IN PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

SESSION 2005-06

CROSSRAILBILL

P E T I T I O N

Against the Bill - On Merits - Praying to be heard by Counsel, &c.

TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OFGREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED

THE HUMBLE PETITION of:

ENGLISH WELSH & SCOTTISH RAILWAY LIMITED

SHEWETH as follows:—

1 A Bill (hereinafter referred to as "the Bill") has been introduced into and is nowpending in your Honourable House intituled "A Bill to make provision for arailway transport system running from Maidenhead, in the County of Berkshire,

and Heathrow Airport, in the London Borough of Hillingdon, through centralLondon to Shenfield, in the County of Essex, and Abbey Wood, in the London

Borough of Greenwich; and for connected purposes.".

2 The Bill is promoted by the Secretary of State for Transport (hereinafter called

"the Promoter").

Relevant Clauses of the Bill

3 Clauses 1 to 20 of the Bill together with Schedules 1 to 9 make provision for theconstruction and maintenance of the proposed works including the main works setout in Schedule 1. Provision is included to confer powers for various building andengineering operations, for compulsory acquisition and the temporary use of and

3387986.11

entry upon land, for the grant of planning permission and other consents, for thedisapplication or modification of heritage and other controls and to governinterference with trees and the regulation of noise.

Clauses 21 to 44 of the Bill together with Schedule 10 make provision for the

application with modifications and the disapplication in part of the existing

railways regulatory regime which is contained in, and in arrangements made

under, the Railways Act 1993 and associated legislation. In particular, theyprovide for the disapplication of licensing requirements, the imposition of specialduties on the Office of Rail Regulation ("ORR"), the modification of railway

access contracts and franchising agreements and the disapplication of railway

closure procedures and of the need for consent from Transport for London in

relation to impacts on key system assets. Provision is also included to enable

agreements to be required as between the nominated undertaker and controllers ofrailway assets, to govern the basis for arbitration and to provide for the transfer ofstatutory powers in relation to railway assets.

Clauses 45 to 59 of the Bill together with Schedules 11 to 14 contain

miscellaneous and general provisions. These include provision for the making of

transfer schemes, the designation of nominated undertakers, the devolution of

functions and as respects other actions to be taken by the Secretary of State.Provision is also made in particular for the disapplication or modification of

various additional miscellaneous controls, for the treatment of burial grounds, for

the application of provisions of the Bill to future extensions of Crossrail, for the

particular protection of certain specified interests and as respects arbitration.

Your Petitioners and their properties

Your Petitioners are English Welsh & Scottish Railway Limited (EWS), a privatelimited company (Company No. 02938988) and Britain's largest rail freight

operator. Your Petitioners are the only rail freight operator to provide a fullnationwide service. Your Petitioners currently haul over 100 million tonnes of rail

freight, including more than 20 million tonnes of construction materials, each year

and operate over 6,000 services each week. Your Petitioners' registered office is

3387986.11

McBeath House, 310 Goswell Road London EC IV 7LW. Your Petitioners holdlicences under section 8 of the Railways Act 1993 (c. 43) ("the 1993 Act") to

operate railway assets throughout Britain and are party to access agreements

approved or entered into pursuant to section 17 or 18 of the 1993 Act, which arefor routes that cross or use part or all of, the Crossrail routes identified by the Bill.

Your Petitioners own or have an interest in the following properties, which are

subject to compulsory acquisition or use under the Bill:

BOROUGH OF SLOUGH

Parcels: 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79 and 87

Property: Slough

Description: Land and siding

BOROUGH OF SLOUGH

Parcels: 226, 239,240, 241,242, 243, 244, 245 and 247

Property: Langley

Description: Land and siding

LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON

Parcels: 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52,

55, 56,57 and 58

Property: West Drayton

Description: Land, siding and ancillary buildings

3387986.11

LONDON BOROUGH OF BALING

Parcels: 8 and 17

Property: Southall Yard

Description: Land and siding

LONDON BOROUGH OF HALING

Parcels: 32, 36, 37, 38, 44,45, 48, 50, 52 and 54

Property: Hanwell Bridge

Description: Ballast land and siding

LONDON BOROUGH OF BALING

Parcels: 153, 162, 166, 175, 176,179 and 181

Property: Acton

Description: Land and goods terminal

LONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM

Parcels: 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12

Property: Old Oak Common

Description: Land and Traction Maintenance Depot

4

CITY OF WESTMINSTER

Parcels: 25 and 27

Property: Paddington New Yard

Description: Land, siding and buildings

LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS

Parcels: 1243 and 1396

Property: Bow Midland Yard West

Description: Land and siding

LONDON BOROUGH OF NEWHAM

Parcels: 293, 294, 304, 307, 309, 310, 313, 314, 326, 327, 328, 329 and 376

Property: Bow Midland Yard East

Description: Land and siding

In addition, your Petitioners own or have an interest in railway apparatus andrunning rights in the areas of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead,

Borough of Slough, District of South Bucks, London Borough of Hillingdon,

London Borough of Baling, City of Westminster, London Borough of Tower

Hamlets, London Borough of Newham, London Borough of Greenwich, London

Borough of Bexley, London Borough of Redbridge, London Borough of Barking& Dagenham, London Borough of Havering, Borough of Brentwood and District

of Basildon which, whilst not subject to the compulsory purchase or use proposals

of the Bill, are in the immediate vicinity of the proposed works and so liable to beinjuriously affected by them.

