Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11760
- 11779)
11760. The plan, I think, is to make a single
island platform with a line either side. Is that right?
(Mr Berryman) I am probably not the right person
to ask about that. I know that the platforms would be wider than
they are now.
11761. Ms Lieven: Sir, I am not a witness,
but I think the proposal by London Underground under the scheme
which is being discussed, although it has not got further than
discussion, is that it would not be an island platform, but it
will be a faced platform where effectively another platform will
be put in, so it would not be one single island anymore.
(Mr Berryman) There would be two side platforms,
I think.
11762. You were talking about the problems with
getting on to the Hammersmith and City Line platform, Mr Berryman.
Can we go back to the base plan of this option, Exhibit 17, and
can you just talk about the engineering issues involved in creating
it?[20]
(Mr Berryman) I think the point
to make here which I was trying to get across earlier is that,
if we were to try to build this underpass at this stage, we would
not be able to make effective exits on to the Hammersmith and
City Line, but there are also issues about building the tunnel
itself and this would need to be relatively shallow beneath the
tracks. The way we would probably construct it is by jacking segments
of a box underneath the tracks. This is a fairly well-established
technique which has been used on a number of projects in the past.
I am not aware of it being used anywhere across this number of
tracks, but, in theory at least, there is nothing to stop it being
used. The problem is that, as you get under each pair of tracks,
that pair has to close and there is absolutely no question about
that because the potential for the tracks to deflect as you are
going over them is very significant. The other issue is whether
you would need actually to close the tracks that you have already
gone under, so, if you can imagine, the way this would be built
would be by having some sort of pit here, dropping pre-cast units
in and then jacking those pre-cast units forward, dropping another
pre-cast unit in behind, jacking it forward and so on and so forth
until you have jacked the whole thing all the way across. Where
you have already gone under tracks, there is the issue as to what
movements the jacking of the box might induce into the tracks
you have already passed under. It has been done occasionally under
all sorts of things—sewers and roads and all that sort of
thing—but I am not aware of any precedent for building under
such a long length of track. I would be prepared to argue the
case with Network Rail but I would be fairly confident Network
Rail would say: "You have got to close the tracks you have
already gone under when you are moving forward". As I say,
I would be prepared to argue the case with them, but I could not
say—
11763. What does that mean for the operation
of Paddington Station?
(Mr Berryman) That would be quite a serious
matter for the operation of Paddington Station. It would take
a period of months to jack this lot across—a couple of months
probably, at least. There would be disruption to Paddington during
that period—potentially, quite serious disruption.
11764. By the time you get to the eastern-most
extremity, you are talking about closing just about every line
that goes into Paddington Station.
(Mr Berryman) Potentially. It is something
we would have to argue about but it is potentially that, yes.
11765. Mrs James: On your statement then
of potentially closing every line into Paddington Station, we
have fast lines and we have slow lines, and all the trains from
South Wales and into the South West all come on the fast lines.
Do you envisage all the lines being shut at the same time?
(Mr Berryman) It could be that. I am pretty
sure that that would be Network Rail's starting position. Whether
we would be able to argue away from that, I do not know. The fact
of the matter is we would certainly have to close the tracks under
which these boxes were passing at the time.
11766. What is the longest period of time you
would need to undertake this work?
(Mr Berryman) The worst case would be it would
take two months in total during which there would be progressive
closure as you went across.
11767. Ms Lieven: So that is the engineering
reason why we do not think this is a good idea and getting on
to the Hammersmith and City Line reasons why we do not think it
is a good idea. Can we move on to the transport planning advantages
of this option? To what degree does it give a substantial benefit
to passengers, in your view?
(Mr Berryman) It certainly would give a benefit
to passengers. There is absolutely no argument on that point,
because it would shorten their walking time from the Crossrail
Station to the Hammersmith and City Line. It would save them,
possibly, over a minute-and-a-half, I think, in walking time.
The advantages are that there would still be a connection there,
there would still be an MIP connection with our scheme, and I
do not think the advantages are sufficient to outweigh the cost,
which would be £11 million or £12 million, and the potential
disruption to Paddington Station.
