Q131 Stephen Barclay: Is not the point of Thameslink that it runs to Cambridge? It does not run on the line up to King's Lynn. The sort of passengers I am talking about would be captured from Cambridge, and-surprise, surprise-our gripe in Cambridgeshire is that all the funding goes to Cambridge; but if you are travelling from Littleport, you are not captured. To take Ms Barker's example, that would be recorded as increased travel from Cambridge. The frustration is that we seem to be entrenching an existing problem while buying rolling stock that does not have the technology that the NAO flagged as beneficial several years ago. The solution appears to be taking the weight of the train, but it is unclear to me-other members of the Committee may understand it-how the weighing of the carriage will distinguish between those that take a big packed lunch and a rucksack and those who are smaller and somewhat lighter.
Philip Rutnam: If a passenger from Littleport has a valid ticket and he or she changes train at Cambridge, the fact that there is a passenger flowing from Littleport to King's Cross or wherever will be captured in the data. Provided that there is a valid ticket held for the journey, we get good information about passenger flows across the network.
Stephen Barclay: But you will not know which trains they are on.
Q132 Chair: You have to go back and look at the Reports, because previous Reports have it as a great criticism that you were unable to pinpoint overcrowding, because the technology was not there.
Philip Rutnam: I can look at that. There are many other data sources, such as surveys of trains to look at the level of crowding. There are many information sources.
Q133 Chair: I am going to move us on, because we are getting nowhere on this. I suggest that you look back at previous Reports. Moving on to franchising, you rejected a management-style contract in July 2012. What has changed?
Philip Rutnam: The truth is that we looked at the issue again in the light of the Brown review, what happened with the west coast main line and lessons we could learn from that-
Q134 Chair: So you got it wrong in 2012.
Philip Rutnam: There is something about learning lessons, which is that it involves accepting that not everything may have been perfect in the past and that things can be done better. We reflected in particular on the valuable and helpful advice from Richard Brown and concluded that the best way forward on the Thameslink franchise-
Q135 Chair: That is very general, Mr Rutnam; just be specific. What has changed? Where was his advice different from the assessment less than a year ago that this was not the way forward?
Philip Rutnam: His advice and the thinking we have done since put more weight on the need to recognise the disruption that will take place during the upgrade of the infrastructure and the need to work collaboratively with the operator of the franchise during that period and-
Q136 Chair: Did you not realise that in January 2012?
Philip Rutnam: Secondly-if I may continue-what has changed is that the experience of west coast, which we have discussed before, has shown the difficulty of forecasting passenger revenues in an environment like that. Both those factors-the importance of dealing with the disruption caused by what will be happening to the infrastructure and the uncertainty around forecasting-have caused us to think that, for this particular franchise in this particular set of circumstances, a management contract is a better way to go. Do you want to add anything, Michael?
Q137 Chair: You were in charge of it in January 2012.
Michael Hurn: I was not in charge of the franchising process.
Chair: Of course-it was all carved up.
Michael Hurn: But I can give a bit of an insight as to why a management process is the right thing now.
Q138 Chair: No, I want to know what has changed, which you have not really said to me. You knew about the disruption that would be created at London Bridge-I hope you knew that-so that does not seem to be anything that has changed. Ironically, I do not think your passenger number argument works, Mr Rutnam, because this is a different kettle of fish to the west coast main line. You are bringing this in because the line is so horribly overcrowded.
Philip Rutnam: I think making these judgments often involves balancing a different set of considerations. It is not like having a formula and you just change one element in the formula.
Q139 Chair: What is wrong with the argument that I just put to you? You knew about the disruption, and the line is overcrowded anyway, so the argument that you could not predict passenger numbers is rubbish, because you knew it was overcrowded.
Philip Rutnam: No, I don't accept that. We put more weight on the two points that I have talked about in the decision that we made in the light of Richard Brown's report.
Q140 Chair: Why?
Philip Rutnam: Because we thought that they were more important.