Examination of Witnesses (Questions 12840
- 12859)
12840. As I say, if people in Maidenhead and
Twyford can get on a fast and a semi-fast service to Paddington
and stay on without changing through to the rest of London, that
would be a considerable benefit. The proposals today do not provide
that benefit, and I believe it will reduce service to my constituents.
12841. Extending the line to Reading would enable
Crossrail to provide those fast and semi-fast services stopping
at Twyford, Maidenhead and Slough into Paddington and then through
the rest of London.
12842. I am also concerned about the access
option being proposed for Crossrail. As I read it in H2, it says
that once the option is agreed access rights conflicting with
Crossrail would not be granted. As I read it, this suggests that
it would not be possible for cross service link which would suggest
any improvements to the current service from Maidenhead or Twyford
in the intervening years.
12843. I am sure you have heard a great deal
of evidence on the impact on Guards Club Park and Island. It will
affect residents in that area and it will have an environmental
impact. Very simply, I do not think the Promoter has looked properly
at alternatives. It seems absolutely crazy when we are trying
to encourage people to use more environmentally friendly forms
of transport that when Guards Club Park and Island is by the river
that the use of the river to bring materials in and the use of
barges as a working platform has not been properly considered.
I suggest that the Promoter's response, where they said, "Because
this was only a short duration, lorries were more appropriate",
was frankly just a dismissive response and showed that they had
not really thought through the issue of the use of barges. I think
much more attention should be given to the use of waterborne transport.
It seems to be obvious, the river is there, why not use it. That
would reduce the impact on residents and the environment impact
generally locally.
12844. The Brunel Bridge, the further response
that I had from the Promoter following their initial response
which suggests that it will now be possible to locate all of the
electrification gantries within the internal width of the bridge
is good news but, again, it looks very much as if there has been
no real attempt by the Promoter to look at alternatives including
a third electrified rail. This is a world famous bridge, it is
a Grade II Listed bridge. It was immortalised in William Turner's
painting. We are talking about the fact that putting the gantries
would significantly affect the view down through the river and
across the bridge.
12845. I am also disappointed that at this stage
design is still under discussion. I suggest the Bill should not
be passed unless this has been specified or unless clearly it
would be subject to further specific planning approval by local
authorities and English Heritage.
12846. Finally, just to comment on the impact
on Maidenhead Station. There is limited space at the station.
Bringing Crossrail in with Maidenhead as the terminus would mean
it would not be possible to develop a transport hub at Maidenhead
Station which is desperately needed. There is no consideration
given to the impact on increased traffic through the town. If
Crossrail were to attract more passengers, people would be accessing
Maidenhead Station, the majority of those at the moment would
be by car, there is no possibility for a bus hub. There is limited
space at the station for buses already, so there would be no possibility
in the proposals that we see for that to be provided there.
12847. That, again, I believe, argues for Reading
being the terminus rather than Maidenhead. As I say, Crossrail
could be of enormous benefit to my constituents. As it is currently
proposed, it will not be.
12848. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you very
much indeed. That was very clear. Do you intend to call any witnesses?
12849. Mrs May: No.
12850. Mr Binley: Forgive me, why do
you think the terminus is not going to be Reading, but rather
Maidenhead? What are the real reasons?
12851. Mrs May: I think the real reason
is cost.
12852. Mr Binley: Why specifically?
12853. Mrs May: Because it will require
improved capacity at the station, changes to the single box, as
I understand it, is one of the things at Reading station. I think
that is the reason that appears to be stopping the Promoter from
going to Reading, which is why it is disappointing that there
is not any real analysis of the cost in the Promoter's response.
I suggest the cost of those works against the total cost of Crossrail
is going to be a very, very small proportion. As I said earlier,
there is work due to be done at Reading Station anyway to improve
capacity, so some of that may very well have been done by the
time Crossrail came in.
12854. Mr Binley: Are you saying that
the signalling problems could well be resolved and will have to
be resolved anyway irrespective of whether Crossrail goes to Reading?
12855. Mrs May: There are obviously issues
of electrification which Crossrail would bring in, but in terms
of Reading Station, it has long been on the list of schemes for
Network Rail that they need to improve the capacity on the entrance
to Reading station which, as I understand it, would include work
on the signals to Reading station.