11768. In terms of the number of people doing
that movement—Crossrail to the Hammersmith and City—how
does that compare in numbers of people, for example, with those
who are interchanging between Crossrail and the Bakerloo Line?
(Mr Berryman) I have got the figure here, so
if you give me a second I will find it. We would expect that the
number of people who would use the interchange at present two-ways
during the peak three hours would be about 2,400. The number of
people who would use the Hammersmith and City Line direct link
is about 5,600. So the degree of interchange to the Bakerloo Line
is greater by a factor of about three, compared to that which
would be used for the Hammersmith and City Line.
11769. Just in case some Members of the Committee
are not familiar with this particular bit of the London Underground
network, are there a number of other options for people who are
coming off Crossrail at Paddington and who want to get further
east? Is that why the numbers are changing in this way between
the 2,400 who were predicted to use it with our scheme and the
slightly larger number that would be predicted to use it for the
Hammersmith and City subway link?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, there are a number of ways
that you can get to destinations. For example (this might sound
strange but I have personal experience of something similar that
works), if you were going from Crossrail and wanted to get to
Kings Cross, you would have two choices of doing it: you could
change to the Hammersmith and City Line here, or you could carry
on on Crossrail to Farringdon and take a train back one stop from
Farringdon to Kings Cross. Depending on the time of the link,
different journeys of that sort may be more or less attractive
in one direction or the other. That is just an example of a way
that people can make these kinds of movements. Because we have
got relatively few stops on the Crossrail route, it would be a
fairly quick way of making that journey.
11770. Can we quite quickly look at two other
options that we looked at briefly in order to dismiss, quite briefly?
First of all, the one which is on exhibit 16, which is a subway
to platform one within Macmillan House.[21]
(Mr Berryman) Yes. The idea of
this one was, again, to make use of the existing basement structures
which are under the front of Macmillan House and make a subway
round on to platform one at a different location. I am not sure
if we have a slide of the next level up, but this set of stairs
here would be at the bottom of the set of stairs which go up to
the existing footbridge, so you would come out of the unpaid side
of the station, around to this set of stairs, up to the platform
level and then up again to the footbridge and across the footbridge
in the way we have described. The reason for not proceeding with
this one is that, first of all, to walk up this set of stairs
and then another set of stairs to the footbridge is a long, vertical
rise. It is quite a convoluted route and we did not think it gives
much benefit over the scheme that we have in the Bill.
11771. The final one which we looked at, which
is in exhibit 14, is escalators within Macmillan House. It has
a superficial attraction to it.[22]
(Mr Berryman) If it was an easy
thing to do it would be quite a useful interchange. I do need
a photograph of the inside of the station.
11772. It is number 13.[23]
(Mr Berryman) I will just talk
to this first. With this proposal we would have knocked a hole
through the side of the box into Macmillan House and put a set
of escalators up from the basement level, which is where this
ticket office is, up to the footbridge level, so there would be
a direct link. That escalator would go inside Macmillan House
and we would then knock a hole through the side of the building,
Paddington Station, to actually link into the existing footbridge.
The reason for not doing this is, basically, because of this feature
here along the wall of the station, which is the string of beams
which supports the arches. This is a very important part of the
structure of the Paddington Station, which as you know is Grade
I listed. We felt that the benefits which would accrue from doing
this in this way would be extremely difficult to justify against
the damage that this would cause to the rest of the building.
That was why we did not follow that one.
11773. I think I will leave that issue there
and see whether there are any questions on it. As far as Heathrow
is concerned, we will leave that to Mr Anderson. The other issue
I want to ask you about is the batching plant. Can you explain
what our proposals are in relation to the batching plant? I think
there are two exhibits to do this: 04B/001 and then 002, but start
with 001. [24]
Perhaps you can talk us through these two, Mr Berryman.
(Mr Berryman) Yes. These really
are, perhaps, not the first ones I would have chosen.
