Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20740
- 20759)
20740. Ms Lieven: I was not going to
re-examine Mr Berryman. I think he has covered everything, so
perhaps we can do a quick change to Mr Thornely-Taylor, if the
Committee has no questions.
20741. Chairman: Thank you. We are grateful
to you as always, Mr Berryman. You may leave.
The witness withdrew
Mr Rupert Thornely-Taylor, re-called
Examined by Ms Lieven
20742. Chairman: We welcome Mr Thornely-Taylor;
we also know full well his distinguished background.
20743. Ms Lieven: I have to say this
is the first time I have called Mr Thornely-Taylor so I hope the
Committee will bear with me, but I think I only have one question
really, Mr Thornely-Taylor, which is can you explain to us the
problems with putting a larger acoustic barrier on the south side
of the railway?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor): Yes. I think it is helpful
if I very briefly say how noise barriers work. They work by being
higher than the line of sight from the source of the receiver,
but not only that—they have to be either quite close to
the source or quite close to the receiver. They do not work at
all well, even if they are reasonably high, if they are a long
way from both; if they are more or less in the middle of the space
between the two. It is quite helpful to look at a cross-section
through the railway in this area, and there is a cross-section
on the system at number 17, I think, with 18 as the second one,
and it is possible to see that the layout of the tracks in this
area is very unfavourable from the point of view of the geometry
of noise barriers. The Westbourne Park Villas facades are on the
right, and this particular one applies to 14-16, which is towards
the eastern end of the terrace of houses.[19]
At this point the Crossrail tracks are low down and there is the
retaining wall of the cutting in which they run which itself is
a noise barrier, so in that area one is only really considering
whether in principle a noise barrier could reduce noise from the
existing railway. Whether or not it is a matter for Crossrail
to do that is a separate issue, but leaving that on one side for
the moment we have to remember that the noise source on a high
speed diesel is 4m above the track, and even if a high speed diesel
was on the nearest track to Westbourne Park Villas the noise source
is going to be up there, and we heard in evidence today that bedrooms
tend to be on the upper floors of these buildings, and although
you might get a little bit of benefit from the very nearest track
by extending the height of this wall with the noise barrier, in
terms of the overall noise exposure of these facades, with the
contribution of all the other trains on all the other tracks,
the Heathrow Express and in this particular location the negligible
contribution from Crossrail, the cost benefit of such a noise
barrier simply would not be worthwhile. If we quickly look at
the next cross-section which takes you to the western end of the
Westbourne Park Villas area, where there is a short terrace of
houses on the north side of the road, again the same thing applies.[20]
There is the facade of the house and, again, the main noise source
of the high speed diesel is 4m above the rail. Here Crossrail
is at the same level as the rest of the tracks but its contribution
to the overall noise exposure of that facade is very small indeed,
it only just triggers eligibility for noise insulation through
the statutory procedures, and the only thing you could do to reduce
Crossrail noise would be somehow to get a noise barrier in the
middle, which is impracticable, and putting extra height on the
right hand wall would mean it would have to be extremely high
to reduce noise from other non-Crossrail railways, and as a general
principle it is simply not a practical proposition for Crossrail
to reduce noise from existing railways, otherwise all railway
schemes throughout the country would have a huge cost burden attached
to them if it fell to them to reduce noise from existing railways.
It would be a nice thing to do in many areas but it is just not
practical proposition.
20744. Mr Thornely-Taylor, last time you appeared
on a Petition you dealt with the level of noise in some detail
that was going to be generated by Crossrail at these locations,
and just for the Committee's note it is Day 45A, paragraph 12761.
I do not ask you to read back through that but can you just explain
how much additional noise, if any, is the Crossrail scheme going
to generate at this location?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor): The difference between
with and without Crossrail is a matter of 1-2 decibels on the
LAeq scale that I have talked to the Committee about earlier on.
