Examination of Witnesses (Questions 13480
- 13499)
13480. Just to remind the Committee—I
think I can lead you on this part—was it agreed by all sides
that the crucial period at Liverpool Street was the am peak and
that is what all the tests have been focused on?
(Mr Anderson) Yes, that is correct.
13481. Can we turn to the level of demand for
2016 and can you explain what level you have used?
(Mr Anderson) Yes. Following discussion with
the Petitioners there was an exhibit three.
13482. If we could put number three up.[34]
(Mr Anderson) A figure of 42,000
through the gateline in ticket hall B has already been mentioned
and we alighted upon that figure as the basis of the modelling
exercise, and it is shown in the top table there as the throughput
in 2016 in that three hour period. I have gone on to note the
effect of increasing that by 35 per cent, which is the percentage
uplift specified in the LUL guidance to cover 60 years' growth,
and I have indicated the effect of the 15 per cent put forward
by the Petitioner. I have indicated the percentage growth in the
right-hand column. The point of tension that we have already heard
about is whether that 42,000 represented a high growth forecast
in the context of the LUL guidance and I came to the conclusion
that I was satisfied that it did and, therefore, we did not need
to extend the growth to the bottom line there, the extra 15 per
cent. As you can see, that leads to very high growth indeed in
the ticket hall and led to some problems when we tried to model
it later on.
13483. Without wishing to revisit old wounds,
can you just tell the Committee how these figures relate to the
London Plan growth?
(Mr Anderson) They would generally be higher.
We have got growth of about 30 per cent in the Liverpool Street
area. The 42,000 really came from the consideration of material
put to us by the Petitioner in terms of development growth in
the area and it led us to the figures that are shown there, but
it is higher than the London Plan.
13484. So the 42,000, the base, is higher than
the London Plan figure, is that right?
(Mr Anderson) That is correct.
13485. Let us focus on the 15 per cent for a
moment. First of all, if you did add in the 15 per cent, how does
that relate to what has actually been observed in real terms as
to be going on at Liverpool Street?
(Mr Anderson) We can see the 2001 figure there.
That probably would not be the peak that has been observed at
Liverpool Street but it would be a reasonably high figure. From
what I have seen from data since 2001 the throughput has not increased
above that and, indeed, it might be slightly lower at the moment.
In order to get to the 42,000 in 2016 we have to achieve quite
significant growth in the next ten years to get the 40 per cent
indicated there. To then add on top of that a 60 year growth of
35 per cent is obviously quite significant so we get nearly 90
per cent growth. To then add a further 15 per cent, which when
compounded is 20 per cent further, is a very significant piece
of growth in its own right, so we are looking at double the throughput
observed in the ticket hall.
13486. Just trying to tie that back into a sprinkle
of reality here, we can see from your table that is 117 per cent
above the observed position in 2001. How does that relate to what
the rail network at Liverpool Street, particularly the underground
network, can actually carry?
(Mr Berryman) It will certainly be pushing
the boundaries, I would expect, on the basis of the modelling
we have done. When we tried to model this level of growth we had
great difficulty in actually getting the model to work. It would
certainly be beyond recent experience in terms of operating Liverpool
Street.
13487. It is probably important to realise that
one is focusing on the peak three hours, so this is not empty
Central Line trains in the afternoon, is it?
(Mr Anderson) No. Indeed, the guidance from
LUL indicates that when you are considering these higher growth
rates, even 35 per cent, you should consider increasing assumed
frequency on the underground lines to get the right number of
passengers to achieve that sort of growth.
13488. Before we leave this topic, Mr Laurence
asked Mr Berryman at some length about his minutes of a meeting
of March 2006.[35]
Would you turn to the yellow one, marked page 2 in the right-hand
corner. This is the minute in question. The relevant sentence
is the one in paragraph 7. Do you have any comment on that?
(Mr Anderson) Clearly, I was aware
of the discussions that had taken place at technical meetings.
I was concerned to get to a forecast that provided the appropriate
basis for the assessment in the context of the LUL guidance, that
is the high forecast demand. Even at this stage we were prepared
to accept that there might be a case for increasing this further
and I think this exchange reflects that. Much later than this,
even in May, I was prepared to accept, if a case that was put
forward that we could support, that we would consider it even
then. There was then an exchange between the Petitioner and ourselves.