3387986.11

10

Your Petitioners also note from the Bill and documentation deposited with it thatfurther Crossrail scheme extensions are safeguarded or proposed to besafeguarded, beyond Maidenhead to Reading and beyond Abbey Wood toEbbsfleet. These extensions would have an impact on further parts of the national

rail network, and the interests of your Petitioners who operate train services on

both of these routes. The extensions would therefore need to allow for the

continued operation and growth of your Petitioners' rail services, providing

sufficient capacity and capability for rail freight. It is respectfully submitted thatprovision should be made for your Petitioners to comment on, and influence, any

proposals to extend the Crossrail network.

Your Petitioners and their rights, interests and property are injuriously affected by

the Bill, to which your Petitioners object for the reasons, amongst others,

hereinafter stated.

Your Petitioners' concerns

11 Your Petitioners are not opposed in principle to the construction of the new

railway transport system for which the Bill provides, but are concerned as to the

impact that the works and system will have on their business and property. The

scheduled works detrimentally interfere with and affect the property and apparatus

of your Petitioners and their customers at many points along the line of the route.

12 Your Petitioners object to the Bill on the grounds that it does not afford sufficient

safeguards to the continued and future operation of facilities and routes used in the

daily operation of your Petitioners' and their customers' businesses in the areas

concerned, and that as a result your Petitioners will suffer reduced rail freight

carriage tonnage which will be displaced onto the roads.

13 Your Petitioners consider it imperative that the powers proposed to be conferredby the Bill should only be exercised so that there is no interruption with or

interference to the operation of rail freight services or rail freight customers. If,

however, interruption or interference is inevitable then your Petitioners consider

that any such interruption or interference should be kept to an absolute minimum

and that it is only appropriate that your Petitioners and their customers should be

folly compensated for all losses, costs and expenses incurred and suffered as a

result.

Site-specific concerns

Slough depot

14 The Slough depot provides a run-around loop for freight terminals at West

Drayton (EWS) and West Drayton ARC, which can only be accessed by trains

arriving from the west. The Slough property can also be used by the military forequipment and supply transport. Your Petitioners are planning to develop the site

further for use in conjunction with Slough Industrial Estate to provide an "at the

door" rail freight service to estate tenants. In compulsorily acquiring the site, the

Promoter would prevent your Petitioners from developing services for Slough rail

freight customers and force freight trains to travel greater distances to alternative

run-around facilities. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended torequire the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would avoid

disruption to the Slough depot, your Petitioners and their tenants. If site

interruption is, however, required for the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill,

your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be kept to an absolute

minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should be made

available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary or

permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of the site.

Langley

15 The Langley property provides a concreted siding adjoining the station at Langley,

which is ideal for rail-served businesses. Your Petitioners are currently innegotiation with a potential tenant for long-term use of the property as a national

distribution centre where rail-delivered goods are held for onward distribution by

road, and vice versa. Your Petitioners are also in negotiation with another

potential tenant who wishes to use another part of the property for the disposal, by

rail, of spoil generated in the area. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be

3387986.11

amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would

avoid disruption to the Langley property, your Petitioners and their prospective

tenants. If site interruption is, however required for the works authorised byClause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be keptto an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities shouldbe made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary

or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of thesite.

West Dray ton

16 The West Drayton property is currently tenanted by Lafarge Aggregates Ltd,

which holds a long term lease of the property. Lafarge Aggregates Ltd operates arail-served aggregate storage and distribution business from the property, whichcurrently services Greater London handling over 100,000 tonnes of aggregate a

year. West Drayton also provides access to the Colnbrook branch line, which isheavily used by freight trains serving the aggregates terminal at Thorney Mill, theoil terminal at Colnbrook and the Heathrow Airport Terminal 5 development alsoat Colnbrook. All of these site-specific rail freight services would be severely

disrupted by the Promoter's proposed Crossrail services. Your Petitioners submitthat the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative

proposal that would avoid disruption to the West Drayton property, yourPetitioners and their tenants. If site interruption is, however, required for theworks authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such

interruptions should be kept to an absolute minimum and that suitable alternativeproperty and facilities should be made available to your Petitioners by way of

mitigation, either on a temporary or permanent basis depending on the Promoter'sproposed long term use of the site.