It is a very small increase; not enough to trigger significance
using the Environmental Assessment methodology, and it would be
impractical to reduce it by means of noise barriers, for reasons
I have just explained.
20745. I have one other issue which Lady Bright
asked about which I think you know something about. She raised
the concern that the Crossrail scheme at this location might be
treated as an old railway rather than a new railway by reference
to what happened with Heathrow Express. As I understand it the
only relevance of old or new is as far as the railway noise regulations
are concerned. Can you just explain what happened with Heathrow
Express, and why Crossrail will be treated as a new railway for
noise regulations?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor): Heathrow Express runs
on a remodelled layout of the existing track in this middle area.
Crossrail will run on new track laid; it is hard to see but the
existing drawing shows that there is no railway in this space
to the left and Crossrail will run on newly laid track, and it
is absolutely clear and is set out in terms in the Noise Insulation
Regulations that Crossrail will be treated as a new railway, and
eligibility is absolutely clear.
20746. Ms Lieven: In light of the time,
I think I will stop there.
20747. Chairman: Thank you very much;
I am most grateful. Do you have many questions, Lady Bright?
20748. Lady Bright: Because the exhibits
were not arranged as we had hoped we missed putting in our exhibit
on noise barriers which is an alternative view to Mr Thornely-Taylor's.
20749. Chairman: You will be able to
do that in cross-examination. I now adjourn the Committee until
2.30 this afternoon.
After a short adjournment
20750. Mr Binley: Ms Lieven, do you wish
to complete your examination?
20751. Ms Lieven: Sir, there are just
two things I wish to deal with at this stage, and the first is
to tell the Committee the happy news that Mr Reuben Taylor's wife
had a baby this morning.
20752. Mr Binley: Then you might extend
our very good wishes to the lady in question and also to Mr Taylor.
20753. Ms Lieven: I will, sir. Secondly,
over the luncheon adjournment, a member of the team went out and
measured the footbridge at Westbourne Park so that we are absolutely
clear. The span of the footbridge is 1,850mm all the way along,
except at the two points where there are handrails, one of which
is the step up in the middle. If you remember, there is one step
which will be removed by our works because we are lifting the
other span, so there will not be any handrails, so that will all,
when the handrails go, go back to 1,850. The other is 1,600 between
the handrails at the northern end which again I believe will be
removed when the northern end is rebuilt by the Westminster Academy.
Sir, that is the factual point.
20754. Then finally, sir, Lady Bright wanted
to refer to a letter that she meant to put up this morning, but
it did not quite happen because of a failure of co-ordination,
so, before Mr Thornely-Taylor proceeds, what Lady Bright and I
have agreed is that she is going to read the letter to the Committee
and then Mr Thornely-Taylor will comment on it, and then his proper
cross-examination can begin. I hope that is acceptable, sir. Perhaps
then we can put up the Sound Barrier Solutions letter and I think
it is probably more appropriate if Lady Bright reads it.
20755. Lady Bright: It should be attached
to the Van Campen letter. Is it?
20756. Ms Lieven: No, we just have it
in the normal exhibits, I am afraid.
20757. Lady Bright: Unfortunately, the
chap at Crossrail who sent the exhibits through to me yesterday
is off sick today, so that is why we have had some problems. The
letter from SBS is simply that there is another point of view
on sound barriers in this location and Mr Thornely-Taylor has
said that it would have to be completely unrealistically high
to work. I just wanted to read you this letter from the expert
we had to look at it.
20758. Mr Binley: I need to be clear.
Lady Bright, are you going to read the letter in front of us into
the record?
20759. Ms Lieven: That is what I believed
was going to happen, sir. Beyond that is beyond my control.
19 Committee Ref: P152, Cross sections-Westbourne
Park Villas (14/16) Existing and Future (SCN-20070314-002). Back
20
Committee Ref: P152, Cross sections-Westbourne Park Villas (93/95)
Existing and Future (SCN-20070314-003). Back
|