11774. You choose.
(Mr Berryman) Can we go to 026 first, please?[25]
This shows the existing and the future proposal for the batching
plant. At the moment, the batching plant, as Members who visited
yesterday will see, is situated on this site here and it is served
by rail using this siding here. The proposal in the longer term
for the permanent batching plant is to have a plant in this area
here. This will be equipped with bunkers to store the aggregates,
and so on, in and, therefore, will occupy rather a larger footprint
than that which exists already. That will have the advantage of
keeping the noise and the dust generated by the batching plant
to much lower levels than it is right now. We are, obviously,
as you know, still working on the detailed design and construction
planning, but we are trying to keep this batching plant in place
for as long as we possibly can and to keep it rail-served for
as long as we possibly can. The advantages to us of having a batching
plant on the site need hardly be explained—we need a lot
of concrete to build this project. The longer we can keep this
going and the longer we can keep it rail-served the better. There
will be a period, though, when we are reconstructing these sidings
and doing various other works when we will not be able to continue
to serve the plant by rail. For that period we will have a temporary
batching plant which will occupy a smaller site; more than likely
(and I cannot really say more than that at the moment) a part
of the existing footprint of the plant. It will be necessary for
that plant to be served by road during the period between closing
the existing plant and opening the new one. We do not know yet
what the period of that may be but it would probably be a couple
of years. However, the fact that that will be served by road,
there would always have been a batching plant in our construction
plans. Whether it was a plant which could serve us and other people
or purely a plant for our use is a moot point (certainly we have
always intended that there would be a batching plant there) and
the lorry numbers which have been allowed for to get to that plant
have been included in our global totals on lorry movements which
have been given to the local authority previously. Perhaps we
could go to 001 now.[26]
What I would like to use this slide for is to explain how the
existing batching plant is served, and then I will go to another
plan to show how the new plant will be served. Can you zoom out
a little bit so we can see point B?
11775. We probably do not need today—we
will next week—to go through the precise train movements.
(Mr Berryman) Would you like me to leave that
till next week?
11776. Ms Lieven: I do not think, given
Westminster's concerns that they raised this morning, unless the
Committee wants us to, we need to go into exactly which sidings
the trains are going into, because we will have to come back to
that next week with the residents, but if the Committee wants
to hear that now.
11777. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I think the
residents are going to make it fairly clear what their feelings
are next week, so I think we can move on.
11778. Ms Lieven: Mr Berryman, those
are all my questions for you at this stage. I do not think you
have anything to add on Great Western Studios; I will deal with
that. Cross-examined by Mr Clarkson
11779. Mr Clarkson: Mr Berryman, I am
going to begin with the link to Hammersmith and City. In context,
it is important that this major cross-London route links where
possible with the existing infrastructure. Do you agree?
(Mr Berryman) I do indeed.
20 Crossrail Ref: P99, Paddington Station-Hammersmith
& City Line Interchange, Ticket Hall Plan, Option B-Low Level
Subway (WESTCC-32104A-017). Back
21
Crossrail Ref: P99, Paddington Station-Hammersmith & City
Line Interchange, Ticket Hall Plan, Option C1-subway to platform
1 within Macmillan House (WESTCC-32104A-016). Back
22
Crossrail Ref: P99, Paddington Station-Hammersmith & City
Line Interchange, Ticket Hall Plan, Option C2-Escalators within
Macmillan House (WESTCC-32104A-014). Back
23
Crossrail Ref: P99, Paddington Station-Network Rail Platform
1, View from footbridge (WESTCC-32104A-013). Back
24
Crossrail Ref: P99, Westbourne Park, Existing concrete batching
plant and Network Rail Title Boundary (WESTCC-32104B-001). Back
25
Crossrail Ref: P99, Westbourne Park, Existing and proposed concrete
batching plant (WESTCC-32104A-026). Back
26
Crossrail Ref: P99, Westbourne Park, Existing concrete batching
plant and Network Rail Title Boundary (WESTCC-32104B-001). Back
|
