Examination of Witnesses (Questions 12420
- 12439)
12420. Just tell me your position at Mouchel
Parkman and also tell us your relevant qualifications.
(Mr Reed) Good afternoon, Committee. My name
is Stephen Reed. I am a transport planner and divisional manager
for Mouchel Parkman. I am a chartered civil engineer and member
of the Institution of Civil Engineers. I have been practising
transport planning since 2002, but before that general engineering
and advice.
12421. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you for
introducing yourself. For the benefit of the record, the slides
that you will be referring to will be numbered A137.[31]
12422. Mr Stoker: I am grateful, sir.
If we can go to slide two, this picks out the main points in your
evidence.[32]
One has got a comparison of train services and if one looks at
the last two bullet points, one is concerned with the capacity
at the rail station and also questions of car parking. The second,
third and fourth bullet points underpin the question of demand,
do they?
(Mr Reed) They do.
12423. Those are the issues you look at by way
of outline. We then turn to slide three, first of all looking
at the comparison of services.[33]
This is existing Maidenhead compared with what would be proposed
under Crossrail. We pick out, do we, at current averages some
5.7 examples of rolling stock per hour with an average journey
time of 33 minutes, although the fastest service is 18 minutes?
(Mr Reed) That is correct.
12424. Within that there are, as I understand
it, much favoured and much used local branch line services, is
that right?
(Mr Reed) There are. There are services from
Marlow and Bourne End, and stations at Cookham and Furze Platt
that feed into Maidenhead but also have two fast services that
link Marlow and Bourne End via Maidenhead.
12425. Although the 18 minutes might be a direct
journey straight through, there are also limited stopping services
that have a relatively short journey time.
(Mr Reed) There are. There are a number of
services that operate in the mid-20 minute group.
12426. If you then compare that slide four,
which is one example of what is said will be provided, compared
to the existing 5.7 services per hour average, Crossrail is providing
some four trains per hour with a journey time of 41 minutes compared
with the existing average of 33 minutes, is that right?[34]
(Mr Reed) That is correct.
12427. As I understand it there is going to
be a keeping of the residual diesel service, and that is a limited
stopping service.
(Mr Reed) That is right.
12428. If one then turns through to slide number
five, this is the Promoter's response to the Petitioner's documentation
as to what is said by way of service.[35]
We have got the four Crossrail trains per hour and we have got
a peak hour fast train from Maidenhead which arrives and departs
from London Paddington and that runs on the main line. You have
got a concern about that which we will come to in a moment. The
peak hour fast train to and from Maidenhead which arrives and
departs London Paddington on the relief lines, that goes, that
is going to be withdrawn, and then one has got an additional limited
stopping service on the relief lines between Reading and London
Paddington and that will run every 30 minutes. In overall terms
thus far, I think the way it was put this morning by Crossrail's
witnesses was that the service would be comparable, it is not
said to be conspicuously better but comparable. Is that the way
you judge it?
(Mr Reed) Yes, it is comparable.
There are slightly more trains in the peak hours, about six an
hour. Accepting that the journey time is slightly longer under
Crossrail to Paddington there are the benefits you have heard
from others about the extension into London City and the West
End, et cetera.
12429. Back to that second service on slide
five. This is the peak hour fast train to and from Maidenhead
on the main lines. If we turn over to slide six, tell us about
your concern about whether that service will in fact be permitted
to operate or not in the light of, as I understand it, the Route
Utilisation Strategy.[36]
(Mr Reed) The SRA that was undertook
a Route Utilisation Strategy, which is an examination of capacity
on Great Western, and under their published document in 2005 they
suggested quite strongly that in the peak hours in the morning
the main lines east of Reading should be reserved for 125 mile
an hour Intercity stock. They have shown some improvements in
that they have increased capacity for those long distance journeys.
The concern is that in the Promoter's response we have been told
the turbo-diesels, which are 90 miles an hour, would still be
able to run on the main lines but we have got conflicting information
from the Great Western RUS that those lines should be reserved
for the 125 mile an hour trains only.
12430. Do you hazard a guess as to how that
inconsistency might be resolved?
(Mr Reed) To hazard a guess, I would assume
at some point it would depend on the overall strategy that DfT
Rail want to put forward. My assumption is that at some point
in the future under the new timetabling the 125 mile an hour services
will get priority over the main lines into London Paddington for
capacity reasons.
12431. If one turns to slide seven you list
the issues to be resolved.[37]
Just take us through these, if you can, by way of taking stock.
(Mr Reed) I think the Royal Borough
welcomes the benefits that Crossrail will provide in direct access
into Central London. The thing that we have not yet resolved with
the Promoter is the anticipated service patterns under Crossrail.