12856. Ms Lieven: If I can call Mr Berryman.
Mr Keith Berryman, recalled,
Examined by Ms Lieven
12857. Given that Mrs May is the local MP, I
think it is quite important that Mr Berryman goes through each
of those points quite briefly explaining what our response is,
even though I do beg the Committee's indulgence for that because
I know the Committee will have heard most of it, if not all of
it, before. I will keep it short. Mr Berryman, can we go through
each of Mrs May's point very briefly. First of all, can you explain
again why the terminus is at Maidenhead and not at Reading?
(Mr Berryman) This is set out in information
paper A6, which sets out of arguments for the various alternatives
which it considered.[1]
As I mentioned yesterday, a number of alternatives were considered.
The principle ones I guess were Reading, Slough and Maidenhead,
although we also looked at the possibility of stopping at Ealing
Broadway. The point I made yesterday was that going beyond Maidenhead
would be quite expensive, it is quite a long way from Maidenhead
to Reading, it is almost as far as it is from Airport Junction
to Maidenhead, it would be doubling the amount of electrification
than we do with the Great Western. With that goes all the raising
of bridges and so on. Mrs May mentioned the re-signalling at Reading,
in fact, our estimates of £370 million for doing that work
does not include the re-signalling at Reading, it does include
an element for immunisation of signalling against the 25k of the
overhead electrification and it does include an element for new
platforms to allow Crossrail trains to turn round at Reading.
We would expect the number of passengers from Reading to be very
small simply because they have a very good frequent and fast direct
service into Paddington, which would make the attractiveness of
the Crossrail service quite limited. It would be quicker for passengers
to catch a fast service into Paddington and change to a Crossrail
train there if they are going to Central London.
12858. Ms Lieven: The next issue is services
to Maidenhead and Twyford. So far as services to Maidenhead are
concerned and the impact of Crossrail, can we put up exhibit O25
from yesterday which summarises the service frequency and journey
times from Maidenhead.[2]
Can you remind us what is the impact of the fast and semi-fast
services running from Maidenhead to Paddington?
(Mr Berryman) It is set out quite
clearly in these tables. Table one sets out the peak three-hour
period, the number of trains in each band based on what we think
the 2016 timetable would look like with and without Crossrail.
Of course the timetable without Crossrail is substantially based
on what happens now, and that may well change between now and
then, timetabling is subject to annual review. The route utilisation
strategy may lead to changes in the way that the timetable is
drawn up. That is what we expect to be the case, the top line
there, 2016 base, and that is what we expect to be the case without
Crossrail. The line below sets out the situation with Crossrail.
I have to say, if you draw the line at 25 minutes, 24 minutes
or 26 minutes you get a slightly different breakdown, but this
is just to give an overall picture of what the services would
look like. Table 2 sets out the peak one-hour period where you
can see there will still be a fast service to Paddington, although
there will be some redistribution within the time boundaries.
We do have two sheets which show what we expect the actual services
to be which I think would be quite interesting to see.
12859. Yes, I was going to take you to those.
I think that is 33 and 34, or at least I hope it is.[3]
(Mr Berryman) You can see here
a breakdown of what we understand to be the timetable which is
running now and you will notice that there are a number of fast-line
trains, six, which are marked "ML", which stands for
"main line". The fastest of these is a 20-minute service,
not, as was stated in evidence yesterday, 18 minutes. It is 20
minutes, and you can see that there are two 23s, two 26s and a
28-minute service. The average journey time is just over 36 minutes,
but you can see some quite long times in there. For example, the
9.21 takes 49 minutes and that is because it stops at every station,
the 7.51 takes 48 minutes and so on. Could we put up the chart
for what will happen after Crossrail happens.
1 Crossrail Information Paper A6-Selection Of Western
Termini, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk Back
2
Crossrail Ref: P102, Promoter's Exhibits: Service Frequency and
Journey Times from Maidenhead (WINSRB-14604D-025). Back
3
Crossrail Ref: P102, Train service from Maidenhead to Paddington
0400 to 1100 Monday to Friday from 12 June 2006 (WINSRB-14604D-033). Back
| 