Southall

17 The Southall property is an essential run-around facility for freight services

travelling to and from the Brentford Branch. It is heavily used by freight trainsdestined for the Day Group facility located at Brentford, which receives 300,000

tonnes of aggregate by rail each year. In addition freight services departing from

the West London Waste Authority terminal, also located on the Brentford Branch,

use the Southall run-around facility. In this respect approximately 200,000 tonnes

of containerised domestic waste and material for recycling moves through theSouthall site by rail each year. The rail infrastructure on the site also provides

recessing and stabling facilities for freight services clear of the main line in times

of congestion, emergency and planned engineering works. The Promoter'sproposed Crossrail services would not allow for continued use of the property by

either the West London Waste Authority or the Day Group, with the likely effect

of transferring 500,000 tonnes of rail freight to road. The site is also of great

importance as it is one of the few locations on the south side of the Great WesternMain Line (GWML) that allows for the formation and stabling of the longest

freight trains that operate over that section of the GWML. Your Petitioners submit

that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative

proposal that would avoid disruption to the Southall property, the Brentford

branch line, your Petitioners and their tenants. If site interruption is, however,

required for the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submitthat such interruptions should be kept to an absolute minimum and that suitable

alternative property and facilities should be made available to your Petitioners by

way of mitigation, either on a temporary or permanent basis depending on the

Promoter's proposed long term use of the site.

Hanwell Bridge

18 Hanwell Bridge is an essential location for the efficient and effective operation of

freight services on the congested GWML between Reading and Acton. Trains are

regularly planned to use Hanwell Bridge and it is frequently utilised during times

of perturbation and disruption to the network for holding freight services clear of

the main line that are unable to access Acton Yard or the North London Line. Thelength of its sidings makes it one of the few locations on the north side of the

route that can accommodate the longest freight services that operate over that

section of the GWML. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended torequire the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would avoiddisruption to the Hanwell Bridge property and to your Petitioners' services using

3387986.11

the site. If site interruption is, however, required for the works authorised byClause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be keptto an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should

be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary

or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of thesite.

Acton

19 The Acton property is fundamental to your Petitioners' London rail freight

business, comprising two rail-served aggregate business tenants. YeomanAggregates and Hanson Aggregates operate aggregate processing, storage and

distribution facilities on the site, which together receive 590,000 tonnes of

materials a year by rail. Acton is the major hub for your Petitioners' services onthe GWML in London. It is equivalent to Paddington station for the freightrailway. It is a major freight yard, with connections to both the east and west. Inorder to make the most economic use of scarce railway timetable pathways, long"jumbo" trains of aggregates from the Mendip quarries are brought to Acton to be

split into two or three separate trains, each for a different destination in London

and the South-East. Acton is ideal for its function as it is strategically placed so

that all freight terminals in and around central London and all main lines radiatingfrom London can be reached. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should beamended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would

avoid disruption to the Acton property, your Petitioners and their tenants. If,

however, site interruption is required for the works authorised by Clause 1 of the

Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be kept to an absolute

minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should be made

available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary or

permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of the site.

Old Oak Common

20 The Old Oak Common property houses the traction maintenance depot for themaintenance of your Petitioners' own locomotives, Virgin Crosscountry

10

passenger trains, passenger charter train rolling stock and other commercial rail

operators' rolling stock on a contracted regular, or ad hoc basis. The property

provides extensive stabling facilities that are used in conjunction with the traction

maintenance operations carried out on the site. The property houses one of only

two rail turntables in central London but relies on access from the east requiring

all trains entering the property from the west to run-around or reverse using the

Kensal Green run-around facility. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be

amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would

avoid disruption to the Old Oak Common property, your Petitioners and their

tenants. If, however, site interruption is required for the works authorised by

Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be kept

to an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should

be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary

or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of thesite.

Paddington New Yard

21 The Paddington New Yard property houses your Petitioners' rail-served concrete

batching plant and associated infrastructure. The concrete batching plant is

operated by Tarmac Limited and is the most central concrete batching plant in

London, serving the local building and construction industry. The Promoter's

proposed Crossrail services would not allow for continued use of the property by

Tarmac Limited, with the likely effect of transferring 100,000 tonnes of freight

from rail to road. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to

require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would avoid

disruption to the Paddington New Yard property, your Petitioners and their

tenants. If, however, site interruption is required for the works authorised by

Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be keptto an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should

be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary

or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of thesite.

3387986.11 11

Bow Midland Yard West

22 The Bow Midland Yard West property is currently tenanted by London Concrete,

Aggregate Industries and Plasmor, all of whom hold long term leases of the

property. The tenants operate rail-served ready-mixed concrete, aggregate and

concrete block distribution businesses from the property, which currently services

Greater London handling over 600,000 tonnes of building materials a year. YourPetitioners' supply of freight trains to this site would be severely disrupted by the

Promoter's proposed Crossrail services. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill

should be amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that

would avoid disruption to the Bow Midland Yard West property, your Petitioners

and their tenants. If, however, site interruption is required for the works authorised

by Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should bekept to an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilitiesshould be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a

temporary or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long termuse of the site.

