Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7400
- 7419)
7400. And the modifications to the station here
proposed are going to be carried forward over a number of years,
is that right?
(Mr Berryman) It will take a couple of years
at least, yes.
7401. Two years at least, and those two years
at least, will they involve some disruption to services?
(Mr Berryman) Quite minimal. One of the main
objects of the design as it has evolved has been to minimise the
number of possessions required.
7402. But there will be some disruption to services?
(Mr Berryman) I would not like to say that
there will be none, but it will certainly be very limited.
7403. You will seek to limit as much as you
possibly can the disruption to services consequential upon Romford
Station?
(Mr Berryman) That is right. Can I go back
to the point about disruption which may be caused by building
a pedestrian tunnel, as you call it? It will be necessary in this
kind of material to form that from the surface as we would not
be allowed to tunnel through that abutment.
7404. We do not know precisely what type of
material it is, do we?
(Mr Berryman) We know it is something solid
and we know it has been there since Victorian times. We would
not be allowed to tunnel through it.
7405. Unless we worked out what it was, but
we do not know what it is yet, do we?
(Mr Berryman) We know it is something solid.
7406. We know it is something solid, but, beyond
that, we are in the dark.
(Mr Berryman) Well, yes, except that we know
it is something solid.
7407. Can I just ask one or two questions by
reference to photograph 23, for Havering please.[47]
The present intention of Crossrail is that, whatever happens,
you are going to close down that access that we can presently
see on that photograph?
(Mr Berryman) Certainly we are
going to close that access when we rebuild the station and provide
step-free access by other means.
7408. And that step-free access, to attain that,
to get to there from the bus station is going to require whoever
needs it to go along the pavement in front of the station and
then the added distance to the new station entrance?
(Mr Berryman) That is correct, but, as I have
already pointed out, that ramp is in any event not compliant with
standards for MIP access and if we were to rebuild the station,
as we intend to, we will be required, as I think you know, to
rebuild that ramp in any event and it would not be possible to
have it there as there is not enough space.
7409. Has it been investigated whether using
some further process, a zig-zag or something of that character,
one could achieve the gradients which you say are desirable?
(Mr Berryman) Well, they are not just desirable
because they are set down by standards. Of course a zig-zag would
be possible, but that would require taking more land in the bus
station area and obstructing access around those buildings and
you can see that.
7410. Has that been a matter of consideration?
(Mr Berryman) We have done sketches of that,
yes, but, as I say, the need for that goes away because the MIP
access will be provided by lifts and far more satisfactory arrangements.
7411. Help us on one final matter, the pavement
in front of the station, as proposed by Crossrail, what is the
width of that going to be compared with the pavement in front
of the entrances as they presently are configured ?
(Mr Berryman) I am afraid I do not know the
answer to that question. As I have said earlier on in evidence,
we would be very happy to work with the borough to come to an
appropriate solution for wider footpaths and improvements to make
this passageway much better.
7412. I can leave matters there, thank you very
much.
7413. Chairman: Can you elaborate on
why Network Rail is insisting on having this other section where
they may wish to use it. You referred a little bit earlier to
a portion of the other side of the station where Network Rail
are saying they may wish to have access to for safety reasons.
(Mr Berryman) As part of the Crossrail works
we are providing MIP access to the Crossrail platforms and part
of that will make use of that mezzanine walkway which is what
emerges from that grey opening in the photograph there. We are
not intending, as part of our scheme, to provide MIP access to
all the Network Rail lines which are used by the mainline trains,
however, we are making passive provision in our design so that
when this comes up on the Network Rail Access For All Process
they will be able to provide a lift from that point up to the
platform. The platform is behind the wall in that picture. There
are two different colours of brick. There is an older blue brick,
which is the bottom section, the Victorian structure, and then
there is the yellow brick above it, the London stock brick which
is the back wall of the platform for that side of the station.
The idea would be that you could put a lift up approximately where
the door is up to the height of the platform and have another
hole knocked in that wall there.
7414. Chairman: You are an engineer,
it is not beyond the realms of the imagination to have thought
to bring both the ideas of providing this access and of course
an entrance and exit? Could you not do the two together, albeit
at the end of the design stages?
(Mr Berryman) Do you mean the access from the
ramp which is shown there?
7415. Chairman: Yes. I tell you why I
say that, I see that as a solution. You have got Network Rail
with lines being used and Network Rail want the access, you are
building a brand new station and everything else. What concerns
me is the way things are at the moment, albeit brand new, disabled
people cannot go right the way around the building. It seems to
be that the end gain is that these are the people you should be
serving rather than people who are already getting the cheaper
lines there, the business and are getting the extra access. I
think if that little bit is being kept aside to do for the future,
why can it not be incorporated in the thinking for people who
are disabled or need access to the station.
(Mr Berryman) As I say, the ramp that is there
is substandard, it certainly would not be able to be kept like
that. It would need to be rebuilt as a zigzag as the council suggested.
7416. Chairman: I am asking that because
it is not just around the building, it is inside, the lift and
things. One thing that puzzles me, what happens if there is a
fire or a security issue and disabled people are in there? If
there is only that then there is a difficulty. Can you elaborate
on that?
(Mr Berryman) It is the same as any other building
which is equipped for MIP access. A contingency plan has to be
drawn up for what will happen to people who cannot use lifts.
Of course this is a big issue with our underground stations and
much less of an issue here because the prospects of a fire and
the extent of damage that that might cause are much easier to
manage. Normally the solution would be to take people away to
a place of immediate safety.
7417. Chairman: If you have an exit people
would rely totally upon that which would help in that process,
in that place of safety and route.
(Mr Berryman) It would do to an extent but
people still have to get from that area. There is a two-stage
process to get down to ground level, you have got the mezzanine
floor there.
7418. Chairman: I can accept your difficulty
about entering into ticket halls and all the rest of it, but when
an engineer can design everything else, companies that are working
alongside the Department, but they make disabled and old people
walk around the building, I find great difficulty in understanding
that.
(Mr Berryman) The other thing to bear in mind
is that exit is not normally open, you have to push a bell and
someone has to come and let you in. I have only tried it once
and contrary to Mr Thompson's experience, nobody came.
7419. Chairman: When design is undertaken
these things will be incorporated in any future solution.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, but it is a management and
manning issue for the station.
47 Committee Ref: A82, Photograph of route between
station and bus interchange (HAVGLB-14705-075). Back
| 
