuable do you regard that?
(Mr Smith) It is the same as the other works in that it makes
a much more flexible network and makes it for Network Rail, listening
to Mr Gisby's comments earlier, much easier to operate the network
and is, therefore, a benefit for all operators on this route and
all types of traffic, so it is not something that is just for
freight or just for Crossrail or just for the complementary passenger
services. That is something that will make the overall timetable
work much more effectively and I think this one in particular
would be a significant contributor to increasing the public performance
measure for passenger services to the level that customers demand.
9766. Mr Berryman told me that he was not aware
of any designing or modelling of alternatives to these. Have you
come across any alternative freight improvements to these designed
to work in conjunction with Crossrail?
(Mr Smith) I am not aware of any freight alternatives to
the ones that we have described.
9767. Do you think that the Committee could
safely assume that something else might turn up?
(Mr Smith) I do not think that is a safe assumption. I would
have expected within the three years that we have been debating
Crossrail that, if there was some cracking scheme that would miraculously
create capacity and enable all services to operate effectively,
then we would have discussed it within the industry and might
even have brought it forward. The fact is that the schemes that
the Promoters have put forward are sensible and sound ones and
ones on which we would like to rely.
9768. Then Exhibit 26 we have already looked
at in my opening.76 That is the undertaking which is being sought.
Are you able to confirm that it differs in two ways from the undertaking
which was sought in the other place, first of all, because it
is restricted to fewer works? Is that right?
(Mr Smith) That is correct. In the other place we, at a time
of uncertainty, sought an undertaking that all the works in the
Bill should be constructed, whereas this merely relates to five
works to be added to the work that has already been committed
to, the Acton dive under.
9769. Secondly, in the other place we had a
provision in which alternatives could be substituted with the
approval of the appropriate committee chairman, the Chairman of
Ways and Means, and there is no such provision made now. Why is
no provision being made for substitution?
(Mr Smith) Well, I think because at that time we were still
some way from finalising the Bill, there was still some uncertainty,
and we acknowledged that someone might have come up with a wizard
idea to make things work better. Time has moved on, nobody has,
and we are very close to the Bill being approved and the works
starting, so I think we really
76 Committee Ref: A57, Undetaking in relation
to key railway infrastructure works (SCN-20080430-055)
do need to be more definitive now and say, "These
are the works that make the Great Western work for freight, but
also make it work for Crossrail and make it work for other passenger
services".
9770. MR GEORGE: Thank you very much
indeed, Mr Smith.
9771. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr George.
Mr Elvin, if I remember rightly, the last time we dealt with undertakings
about infrastructure work, it took you more than five minutes
in cross-examination.
9772. MR ELVIN: I will be a little more
than five minutes with this witness, I should think.
9773. CHAIRMAN: It might be better perhaps
to leave it until tomorrow.
9774. MR ELVIN: I think it certainly
would be, and I have something else that I need to do, so would
welcome the Committee rising now rather than sitting late, but
we certainly would need to sit until 5.30 at least, I should think.
9775. CHAIRMAN: Well, shall we stop now?
9776. MR ELVIN: I would be very grateful,
thank you. Your Lordships, we will deal with EWS to conclude tomorrow
and then Lord Berkeley comes back with the Rail Freight Group
after that.
9777. CHAIRMAN: We are going to have
Mr Garratt again, are we not?
9778. MR ELVIN: To be re-examined, I
think, yes. My Lords, what I propose to do by way of closing submissions
is to give one set of closing submissions at the end, if that
is convenient to the Committee, rather than separate them?
9779. CHAIRMAN: Both for them and EWS?
73 Committee Ref: A57, Southall (LINEWD-103-05A-011) Back
74
Committee Ref: A57, Airport Junction (SCN-20080430-065) Back
75
Committee Ref: A57, West Drayton (SCN-20080430-066) Back
| 