Bow Midland Yard East

23 The Bow Midland Yard East property is currently tenanted by Bow Waste

Recycling Limited, which holds a long term lease of the property. The tenant

operates waste recycling businesses from the property. The Promoter's works on

the site will disrupt your Petitioners' and their tenant's business operations on the

property. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the

Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would avoid disruption to the

Bow Midland Yard East property, your Petitioners and their tenant. If, however,s

site interruption is required for the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill, your

Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be kept to an absolute minimumand that suitable alternative property and facilities should be made available toyour Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary or permanent basis

depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of the site.

3387986.11 12

24 In relation to all of the sites referred to above, your Petitioners would wish to

ensure that Network Rail is party to any agreement as to the temporary occupationor suspension of use of the sites that is agreed with the Promoter, so that your

Petitioners do not lose the use of their sites permanently merely as a result of their

inability to use them due to and during construction of the works.

Alternative sites

25 Your Petitioners have given careful consideration to a number of sites that could

provide the Promoter with alternative locations at which to conduct activities

associated with the Crossrail scheme, such as the stabling of rolling stock. These

and a number of other sites could also provide the Promoter with alternative

locations to which the activities of your Petitioners and their tenants and

customers might be relocated, subject to their consent. In this way, it may be

possible for the Promoter to mitigate the damaging effects of his proposals on

your Petitioners and their tenants and customers. Your Petitioners will continue to

discuss these matters with the Promoter. In the event that agreement cannot bereached with the Promoter it is submitted that the Bill should not be passed into

law without full consideration of the alternative sites identified by your

Petitioners.

Network-specific concerns

Capacity

26 Your Petitioners operate rail freight services on Network Rail's network and have

three network track access agreements providing access for rail freight and open

access (charter) passenger services throughout the network. In addition your

Petitioners hold a number of access agreements providing for the continued

connection of their sites to the national rail network. Your Petitioners are also

party to an unregulated track access agreement with Network Rail to provide

access to the network for your Petitioners' trains connected with the maintenance,

repair and renewal of the network. These agreements all have various periods torun and are currently subject to negotiation for long term renewal. Your

338798611 13

Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter's proposed Crossrail services willcreate further congestion on a network that is already congested, displace yourPetitioners' rail freight and open access (charter) passenger services in favour of

Crossrail services and prevent future rail freight service growth through lack of

network capacity. Your Petitioners respectfully submit that the Bill should not be

allowed to pass into law without making provision for additional network capacity

for the proposed Crossrail services whilst providing for existing levels of networkaccess to remain, with a suitable level of capacity for future growth.

27 Your Petitioners have given careful consideration to specific measures to improve

network capacity which would help to ensure that Crossrail services would not

adversely affect your Petitioners' own services. These measures include capacity

and capability improvements such as additional running lines, loop lines,

additional signalling and grade-separation at junctions, to sections of the GWML,

the Great Eastern Main Line (GEML) and the Abbey Wood Line (AWL) and alsoto routes that might provide alternatives to these lines: for example, the line

between Felixstowe and Nuneaton via Peterborough and Leicester, the line from

Barking to Willesden via Upper Holloway and Gospel Oak, and alternative access

to Angerstein Wharf in Greenwich. Your Petitioners will continue to discuss these

matters with the Promoter. In the event that agreement cannot be reached with the

Promoter it is submitted that the Bill should not pass into law without full

provision for network capacity and capability improvements, including additional

railway lines, identified by your Petitioners.

Facility access

28 Your Petitioners are party to master access agreements to stations throughout the

national rail network, including the proposed Crossrail route, and a number of

supplementary access agreements for individual facilities. Your Petitioners are

concerned that the Promoter, in exercising his rail facility access priority powers

provided by Clauses 22 - 32 of the Bill, will modify or void your Petitioners'

station access agreements so impeding or preventing access to stations. Station

access is central to the operation of your Petitioners' rail services as it provides a

safe and efficient environment to enable passengers to join or alight from your

14

Petitioners' charter passenger trains as well as enabling your Petitioners' trains to

change train crews en route, to meet occupational health and safety requirements.

Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter toprovide full and continued access to stations and associated facilities, along theproposed Crossrail route, necessary to avoid disruption to your Petitioners'business. If, however, interruption to the operation of any station or its facilities

used by your Petitioners' trains or its passengers is required for the works

authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions

should be kept to an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative station

facilities should be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, eitheron a temporary or permanent basis.

