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.
| 
