Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 10160 - 10179)

  10160. CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr Garratt wants to get away. Firstly, Mr Garratt, you had no part in helping them to reach it except producing some of the inputs.
  (Mr Garratt) No, but, bear with me, I would like to make sure that people do understand the timetabling exercise which led to that consensus. It is a different exercise. It is a traditional railway planning exercise which takes a timetable and attempts to fit more trains into that timetable, and that was acceptable to both sides as a way forward. It took a couple of months. I would like to say that that was an exercise which could be repeated quite quickly to assess whether less infrastructure was required, but the Promoters chose not to do that. Certainly I want to convey that.

  10161. But you told us the other day that your area of expertise does not include modelling PPM?
  (Mr Garratt) That is correct. Absolutely.

  10162. So you had no part in leading them, except for some of the inputs, to produce the figure of 92 per cent?
  (Mr Garratt) That is right. My part was in providing the demand, if you like.

  10163. Which was one of the inputs?
  (Mr Garratt) Yes.

  10164. So you have nothing to say about the figure of 92 per cent, which is what they insisted upon?
  (Mr Garratt) No. I just think that is clearly a railway industry aspiration, and if that level of quality of service is not achieved then less trains can be accommodated on the network.

  10165. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: As I understand it, it is like the Government target for CO2 emissions to be achieved by 2010.
  (Mr Garratt) I must say I am more optimistic about the 92 per cent than the CO2 targets!

  10166. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: But it is a target in that sense.

  10167. MR ELVIN: I was going to try and assist my Lord, Lord Brooke's point—

  10168. CHAIRMAN: I wanted to know what role Mr Garratt played in all of this?

  10169. MR ELVIN: I understand that. Perhaps I can answer Lord Brooke's question after lunch.

  10170. CHAIRMAN: Mr Garratt, I am very grateful to you.

The witness withdrew

The Petition of Trustees of the SS Robin Trust

  10171. CHAIRMAN: Just before we adjourn, Mr Elvin, I think the Committee would like to know before the end of the day about infrastructure managers. How do they get appointed? Is this under the Railways Act? Is this under ROGs?

  10172. MR ELVIN: It is in accordance with the definition—

  10173. CHAIRMAN: Are they able, as I think must be the case, to contract out maintenance work?

  10174. MR ELVIN: Yes. I can show you the provisions later on today.

  10175. CHAIRMAN: If you are not an infrastructure manager like TfL, can you then come along and say: "I want to do one of the contracts", or "I want to be able to contract it out"? Are there powers to do that?

  10176. MR ELVIN: The answer to that is, on the dispute we are having as to who should be the infrastructure manager, it is up to the infrastructure manager as to what is contracted out. If Network Rail is the infrastructure manager, it makes the decisions as to who to contract the works to. If TfL is the infrastructure manager, it will make the decisions as to who to subcontract to.

  10177. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but at the present moment do we know who is going to be the infrastructure manager?

  10178. MR ELVIN: That was the point of the debate yesterday, my Lord. That is an issue which remains to be resolved through the processes I was describing yesterday.

  10179. CHAIRMAN: Can you come back to this and bring us up to date with what is the total situation, because I think we are not entirely clear what the powers of the infrastructure manager are.



 
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