Network ownership

29 The Promoter is to be provided with the power under Clause 6 of the Bill toacquire compulsorily Network Rail-owned facilities and network throughout theproposed Crossrail route, which will either limit or prevent access to the acquirednetwork. To access the acquired network, your Petitioners would need to enterinto separate track access agreements with the Promoter in order to continue toprovide throughout a single rail freight service, as their current track access

agreements with Network Rail would no longer be valid over the acquired

network. Furthermore, the Promoter is to be provided with a power under Clause

45 of the Bill to transfer rail network facilities to a third party. Your Petitionersbelieve that the national rail network should remain in the hands of a single partyto allow for ease of service integration, efficient timetabling and coordinated

maintenance scheduling. Your Petitioners respectfully submit that Clause 6 of the

Bill should be amended to ensure that the national rail network remains in the

ownership of Network Rail.

Great Western Main Line

30 Your Petitioners operate rail freight services twenty four hours a day, seven days a

week along the GWML, with up to 85 train paths per day available for use bytheir customers. Your Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter's proposed

15

services along the GWML would severely decrease line capacity and prevent, orsignificantly reduce, the ability of your Petitioners to operate rail freight and

charter passenger services on the GWML. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill

should be amended to require the Promoter to provide sufficient capacity to

accommodate your Petitioners' current and projected future levels of rail freight

and charter passenger services.

Great Eastern Main Line

31 Your Petitioners operate rail freight services twenty four hours a day, seven days a

week along the GEML, with up to 36 train paths per day available for use by their

customers. Your Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter's proposed servicesalong the GEML would severely decrease line capacity and prevent, or

significantly reduce, the ability of your Petitioners to operate rail freight and

charter passenger services on the GEML. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill

should be amended to require the Promoter to provide sufficient capacity to

accommodate your Petitioners' current and projected future levels of rail freight

and charter passenger services.

Abbey Wood

32 Your Petitioners operate rail freight services twenty four hours a day, six days a

week along the AWL, with up to 11 train paths per day available for use by theircustomers. Your Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter's proposed services

along the AWL would severely decrease line capacity and prevent, or significantly

reduce, the ability of your Petitioners to operate rail freight services on the AWL.

Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to

provide sufficient capacity to accommodate your Petitioners' current and

projected future levels of rail freight and charter passenger services.

Terminal access

33 Your Petitioners' rail freight services are dependent on access to a large number

of freight terminals and branch lines along the GWML, GEML and AWL for the

3387986.1 16

operation of their business (a number of which are described in paragraphs 14 to23 above): without access to these terminals your Petitioners would be unable to

deliver freight effectively and therefore would be in breach of their customercontracts. Your Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter proposes to acquire,adjust or remove access to a large number of rail freight terminals along the

GWML, GEML and AWL, so preventing or severely limiting your Petitioners'ability to operate rail freight services on these lines. Your Petitioners submit that

the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide them with full andcontinued access to your Petitioners' rail freight terminals along the GWML,

GEML and AWL, or with alternative equivalent facilities.

Environment

34 The Promoter, in exercising the compulsory acquisition powers that would be

provided by Clause 6 of the Bill in relation to the rail network inside the limitsshown on the deposited plans, will be able to prevent your Petitioners from

accessing the rail network along the route. A lack of network access by yourPetitioners could have the effect of displacing up to 10 million tonnes of bulkfreight from rail to road-based transport each year, equating to an extra 80 millionlorry miles and an extra 800,000 lorry journeys a year. This would have a

detrimental effect on CC>2 and other emissions, noise levels and traffic congestionwhich the Promoter has failed to take into account in assessing the impacts of theproposed works and associated powers.

Construction

35 The Promoter proposes to close temporarily many network sections and terminalsalong the existing rail network during the construction phase of the works

authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill. Your Petitioners are concerned that thePromoter's proposed track closures would limit or remove their ability to operaterail freight services during the works. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill shouldbe amended to require the Promoter to provide them with full and continuedaccess, or with alternative equivalent access, to your Petitioners' network sections

17

and terminals along the GWML, GEML and AWL during the carrying out of the

works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill.

36 The loss of your Petitioners' sites and facilities for the delivery of materials,

together with the disruptive effects of construction of the works, will also

seriously hamper the construction and timely delivery of facilities for the 2012

London Olympic Games. Your Petitioners suggest that the effect of the loss oftheir sites and reduction in access to their remaining sites be assessed in this light.

Growth

37 It is clear that increases in rail service traffic on the existing rail network will

reduce capacity if additional network infrastructure is not also provided. The

proposed Crossrail scheme will increase the amount of rail services on a networkthat is already highly congested. It is clear that even with the minimum level ofCrossrail services proposed in the Environmental Statement and associated

technical documents, existing rail service levels could not be accommodated and

future capacity growth would not be possible without additional rail infrastructure.

