Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 10140 - 10159)

  10140. Which was it that the ORR did? Was that forecasting?
  (Mr Garratt) Can I explain?

  10141. Yes, you will have to, because I do not understand.
  (Mr Garratt) If I can just briefly explain the process we went through and you can stop me if I am repeating myself, we produced forecasts for a number of trains by origin, destination, time of day and so forth.

  10142. This is EWS?
  (Mr Garratt) No, this is on behalf of the Rail Freight Group and the other Petitioners which I am representing. That forecast was agreed by Crossrail and Network Rail and so forth, and half the exercise was conducted by Crossrail between October and December last year to assess whether those trains could be accommodated. It has been Crossrail's contention for some time that the impact of Crossrail's trains and infrastructure measures would, as it were, compensate, and that there would be no net harm to the ability of the network to accommodate future freight growth. That timetabling exercise and, as it were, my forecast, were introduced as evidence to the ORR hearing by the Promoters and supported by the DfT.

  10143. The number you saw in my presentation two days ago of a demand of 396 trains, and the number that could be accommodated if Crossrail did not happen of 358 and if it did happen 357, which is effectively the same number, were all agreed.[29] The point I was trying to make from that evidence was that this is the only timetable exercise in town, as it were. The timetable is effectively the combination of train movements and infrastructure, and the one without the other makes no sense, and we are therefore unable to assess what impact withdrawing any infrastructure measures would have. It would definitely have a detrimental effect, and I think it is fair to say that that evidence there with the infrastructure measures was what Crossrail was relying upon in describing no net impact, no damage. That is my position. The forecasts themselves are drawn—

  10144. I am not asking you what Crossrail thought; I am asking you what the ORR did. Did they accept those figures?
  (Mr Garratt) Yes, I believe they did.

  10145. And they also, as one of the inputs, although their decision was not based upon inputs, accepted the infrastructure changes?
  (Mr Garratt) That is right.

  10146. They included them?
  (Mr Garratt) Yes.

  10147. So both those elements are in?
  (Mr Garratt) Both those elements were in the agreed forecasting and modelling exercise, so the ORR accepted them, I think, because there was no contention between the parties in that respect. It was a co-operative exercise.

  10148. They then proceeded to reach a decision not on inputs but upon output?
  (Mr Garratt) That is correct.

  10149. And I think you told us the other day, and it is here somewhere, that you are not an expert on modelling for PPM?
  (Mr Garratt) That is correct.

  10150. They presumably had to do that?
  (Mr Garratt) They will have to. The exercise is as yet undone, that is right.

  10151. The ORR must have done that?
  (Mr Garratt) No, it is for Crossrail to do that.

  10152. The ORR did no modelling at all?
  (Mr Garratt) No. The Promoters are doing all the modelling and presenting those results to the ORR. Someone I am sure will tell me if I am wrong in that respect.

  10153. Well, you raised this and I am asking you about it. Did the ORR have before them a model which dealt with output in terms of PPM?
  (Mr Garratt) The only Railsys modelling, the performance modelling that has been done so far, was the version that produced I think a 71 per cent PPM, but that is not based upon all the existing infrastructure because it did not include the Barking-Gospel Oak measure. It included the rest of the infrastructure.

  10154. Are you saying that they had no model which led them to their PPM demand of 92 per cent?
  (Mr Garratt) I think that is probably fair comment, yes. They simply asked the Promoter to be able to deliver 92 per cent PPM. I really do not want to mislead anyone here --

  10155. MR TAYLOR: I think I might be able to assist here. The position before the ORR was that there had been a first iteration of the Railsys model which had the inputs that you have been discussing with Mr Garratt, and that work had identified a PPM figure of 71 per cent.

  10156. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I remember that.

  10157. MR TAYLOR: There was then discussion of what the PPM figure needed to be in order for there to be an efficient running of the network, and during that discussion a number of figures were referred to, but you will recall reference to Mr Morris from Cross London Rail Link who gave evidence to the effect that 95 per cent was what they really needed to aim for, and that 92 per cent was really the lower end of the range of acceptability from CLRL's point of view. So the 95/92 per cent PPM figures are not the result of the modelling, the result of the modelling to date has shown 71/72 per cent, but the 92 per cent figure that has been adopted by the ORR is the figure that the ORR thinks will result in an acceptable operation of the railway, so that is the figure that has to be achieved by the tweaks, if I can call them that --

  10158. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I know, but what I am trying to get at is how did they reach it.

  10159. MR TAYLOR: How did they reach the 92 per cent figure? You have already had some evidence today, my Lord, regarding—



29   Committee Ref: A52, Crossrail and freight capacity modelling (LINEWD-34_05-033) 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