I sought their justification for a further uplift in demand. I
was not satisfied that we prepared a response which we put to
them. We subsequently also consulted London Underground on the
matter, as I indicated that we would in subsequent meetings, and
they have indicated it represents an upside forecast. At that
time we were not prepared to consider this further increase and
I am not satisfied that it is justified now. That said, we did
not want to frustrate progress and we realise the Petitioner is
quite keen to see these forecasts, so we did them in any event,
even though we did not think it was a realistic demand.
13489. Ms Lieven: Thank you. Sir, turning
to the question of how did the various options perform, I will
ask Mr Anderson to do the oral answers to that and then we will
show the Legion clips. Your clerk suggested that at that point
we formally suspend the sitting.
13490. Chairman: How long will that take?
13491. Ms Lieven: Not more than five
minutes, sir. We are not doing the whole lot, just selected highlights.
Mr Anderson, how do the various options perform?
(Mr Anderson) Generally, the options were satisfactory
at 2016—what I will call the base demand, if you like—and
also at the increased demand level of plus 35 per cent. We have
improvements to the gateline under a lot of those options and
so we can see the effect on congestion levels compared to what
would happen if the existing gateline was retained. All of them
performed reasonably well in that case. Clearly, the more gates
you put in, the less congestion there will be. We can see as we
go through the options from 3 to 7 that the amount of congestion
is reduced.
13492. Shall we look at the Pedroute before
we look at the Legion. Exhibit 19, Pedroute 2016, option 3.[36]
Are there any problems there?
(Mr Anderson) No, I am comfortable
with that.
13493. Mr Anderson, that answer is given with
your normal understatement. In Pedroute terms, given those colours,
do you perceive there to be any passenger difficulty at that level?
(Mr Anderson) No. I think this represents a
reasonable level of passenger service.
13494. Let us skip on to plus 35 per cent, number
21.[37]
What is your assessment of that?
(Mr Anderson) We can see from
the yellow that has appeared in the concourse some increased level
of queuing from passengers. I think we need to bear in mind that
we are now looking at the peak 15-minute period in the morning,
effectively in the year 2016—so this is predicting in the
future, the plus 35 per cent case. On that basis, I would regard
this as acceptable.
13495. If we look quickly at option 7, number
24.[38]
(Mr Anderson) Here we can see
a lot of blue, which is the high level service and very little
queuing at all. We can note that in the existing ticket hall there
has been a significant improvement because we now have the new
ticket hall off to the left there.
13496. It is perhaps worth making clear that
we have not modelled the Network Rail concourse, have we?
(Mr Anderson) No, not in any great detail.
One can see it there, but it has not been modelled in that sense.
13497. The option 7 at 35 per cent, on number
25.[39]
(Mr Anderson) This is effectively
2016, the peak 15 minute period from 8.45 until 9.00. We can see
the existing ticket hall performing perfectly satisfactorily,
and so, too, the new option 7 ticket hall. There is a little bit
of yellow at the junction and we might talk about that a little
more when we look at the Legion which shows how that has arisen.
That is something we could attend to as we take the scheme forward
and improve upon it.
13498. Ms Lieven: Let us now move on
to Legion and hope the technology works. Sir, at this point, perhaps
you could formally suspend the sitting.
13499. Chairman: It might be better to
suspend and come back to this at the beginning of the afternoon
session.
34 Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station Ticket
Hall B-Gateline Demand Options (LONDLB-20504A-003). Back
35
Committee Ref: A152, Steer Davies Gleave Meeting Note, Liverpool
Street Crossrail, 13 March 2006 (LONDLB-20505-016). Back
36
Crossrail Ref: P104: Pedroute Option 3-2016 Demand (LONDLB-20504A-019). Back
37
Crossrail Ref: P104: Pedroute Option 3-2016 Demand + 35per cent
(LONDLB-20504A-021). Back
38
Crossrail Ref: P104: Pedroute Option 7 plus Option 3-2016 Demand
(LONDLB-20504A-024). Back
39
Crossrail Ref: P104: Pedroute Option 7 plus Option 3-2016 Demand
+ 35per cent (LONDLB-20504A-025). Back
| 