Your Petitioners respectfully submit that the Bill should not be allowed to pass

into law without a provision placing an obligation on the Promoter to constructadditional rail infrastructure to provide the future capacity needed to

accommodate both the proposed Crossrail services and the future growth in

existing services.

38 The recent London Gateway Port public inquiry and the subsequent Secretary of

State's "minded to" approval of the proposed new port facility has highlighted theGovernment's preference for a 25% share of the proposed port's freight to be

conveyed by rail, which will place extra rail freight services on the south-eastern

section of the proposed Crossrail route. Your Petitioners are concerned that theBill fails to account for the increased freight services, predicted to be up to 32 aday, which will serve the completed London Gateway Port. It is respectfully

pointed out that the Promoter, in drafting the Bill, has failed to take a consistent orintegrated approach to the support and delivery of rail freight growth to thetransport industry and its customers. It is submitted that the Bill should not be

18

allowed to pass into law without providing for the expected increase in rail freightservices that will follow from the construction and operation of London GatewayPort.

Railway matters

39 Your Petitioners are concerned that the duties imposed on the independent ORR

by Clause 22 of the Bill (the duty to exercise its access contract functions infavour of Crossrail) will undermine current impartial and open regulation of therailways and in turn create a climate of uncertainty throughout the industry.Clause 22 of the Bill further provides the Promoter with the power to extend theperiod of operation of the duty without reference to Parliament. Your Petitionersare concerned that open and fair regulation of the railways is maintained through

an unfettered and impartial regulator so that your Petitioners' timetables, access

rights and future rail freight capacity can be determined with certainty in theinterests of their customers and the use of rail to carry freight generally.

40 Your Petitioners note that Clause 23 of the Bill requires the Promoter to consult

with Transport for London and passenger rail service providers likely to be

affected by Crossrail before directing the ORR to specify the minimum operating

levels for Crossrail. The operating levels for Crossrail will impact on the ability of

other rail service providers, including your Petitioners, to run services along thoseparts of the existing rail network that will be used by Crossrail services, as trackcapacity will be reduced significantly once Crossrail services commenceoperation. Your Petitioners submit that the Promoter should not be able to issuedirections under Clause 23 without first consulting with and having regard for rail

freight operators likely to be affected by the exercise of the direction, and that the

Clause should be amended to reflect this requirement. Your Petitioners do not

believe that the discretionary power to consult "other persons (if any) as theSecretary of State considers appropriate" is sufficient, as there is no entitlement

for rail freight interests to be heard, as there is in the case of rail passenger

interests.

3387986.11 19

41 Your Petitioners are concerned that the ORR is to have its regulatoryindependence interfered with further by the operation of Clause 24 of the Bill.

Your Petitioners' specific concern is that the general duties of the ORR (including

the promotion of the use of the rail network for the carriage of goods) are to be

overridden by a duty to exercise its functions in a manner that does not impede the

performance of any design, construction, financing or maintenance agreement

relating to the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill. Your Petitioners submitthat the Promoter should -

(a) be required comprehensively to justify the need for these overriding

duties;

(b) not be permitted to modify or override the statutory duties of the ORR by

the operation of this Clause; and

(c) in the event that your Honourable House considers it necessary to approve

these overriding duties, be required to make provision for meeting the full

cost of making good any disadvantage or loss suffered as a result of anyexercise of the overriding duties.

42 Your Petitioners respectfully point out that the Bill contains no provisions

whereby the Promoter will be specifically obliged to have regard to the interests

of your Petitioners' business, or of their tenants and customers, which is

unacceptable, and they therefore request that it does so.

43 Your Petitioners are concerned as to the disruptive effect which the exercise of

powers conferred by Clause 25 of the Bill, the power to amend existing rail

facility access contracts, would have on the operation of your Petitioners' rail

freight services leading into and through central London. If exercised, your

Petitioners' existing rights of access to the rail network will be modified orextinguished, impeding or preventing the operation of services on the network.

Your Petitioners submit that if such a power were to be granted, the power should

be tempered with a requirement to provide alternative access to those parties

subject to a direction, or for the Promoter to provide full compensation for any

20

loss or cost incurred as a result of the exercise of the power, or both, in order to

minimise the impact of the power on rail freight into and out of central London

44 Your Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter will be able to object to your

Petitioners' access contracts already in force, potentially resulting in the access

contracts being amended or voided under the powers provided by Clause 26 of the

Bill. Your Petitioners and their customers will suffer business instability as a

result of the uncertainty created by the Promoter's ability to influence the content

or existence of agreed and operational access contracts. The exercise of theproposed access contract objection power by a competitor, such as the Promoter,

is an abuse of a dominant position in the market and is inconsistent with ChapterII of the Competition Act 1998 (c.41) and Article 82 of the Treaty of Rome. Your

Petitioners wish to ensure the maintenance of the current transparent,

competitively neutral and industry-accepted access contract process without the

statutorily authorised undue influence, favour or uncertainty proposed by Clause

26 of the Bill. It is submitted that the Bill should not be allowed to pass into lawwithout omitting Clause 26.