We have heard a lot about them but there seems to be some general
confusion in there which needs to be ironed out. This issue of
track access arrangements over the main lines between Maidenhead
and London Paddington are something that not necessarily the Crossrail
project team can deal with but it is in the hands of their co-Promoter,
DfT Rail. One of the things we are concerned about is the guarantee
regarding the future Bourne End, Marlow branch services. If the
two through services are lost that might have an impact on patronage
of those routes.
12432. I think you have seen letters that have
gone backwards and forwards and there are discussions under way
and, as I understand it, what we are being told is this is a matter
for future agreements to be negotiated between the various parties
and at the moment there cannot be any guarantee or certainty.
(Mr Reed) Yes, that is our understanding. Fairly
soon Network Rail and others will be coming to the Committee to
give their indication on track access options, et cetera but,
unfortunately, that information is not available for us to look
at and examine and see what the implications might be.
12433. If we then turn to a separate point on
slide number eight, because this is a question of forecasting
future growth.[38]
Let us go through this in stages. In terms of slide number eight,
we are looking at the work of Crossrail that flows from their
Transport Impact Assessment, is that right.
(Mr Reed) That is correct.
12434. If one looks down in terms of boarders,
those getting on to trains going into London, one sees without
Crossrail and with Crossrail it is the same figure, 2,300.
(Mr Reed) That is correct.
12435. Which indicates no growth at all. That
seems to flow from some form of computer model that has been utilised
under the TIA. Do you want to comment on that in terms of the
realism of that situation: a major new project introduced, and
whether there is going to be no growth is a realistic scenario?
(Mr Reed) We understand the models that have
been used following our discussions with Crossrail and with what
is called the Rail Plan and LTS, they were journey times, comparison
journey times. We received no information to indicate whether—we
have asked the question—they take account of human behaviour.
They take account of, perhaps, the time it takes to interchange
and include that but where the perception on interchanging, whether
it is easier to get on up ahead on the line and how will people
change their habits, other than just looking at journey times,
we are not sure. We have not been given the information that indicates
that the models take account of those other human behaviour attributes.
12436. Just picking out what you see might be
underpinning growth in the future that the model does not take
account of, what about people who drive now who choose in future
to move from their car on to Crossrail? Does the model seem to
deal with that?
(Mr Reed) We are not sure and it is unlikely
that the models will deal with, effectively, forecast demand in
the future—people's change of habits to change on to the
rail network from using their car. That is something we have asked
Crossrail to provide to us. The main point is that once Crossrail
is in place we believe the benefits that direct access into London
will give will become very attractive to people, which may not
have been taken account of within the model itself.
12437. Just so one understands how that attraction
might be manifested, can you talk about the question of demographics
and moving to take advantage of rail services?
(Mr Reed) Yes, sir. What we feel is that—and
there are some slides we will come to later in the presentation
about the type of people who use Maidenhead station currently—once
a new rail system is in place people will start to look at that
system when they are making the choice. They might use the schools
that are in that area and therefore want to live in that area
because the schools are good. Others will be making choices about
where they want to live on the basis of how easy it is to access
central London. Now, if they compare what they have got now with
what they could have under Crossrail they will be able to say:
"I can travel in directly to central London, and therefore
I can live in the green belt just outside London and travel into
London". That would form part of their decision making process.
12438. Let us go to slide 9.[39]
Concern is being expressed over this computer model, which seems
to show no growth. You have been commissioned to carry out a survey,
as I understand. Is that right?
(Mr Reed) That is correct.
12439. Take us through slide 9, which is the
work of your survey. I think there should be a correction made
to this.
(Mr Reed) In advance of receiving the Transport
Impact Assessment from Crossrail we were commissioned to undertake
a rail user survey at Maidenhead to, effectively, update to some
extent the work that was done back in 2001 by the SRA under what
was called the LAT survey. We undertook surveys from 6 o'clock
in the morning until 7 o'clock/8 o'clock at night, and that was
quarter-of-an-hour counts and interviews, questionnaires, etc.
In order to give a comparison with what was presented in the TIA
by Crossrail, we have selected the 7am to 10am peak period of
boarders and alighters getting on to go into London. There is
a correction I need to make on the boarders number. That figure
is not 2527: could we note it is 2327. I was advised this morning
that there was a misread by the count people.
31 Committee Ref: A137, Mouchel Parkman Report-Impact
of Crossrail at Maidenhead. Back
32
Committee Ref: A137, Outline of Evidence (WINSRB-14605C-002). Back
33
Committee Ref: A137, Comparison of Services (WINSRB-14605C-003). Back
34
Committee Ref: A137, Comparison of Services (WINSRB-14605C-004). Back
35
Committee Ref: A137, Comparison of Services (WINSRB-14605C-005). Back
36
Committee Ref: A137, Comparison of Services (WINSRB-14605C-006). Back
37
Committee Ref: A137, Comparison of Services (WINSRB-14605C-007). Back
38
Committee Ref: A137, Forecasting (WINSRB-14605C-008). Back
39
Committee Ref: A137, Forecasting (WINSRB-14605C-009). Back
| 
