Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 13120 - 13139)

  13120. Mr Francis: I think so.

  13121. Mr Binley: You are very kind, and I am very grateful to you. If you would like to make your presentation. Are you calling witnesses, Mr Francis?

  13122. Mr Francis: No.

  13123. Mr Binley: Thank you very much.

  13124. Mr Francis: I am the transport speaker for the Green Party of England and Wales. I am here today representing Jean Lambert, who is the Green MEP for London, Jenny Jones and Darren Johnson who are members of the London Assembly and for local residents who are concerned with the area near their houses. We have got them on board to cover the issues which you mentioned earlier.

  13125. I do not propose to talk about Hanbury Street or the Romford Depot which were in our Petition, the situation has changed because of the proposed changes. Our aim is not to oppose Crossrail but it is to protect existing and future services on the Great Eastern and Great Western mainlines for both passengers and freight.

  13126. If Crossrail and the existing services cannot be accommodated on the existing four track railways in those areas then we think there is a need to increase capacity by adding a fifth or possibly sixth track in some sections in order to accommodate the existing services and Crossrail trains.

  13127. We also objected to the Secretary of State being given powers to direct the Office of the Rail Regulator to give Crossrail either exclusive or guaranteed use of the slow lines, because that could be disadvantageous to other services using those lines. We do not wish to see existing passengers and freight services being pushed off those lines or slowed down because of the introduction of Crossrail trains. We think Crossrail should be treated the same as any other train operating company, and the Secretary of State should not be given extra powers.

  13128. I mentioned that we want to see existing services continue. Theresa Maynard, in her presentation to you this morning, was talking about services which would be reduced by the proposals for Crossrail because some of the services serving Maidenhead would be terminated in Slough instead of going all the way through to Paddington. This would be an inconvenience to passengers because they would have to change and, even worse, they would be changing to a slow four station service to continue their onward journey.

  13129. Again, we believe capacity needs to be provided so that those trains from Reading can continue all the way into Paddington rather than terminating at Slough.

  13130. It is important to keep existing freight services, to encourage more services and ensure that there is capacity for them. The Government's ten year plan forecasts that there will be an 80 per cent increase in rail freight by the year 2010, and we think, again, capacity needs to be made available for that to happen. That capacity must not be used by Crossrail.

  13131. In our Petition we have suggested places where a fifth or sixth track may be added. I am not going to go through that here, you have it in front of you, but that is to say that we believe it is technically possible to add extra tracks, certainly on the Great Western mainline, everywhere except perhaps Wharmcliffe via Ealing Broadway Station, otherwise there is an existing railway line that could be largely used to add to the existing tracks.

  13132. On the routes at the western end, we support the principle of a London Metro service as opposed to a regional Express service. Obviously we would like to see both, but if one has to give priority to one or the other, then we support the shorter distance commuting because that has less environmental consequences than long distance commuting. However, what we do not support is the terminating of over half of the westbound trains at Paddington during the peak periods. This is a waste of resources and will cause the removal of a freight facility in order to make space for a turn back and will cause operational difficulties because the train will not be turned back at the passengers' station where it is at its sidings at Westbourne Park.

  13133. Any passengers carried into that turn-back siding will have to return to Paddington, which is also an inconvenience. What we would like to see is more branches of the railways in West London being served by Crossrail to take advantage of the capacity that Crossrail will create for cross-London journeys, and it is a waste of that capacity to have over half of it not going west of Paddington. Again, we have suggested four possible routes which we think should be investigated; they are not amongst the routes investigated in the earlier Crossrail studies. They are: Uxbridge via South Ruislip, the Castle Bar Park loop, the Windsor branch and Richmond via Willesden Junction. They would all be existing railways but with the odd extra connecting line being required. Again, we have submitted some details with the Petition.

  13134. We also support the idea of a western access to Heathrow. This could be done by a new line extending west out to Terminal 5 using current freight lines and then rejoining the Great Western main line here to Iver.

  13135. Mr Binley: Mr Francis, I am awfully sorry. That is not within our remit, I am afraid. We are not able to make a recommendation of that kind at this stage to the House.

  13136. Mr Francis: I thought that you had been given leave to consider issues regarding Reading.

  13137. Mr Binley: My advice is not to Heathrow Airport. That is a special exemption, I am told. I do apologise. If I am proved wrong you can stick pins in me afterwards, but I am told that is the case.

  13138. Mr Francis: It was simply that it helps to justify the case for going to Reading.

  13139. Mr Binley: I understand that and I know the point you are making.


 
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