Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7280
- 7299)
7280. You say recently, you have been made aware
of our concerns about engineering disruption in relation to the
provision of a southern access since, at least, that meeting in
January 2005, have you not?
(Mr Thomas) I do not recall that being put
forward as an issue at that stage.
7281. Certainly those are my instructions. Mr
Berryman can confirm that, if appropriate, in a moment. It is
certainly a point that was set out in the Petition response document
that was sent out to the London Borough of Havering.
(Mr Thomas) Yes, I would confirm that.
7282. In particular, major engineering works
to the existing embankment which carries the Great Eastern fast
lines, the southern of the four tracks which pas through Romford
Station.
(Mr Thomas) Yes, that is correct.
7283. At page 59 of our document, as we can
see, we have a computerised image of the existing structure.[30]
This is the slow track—the "`e' lines" as we call
them.
(Mr Thomas) Yes.
7284. And South Street running under here.
(Mr Thomas) Correct.
7285. The fast line is here.
(Mr Thomas) Correct.
7286. The eastern line. In the existing Victorian
structure there is what you might call the "pinch point"
which we have mentioned to you. This is the area which is part
of the original Victorian structure of the railway line.
(Mr Thomas) Yes.
7287. We are unaware of the contents and the
materials which form this structure.
(Mr Thomas) Yes, and I would say that is what
we are asking Crossrail to investigate, to see whether there is
the possibility of putting a connecting link through that area
rather than simply saying it cannot be done.
7288. In order to undertake even those works
that you mention would require major intrusion and disruption
of the existing fast trains, through possessions and engineering
works which would cause significant disruption, major disruption,
to the existing Great Eastern service.
(Mr Thomas) I would accept that it would require
some disruption to the existing service. Crossrail have not told
us exactly how much disruption there would be and how long that
disruption would take or what the frequency would be. I mentioned
in my evidence that all indications are that the works to the
station will go on for some two years plus. Further down the line,
under Crossrail's current proposals, there are further works proposed
to achieve the depot scheme. This cannot be seen in isolation
as the only interruption to the existing services.
7289. I will ask Mr Berryman to comment in a
moment on the degree to which disruption would be caused to the
operation of the existing mainline and also the degree to which
that would be over and above or of a greater order of magnitude
than every other proposed disruption.
(Mr Thomas) I would like to add that, although
I am not a railway specialist, there may be some scope for services
to be diverted on to the other lines to facilitate this, and the
option is there for Crossrail to look at that and to explain why
that would not be a feasibility, if indeed that is the case.
7290. You say you are not a railway specialist,
are you an engineer?
(Mr Thomas) I am not. I am a planner.
7291. There are two points that we have raised
with you: major engineering works and severe disruption to the
operation of the existing railway through possessions and the
carrying out of those works. Is that right?
(Mr Thomas) You have raised those and Crossrail
say there will be severe disruption. We are saying that, so far,
we have not had that quantified.
7292. The principal access is via the entrance
which is located beneath the bridge structures. That is right,
is it not?
(Mr Thomas) That is correct. My photographs
show there are two relatively narrow entrances into the station
concourse there.
7293. There is a secondary access to the south
which is only available on request, which, as you indicated, is
principally used by persons of restricted mobility and, also,
from time to time by people carrying shopping bags or with prams
and pushchairs and so forth.
(Mr Thomas) That is characterising it as not
being used very extensively. When I was at the station earlier
on this week in the middle of the afternoon period, it was more
or less in constant use. The station staff routinely patrol the
mezzanine level and are available and do open the door on request
for people who use that ramp to gain access into the station.
7294. It is plainly right to characterise it
as a secondary access and one which is only available on request.
(Mr Thomas) Yes, but I would add that in what
we might call the "out of hours operation of the station"
that is the main exit for the station.
7295. That is an access which physically is
at a gradient which is substandard: 1:20.
(Mr Thomas) I have not measured it but I know
from Crossrail's documents it is 1:20, yes.
7296. In order to bring that access up to a
standard which is acceptable would require works which would impinge
upon the public highway, is that right?
(Mr Thomas) Again, I have not designed a ramp—that
is not my role in these things—but to achieve a ramp of
an appropriate gradient may take it beyond the current area, yes.
7297. The main station entrance itself is presently
some 75 metres from the bus interchange on foot, is it not?
(Mr Thomas) Can we add one further point, please.
The council's position is not that that ramp itself should be
used as the entrance. That is not its preferred option. The preferred
option would be to come through at ground level through the arches.
7298. Mr Mould: We have the photograph
on the screen. You have described them as arches, but in fact
they are not arches. They are buttresses to the Victorian structure
at page 59 which we looked at a moment ago.
7299. Chairman: Mr Mould, could I pause
there. Can you tell me why the current entrance cannot remain
open—or at least what Crossrail has in terms of ideas for
access for disabled users?
30 Crossrail Ref: P75, Schematic Diagram of Existing
Structure of Romford Station (HAVGLB-14704-059). Back
| 