45 Your Petitioners are concerned that the ORR is to have its regulatory

independence further interfered with through the operation of Clause 27, which

provides the Promoter with the power to direct the ORR to make and amend

directions it issues under section 17 of the Railways Act 1993 (c.43) (directions

requiring facility owners to enter into contracts for the use of their railway

facilities). The proposed power will undermine the confidence the rail industry has

in the independence of the ORR and because of its discriminatory nature places

Clause 27 of the Bill in direct conflict with Article 5 of Directive 2001/14/EC,

which entitles Member State rail service operators to non-discriminatory rail trackaccess. Your Petitioners will be especially affected by the exercise of this power

in gaining on-going access to track and terminal facilities along and adjacent tothe proposed Crossrail route.

46 Your Petitioners further submit that the ORR will have its regulatory

independence interfered with by the Promoter through the operation of Clause 28of the Bill. Under the proposed power the ORR will be required to consider any

3387986.11 21

representations of the Promoter before adjusting an access contract relating to a

competitor of the Promoter, to account for any compensation that may flow from

the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill. Your Petitioners are currently party

to a large number of access contracts that may be adjusted through the exercise of

this power, resulting in the loss of business certainty, an inability to guarantee

customer timetables and significant disruption to the movement of freight along or

through facilities affected by Clause 28.

47 Your Petitioners submit that the provisions of Clause 29 of the Bill are

objectionable in that they disapply your Petitioners' access rights to railway

facilities, conferred by sections 17, 18 and 22 of the Railways Act 1993 (c.43),

while the Promoter, through the operation of Clauses 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the Bill,

is provided with preferential and discriminatory access to facilities currently

utilised by your Petitioners and their customers. The powers proposed in Clause

29 of the Bill are in direct contravention of Article 5 of Directive 2001/14/EC

which prohibits, with some minor exceptions, the rejection of facility access

requests. Your Petitioners are also concerned that an order made under powers

provided by Clause 29 of the Bill will not be subject to annulment through a

resolution of either House of Parliament and hence the disapplication of primary

legislation will not be subject to any scrutiny by Parliament.

48 Your Petitioners are concerned that the provisions of Clause 30 of the Bill will

enable the Promoter to prohibit the ORR, in certain circumstances, from making a

direction under section 18 of the Railways Act 1993 (c.43) (access agreements:

contracts requiring the approval of the ORR). The operation of Clause 30 of the

Bill will further provide the Promoter, being a competitor for facility access, with

the power to modify proposed access contracts in favour of the Promoter, or to

reject proposed access contacts outright. The Promoter, in exercising the power

provided by Clause 30 of the Bill, may delay the ORR from approving an accesscontract indefinitely. Your Petitioners will suffer significant disadvantage and

delay when making applications for facility access agreement approvals in relation

to new and alternative rail freight sidings, depots and customer freight transfer

facilities required in order to replace existing facilities that are to be acquired as aresult of the operation of Clause 6 of the Bill, if these provisions are approved.

3387986.11 22

49 Your Petitioners note that the Promoter will, under the provisions of Clause 31 ofthe Bill, be empowered to direct a railway facility owner to enter into an accesscontract with the Promoter or any other person for the purposes of the worksapproved by Clause 1 of the Bill. The powers provided to the Promoter underClause 31 of the Bill are likely to be exercised to the detriment of your Petitioners,

who have significant long term access contracts for facilities in places, either on or

adjacent to the proposed Crossrail route, which are likely to be displaced by or be

in conflict with the Promoter's new access contracts. Your Petitioners request that

the Promoter be required to consult with, and take advice from, your Petitionersprior to making a direction under Clause 31 of the Bill, if your Petitioners have an

interest in the railway facility that is proposed to be subject to the direction.

50 Your Petitioners note that Clause 32 of the Bill provides the ORR with the power

to amend existing access contracts affected by the creation of a new access

contract by the Promoter under the powers provided by Clause 31 of the Bill(power of the Secretary of State to require entry into an access contract), for thepurpose of facilitating the operation of Crossrail as the principal passenger

service. Your Petitioners are concerned that Clause 32 makes no provision for

circumstances where the Promoter's new access contract will disrupt the operation

of your Petitioners' existing access contracts to an extent that makes them

unworkable. Your Petitioners are also concerned that the provisions of Clause 32

of the Bill do not require the Promoter to provide compensation to parties to an

existing access contract or to third parties adversely impacted by the exercise of

the power provided by Clause 31 of the Bill.

