Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007