Examination of Witnesses (Questions 10060
- 10079)
10060. It must therefore be right that most
of the works associated with Crossrail result in changes to layout
of configuration of the network and so will fall into paragraph
(a) of this definition?
(Mr Oatway) I do not doubt that for one minute.
10061. Therefore, most of the speed restrictions
and the like that you raise your concerns about will relate to
changes in or to any part of the network falling within the definition
of network change and so, therefore, will be compensatable whether
or not there for a day or six years.
(Mr Oatway) Yes, I am not concerned about the most, it is
the others which fall within the definition of (b).
10062. It is (b), it is changes to the operation
of the network which arise as a result of Crossrail but not from
changes relating to the layout or configuration or condition of
the network that you are concerned with?
(Mr Oatway) Yes, can I give an example?
10063. Yes, please.
(Mr Oatway) For example, if an over bridge is being affected,
which is not part of the network, it may cause speed restrictions
to be placed on the railway below which is not being affected,
which is not part of the network change. There might be temporary
restrictions in place while the work is going on on the bridge
above to ensure the safety of the workers working on that bridge.
Those speed restrictions would slow down any trains going underneath
and therefore delay them potentially, lose their paths further
on on the network. That is what the (b)(ii) is saying. If those
disruptions do not last for six months, then they are not compensatable
under the network change.
10064. The network change provisions at the
moment in respect of that sort of example are defined in paragraph
(b) and we can see that where there are changes to the operation
of the network to accommodate the sorts of works that you have
just given an example of, in order for compensation to be attracted
the work will be likely to last for more than six months.
(Mr Oatway) The change to the operation of the network has
to last for more than six months.
10065. A present, if Network Rail wanted to
do some repair to a bridge and it took three or four months, no
train operator would be compensated for losses associated with
that sort of work?
(Mr Oatway) Not under the network change, no.
10066. That is because the industry process
accepts, does it not, that works of that nature should not attract
compensation?
(Mr Oatway) Not under network change, no, not normal day-to-day
works undertaken by Network Rail to renew and maintain its network.
10067. That is because the industry recognises
that there has to be an element of give and take between the train
operating companies and those who need to carry out work to the
network to enable it to continue to operate.
(Mr Oatway) Yes.
10068. Let us move on to the next point. You
also raised concerns about Schedule 4 and Schedule 8.
10069. CHAIRMAN: Mr Taylor, before you
leave that point, on the Great Western Main Line there is going
to have to be installation of overhead electric cables and from
what I have seen elsewhere in the country, this disrupts traffic
because all the bridges have got to be changed in order to accommodate
it. That is not a change to the layout and configuration or condition,
it therefore falls within (b). Is your point that you have just
got to put up with that? It will go over a long distance on the
Great Western Main Line.
10070. MR TAYLOR: My point in relation
to electrification is that it is a change in or to any part of
the network and falls within (a). It is a complete change to the
configuration of the network because it extends electrification
on the Great Western Line into locations where it is currently
not present. Perhaps Mr Oatway would give us the benefit of his
views as to whether or not electrification works fall in (a).
(Mr Oatway) I think you were doing very well, Mr Taylor!
10071. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: I
am struggling a little bit. Who is the arbiter between those categories?
It is obviously quite important. Who decides in—some of
them appear to be fairly black and white—the grey areas
of (a) and (b)? Who is the arbiter?
(Mr Oatway) If there are any disputes between the train operator
and Network Rail over what is or what is not a network change
and whether or not it has lasted for six months or not—
10072. The first point?
(Mr Oatway) That would go to firstly an industry committee
called the Access Disputes Committee who would convene a panel
to hear the case. If one or other of the parties were not happy
with the determination of that panel, then they can appeal to
the Office of Rail Regulation who has the final say.
10073. BARONESS FOOKES: You sit on that,
do you not?
(Mr Oatway) I sit on the Access Disputes Committee, my Lady,
and I may be fortunate enough to be chosen for a particular panel
or not as the case may be.
10074. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: I
hope you declare an interest!
(Mr Oatway) Oh, yes, lots of interests have to be declared.
10075. MR TAYLOR: Can we turn to page
two of EWS-31.[23]
I want to move away from the definition of a network change and
on to deal with Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 of compensation. These
are provisions which under EWS's Track Access Agreement make provision
for compensation for variation to services caused by disruption
arising from possessions on the network.
(Mr Oatway) Yes.
10076. Also in Schedule 8 the Track Access Agreement
makes provision for a performance regime and so there is compensation
payable between Network Rail and EWS for delays to trains and
cancellations. Indeed, EWS may have to pay money if one of its
trains causes delays or cancellations to other operators under
that schedule, is that right?
(Mr Oatway) Yes.
10077. In relation to each of these aspects
of compensation, your point of concern is that the mechanisms
that are already in place industry-wide in Schedule 8 and Schedule
4 of compensation is an industry-wide mechanism, is it not?
(Mr Oatway) Yes, but they vary between freight and passenger
operators, they are distinctly different, whereas the main principle
is passenger operators get compensation for possessions and freight
operators do not.
10078. Your concern here is that if 12 weeks'
notice or greater of a possession is given, then there is no payment
or compensation to EWS?
(Mr Oatway) That is correct.
10079. That identification for a 12-week period
is industry-wide in relation to freight operators, is it not?
(Mr Oatway) These provisions apply to all freight operators,
yes.
23 Committee Ref: A57, Non-compensatable disruption
(LINEWD-103_05A-022) Back
| 