51 Your Petitioners understand that the UK Government is currently subject to

infraction proceedings by the European Commission for failure to implement the

European Union First Package of EU Rail Directives (2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC

and 2001/14/EC). Your Petitioners further understand that draft regulations have

now been produced to transpose those Directives into domestic law in the form of

the Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005 and the

Railways Infrastructure (Access and Management) Regulations 2005. YourPetitioners submit that those provisions of the Bill (mentioned above) which will

undermine current open and impartial regulation of the railways will be in conflict

3387986.11 23

with the provisions of the draft Regulations, which will throw doubt upon the UK

Government's commitment to honour the purposes of the Directives in practice.

52 The proposed railway matters in the Bill and the effect of the Bill more generally

therefore run counter to established Government policy on the carriage of goods

by rail, set out or enshrined in (1) minerals planning policy guidance notes MPG1

and MPG6 and draft planning policy statement MPS1; (2) the Promoter's own

statement on rail freight made on 19 July 2005; (3) the White Paper that led to the

Railways Act 2005; and (4) European Union law on railway infrastructure and the

licensing of railway undertakings. By the compulsory purchase of rail sidings and

the removal of any guarantee of access to those that remain, the Promoter is also

significantly threatening the supply of construction materials to Greater London,

which may impact on construction costs generally and regeneration of the South-East, and risk damage to the environment by displacing rail freight onto the roads.

Blight

53 Your Petitioners submit that the compensation provisions proposed by the Bill are

inadequate to compensate your Petitioners for the loss, damage and

inconvenience, particularly attributable to blight to their properties, which theyhave already suffered or may now suffer as a result of the prospective construction

and subsequent use of the proposed works. The redevelopment or re-letting of a

number of your Petitioners' properties has already been prevented or severely

prejudiced by the Crossrail proposals. The incidence of blight will also continue.

Your Petitioners fear, for example, that prospective lessees of properties will feel

that the proposals may so blight some properties that they would not be interested

in acquiring any part of the property, or that prospective or existing lessees will

demand a considerably reduced rent, due to the prospect of the works. Further

provisions should, your Petitioners submit, be included in the Bill in this respect,including provisions respecting the making and assessment of claims for

compensation, and indemnifying your Petitioners for any loss they might suffer as

the result of unfavourable rent reviews respecting the leases currently affecting

some of their properties insofar as the reduced rent payable (as it may differ from

open market rent) is attributable to the proposed works and their effect on your

338798611 24

Petitioners' properties, or for any loss (so attributable) which your Petitioners

might suffer in the event of them not being able to re-let their properties (in whole

or in part) to existing or new tenants or in the event of them only being able to do

so at a reduced premium or rent.

54 Your Petitioners further submit that the blight placed by the Promoter's scheme on

current negotiations for rail freight haulage contracts and future negotiations and

the associated uncertainty of future train paths availability should be compensated.

Your Petitioners have experienced significant uncertainty in negotiating futurefreight business since details of the Promoter's scheme and its impact on rail paths

were announced. Provision should be included in the Bill for the Promoter to

provide full compensation for any loss or future loss suffered as a result of the

blight on your Petitioners' rail freight business created by the Promoter's scheme.

General matters

55 There are other Clauses and provisions in the Bill which, if passed into law as they

now stand, will prejudicially affect your Petitioners and their rights, interests and

property and for which no adequate provision is made to protect your Petitioners.

56 As a general matter, your Petitioners submit that provision should be made for the

Promoter to repay to your Petitioners all proper costs, charges and expenses

(including the proper fees of such professional advisers as they may instruct)reasonably incurred in consequence of the Bill or of any provision made as a

result of this Petition.

3387986.11 25

Conclusion

57 Your Petitioners submit that the Bill fails to safeguard and protect the interests of

your Petitioners and their tenants and should not be allowed to pass into law

without the issues mentioned above being addressed.

YOUR PETITIONERS THEREFORE HUMBLY PRAY your Honourable Housethat the Bill may not be allowed to pass into law as it now stands and that they

may be heard by themselves, Counsel or Agents and with witnesses in support of

the allegations of this Petition against so much of the Bill as affects the property,

rights and interests of your Petitioners and in support of other such Clauses and

provisions as may be necessary or expedient for their protection or that such other

relief may be given to your Petitioners in the premises as your Honourable House

shall deem meet.

AND YOUR PETITIONERS WILL EVER PRAY, &c.

BIRCHAM DYSON BELL

Parliamentary Agents for

ENGLISH WELSH & SCOTTISH RAILWAY LIMITED

3387986.11 26

IN PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

SESSION 2005-06

CROSSRAIL BILL

P E T I T I O N

of

ENGLISH WELSH & SCOTTISHRAILWAY LIMITED

Against, the Bill - On Merits -

Praying to be heard by Counsel, &c.

BIRCHAM DYSON BELL50 BroadwayWestminsterLondon SW1H OBLParliamentary Agents

15 September 2005

_