Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7380
- 7399)
7380. Nonetheless, it is right, is it not, that
there is, notwithstanding your observations, something which has
been cut through what has been described as the `existing Victorian
structure'?
(Mr Berryman) It is something which has been
cut through a Victorian structure, but it is not the same Victorian
structure as the abutment structure which is formed by those heavy
buttresses.
7381. Can you then please have to hand the document
to which reference has been made, pages 126 and 127 within P75.
If we go to 127 and look at the third paragraph of that, we can
see that the point at issue was an extension of the ticket hall.[46]
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
7382. I am right in supposing, am I not, from
your evidence, Mr Berryman, that Crossrail, when it first was
considering this matter, thought the good sense of the situation
suggested that the station should be underneath the tracks so
as to enable direct access from the bus station?
(Mr Berryman) Yes. As I said in my evidence,
it is common ground between us and the Borough that that would
be a more desirable solution.
7383. Works were done, were they not, in connection
with the consideration of putting the station underneath the tracks?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right.
7384. It is right, is it not, that constructing
a station is quite an extensive exercise?
(Mr Berryman) Indeed.
7385. Would it be right to say that constructing
a station is a more extensive exercise than merely putting through
a pedestrian passage?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, it would.
7386. Would it be fair to say that it is considerably
more extensive than merely putting through a pedestrian passage?
(Mr Berryman) It is certainly more extensive,
yes. It depends on the circumstances and the work of course.
7387. Am I right in supposing that the report
to which you have referred, which on our side we have not immediately
been able to put any finger upon, was a Mott Macdonald report?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct.
7388. A Mott Macdonald report in connection
with the positioning of the station underneath the tracks?
(Mr Berryman) My recollection is that the report
actually arrived at the solution that we have got now, having
considered the station under the tracks, yes.
7389. So the report was to the effect, "Well,
let's think about whether we can have a station there", and
then you came up with the point, "Well, it's difficult to
put a station there because of the engineering works required"?
(Mr Berryman) Extremely difficult.
7390. That was the character of the report,
but there has not been, has there, any report on the question
as to whether there could merely be a pedestrian link?
(Mr Berryman) There has been no specific report
on that point. We have had internal workshops on that, but the
difficulty is, apart from the construction difficulty of breaking
into a very massive Victorian brick structure, which is not really
a very tasty thing to do from an engineering point of view, that
any such passageway would discharge into the paid side of the
station and that has practical and operational problems.
7391. The practical problem is that you do not
want people to go into the paid side if they have no tickets?
(Mr Berryman) That is indeed the problem.
7392. So one puts in a ticket barrier to ensure
that only people with tickets go through.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, but ticket barriers are
not allowed to be unsupervised, so when you put a ticket barrier
in, you finish up with a suite of offices and things of that sort
on the south side, but that is not really the main objection.
The main objection is the difficulty of putting a structure through
that very heavy brick abutment structure which is certainly in
excess of a metre thick brickwork. It is Victorian and the structural
integrity of it would be something which would be certainly very
much influenced by this kind of opening being made in it and we
would not wish to undertake that.
7393. But the structural integrity of it for
the purpose of putting a pedestrian route through has not been
investigated, has it?
(Mr Berryman) There has not been a specific
study done of that, but of course we have on our team of advisers
many experienced engineers who are able to look at these things
by inspection almost and say, "No, it doesn't really work".
7394. Whether it could be put through, a pedestrian
passageway would require some further work to investigate the
matter, yes?
(Mr Berryman) I would not have said so. Again
I think it goes back to this sort of engineering judgment that
one uses. It is the kind of structure that one would not lightly
tamper with, particularly the buttress structure on the south
side. You are really going to be dealing with something which
is under significant load stress which is difficult to analyse.
Of course in engineering if you chuck enough money at it, all
things are possible, but I really do not think this is something
that we would lightly undertake.
7395. You would not lightly undertake, but the
investigation for a pedestrian passageway has not been undertaken,
has it?
(Mr Berryman) Not formally.
7396. If we just could then touch upon one or
two other matters please, you mentioned that there would be disruption
if engineering works were being undertaken. Do you remember that
passage of question and answer with Mr Mould?
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
7397. The disruption which has hitherto been
considered of course is in connection with that which has hitherto
been considered, namely putting a station underneath, is it not?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is what I was talking
about at the time.
7398. I am right in supposing, am I not, that
there has been no measurement of the disruption which would occur
in connection with putting a pedestrian passageway in?
(Mr Berryman) That is correct, although it
would still be significant, quite substantial in fact.
7399. As far as disruption is concerned, am
I right in supposing that the introduction of Crossrail is going
to produce major engineering works along the line?
(Mr Berryman) Not really, no, not on the surface
sections. Most of the works on the Shenfield branch are actually
modifications to stations.
46 Crossrail Ref: P75, CLRL letter to London Borough
of Havering, 18 April 2006, p2 (HAVGLB-14704-127). Back
| 
