Examination of Witnesses (Questions 860
- 879)
860. Sir Peter Soulsby: I do not think
at any point he has said there are cheap or easy alternatives.
He has said that there are problems with the existing proposal
and that alternatives ought to be examined.
861. Ms Lieven: I just want to put three
cheap and easy alternatives if I may, Mr Weiss. First of all,
as we have seen from pedroute modelling, you can increase the
number of gates in ticket hall B which very substantially reduces
the problem. pedroute modelling shows increasing the gates to
20 and very little congestion in the ticket hall: cheap, simple,
easy.
(Mr Weiss) If the space exists.
862. The second one is you can tolerate a degree
of congestion at a gateline. We all live with a degree of congestion
at gatelines across the LUL network. It is not a major inconvenience
to have to wait for 20 seconds to go through a gateline, is it?
(Mr Weiss) No, but it is a concession, it is
a compromise to the standards, and it is a lesser output than
one would expect from a very expensive, highly disruptive scheme,
six to seven years of disruption, to have something not quite
up to what it could be.
863. I want to put a third cheap and easy solution
to you, and for this purpose can we bring up the last of the axonometrics.
I think this is exhibit 20, with Crossrail on your higher base
plus 35%.[23]
This is the worst case that we have modelled in pedroute terms.
We have focused on ticket halls A and B so far but there is, of
course, a third LUL ticket hall at Liverpool Street, and that
is ticket hall C, which Mr Bennett is now marking up. That is
a ticket hall that serves the Central line.
(Mr Weiss) Yes.
864. All the pedroute models we have shown show
that there is very substantial spare capacity in that ticket hall,
is there not?
(Mr Weiss) Yes.
865. I think it has got 16 gates. I am not expecting
you to know off by heart the number of gates but it is a big,
modern ticket hall, is it not?
(Mr Weiss) I know. It has 16 gates.
866. Before we get to signing from the Underground,
can we agree that it is extremely poorly signed or shown at the
Network Rail concourse level. Unless you know it is there it does
not exactly leap out at you, does it?
(Mr Weiss) It is a difficult one and I could
go into it if you wish me to go further. It is about two-way flow
and the width of passageways. I think when I last gave evidence
I alluded to the fact that some of the scenarios to try and redirect
people via other ticket halls were—I used the expression—robbing
Peter to pay Paul, to pass an issue away from concourse B on to
concourse C.
867. Looking at this pedroute model, that does
show that there is no congestion in ticket hall C and it also
shows that there is no congestion in the two passageways serving
ticket hall C, does it not?
(Mr Weiss) Under those specific conditions.
Let us go back to the levels of service. You did show on your
document—I cannot remember the number—that Victoria
station was yellow and we have yellow on this diagram and considerable
swathes of green, particularly in ticket hall B. If you look at
the index at the top-left, that green is only one level of service
below the yellow which you said clearly highlighted requiring
such drastic action at Victoria.
868. It is very, very plain from exhibit 20,
is it not, that there is scope for a much greater level of use
of ticket hall C?
(Mr Weiss) Yes, I agree with that.
869. One could achieve a much greater level
of use by things such as improved signing, improved layout of
the concourse and, if absolutely necessary, station measures directing
people to use that ticket hall, could one not?
(Mr Weiss) Possibly. I am not avoiding the
question here. Those passageways in the mornings have surges.
The figures are in table 1 anyway. Those passageways have surges
of people leaving the Central line going up the two escalators
from either ends of the train, walking along the passageways and
going up to the steps. With increased use of the mainline I would
consider it particularly uncomfortable for somebody to try and
walk against that flow in any large number. Whilst the signing
might be there, I would suggest that people would find it considerably
more acceptable, comfortable, the chance of somebody bumping into
somebody much less, by going, as they do at the moment to use
the mainline platform, to walk straight ahead to ticket hall B.
To go in the face of large numbers of people walking up steps
in particular I think is a discouragement.
870. Just two points finally on this. First
of all, in terms of surges, of course these passageways you are
concerned with are at concourse level so the surge, if there is
a surge, has been constrained by the escalators as we went through
before, has it not? These passages are not places where people
are charging off a train and going straight down the passages,
are they?
(Mr Weiss) These are passageways which are
considerably narrower than concourse C. If you look at the shape
of concourse C with its 16 gates you have got people coming up
the escalators at the bottom left and top right as you are orientated,
from the Central line, and they then go through a wide 16 gate
concourse area which then narrows as it turns back on itself to
the bottom of the picture and then narrows again to passageways.
They might not be collectively surging but when you concentrate
people into narrower and narrower passageways they tend to fill
up.
871. You describe them as narrower and narrower
passageways, Mr Weiss, but what this exhibit 20 shows is that
even on the enhanced base plus 35%, so something like over 50%
of what is happening at the moment, there is no indication on
these plans of any problem in those passageways whatsoever, is
there?
(Mr Weiss) On that base over a quarter of an
hour period that is what it shows.
872. Ms Lieven: Thank you very much.
Those are my questions, Sir.
873. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you very
much.
874. Mr Laurence: Sir, could you just
give a moment please, Sir, in these constrained conditions.
875. Sir Peter Soulsby: Yes, of course,
Mr Laurence.
Re-examined by Mr Laurence
876. Mr Laurence: Mr Weiss, there are
just a few matters I would like to question you about in re-examination
if I may. You will intend no discourtesy to me, I am sure, if
you face the Committee and I will try to speak sufficiently clearly
to ensure that you do not have to watch my lips, as it were, to
follow. The station's operations room, Ms Lieven put to you, we
could assume will definitely be removed.
(Mr Weiss) I am content with that.
877. You agreed with that. Can you just assist
the Committee as to whether you have been told of whether there
is, in fact, a firm agreement between the Promoter and presumably
London Underground Limited in relation to where the substitute
station's operations room would go?
(Mr Weiss) I have absolutely no knowledge of
that, nor has any suggestion of that been put to me by the Promoter.
878. Are you able to assist the Committee yourself,
and if not I will ask Mr Spencer about this, as to where a reasonable
position for that station's operations room might be if it were
to be removed?
(Mr Weiss) Speaking as a user and amateur,
and I am sure Mr Spencer will give a more structured argument,
the whole point about a station's operations room is it has to
be within sight and proximity of the very areas it is looking
out to—it is no good somewhere down the end of a corridor
at the end of a fibre optic cable—so that they can react
to problems. We go back to point M, which is where the Crossrail
connection is made to the ticket hall, and point P, which is the
top of the escalator from the Central line, and to know whether
to stop that escalator you have really got to have somebody looking
at it to see whether somebody has fallen over. To answer your
question, an operations room would be somewhere in the vicinity.
You are in a basement below an operating station with a Grade
I listed building on one side and a bus station on the other.
I am not at all sure where that might be provided without significant
adjustment—we are talking major construction here—to
that ticket hall.
879. If it did turn out to be the case that
there really were very considerable problems about moving that
station's operations room, is that one of the matters which the
Committee would necessarily have to consider should it accept
our case on capacity when it came to considering what the best
option to solve the problem would be?
(Mr Weiss) Without question.
23 Crossrail Ref: P2, with Crossrail (Base +35%) +
new gateline equipment 0845-0900 (LONDLB-2604-020). Back
| 
