Examination of Witnesses (Questions 2240
- 2259)
2240. Therefore, my version of a regional Crossrail,
and there would be others with other possibilities, would have
111 stations, 48 peak-hour trains, just the same, 3,452 miles
and 72 miles per train. Just looking at the diagram, it shows
how Thameslink 2000 and a regional Crossrail would be an excellent
match. Regional Crossrail trains would be integrated into the
national rail network. With more users travelling longer distances,
there would be much greater contributions to the costs, there
would be maximum relief to places like Paddington, Euston, Marylebone
and Liverpool Street and much more of the London Underground network.
Passengers would have everything to gain by using Crossrail for
all, or a significant part, of their journeys, maximising revenue
and relief to other parts of the rail and Underground network.
2241. The regions would have good access to
parts of London and good connections between their regional centres.
Places like Northampton, Milton Keynes, Aylesbury, Reading, Cambridge,
Ipswich, Colchester, Chelmsford and Southend would be served directly.
With Thameslink 2000 serving Ashford, Dartford, Brighton, Guildford,
Bedford and Luton, all would be linked as well as all the London
airports. This is exactly what the regional assemblies want. London
is just as well served as with the Promoters' scheme. The Government's
big priority development areas, the Thames Gateway, Milton Keynes
South Midlands, the Peterborough-Cambridge-Stansted M11 corridor
and Ashford would all be in the regional Crossrail-Thameslink
2000 network, as are London priorities like the Thames Gateway
and the Lea Valley. Therefore, our traveller from Southend to
Reading would now hop on Crossrail at Southend and either go straight
through in a single journey or he might have to get off the train
at Bond Street and get on the next train. For people like me who
live in Milton Keynes, Northampton and Aylesbury, we would not
have to go to Euston or Marylebone anymore; we would have direct
access to Central London, the West End, the Docklands and so on.
That would then be a scheme that is exactly what people in the
south-east and east of England want.
2242. Just to mention the private sector, they
have tabled two alternative Crossrail schemes; Superlink, which
is a more expensive, extensive scheme, and the London Regional
Metro. The Crossrail Promoters accept that the London Regional
Metro is not significantly different from their scheme, but the
opportunity is there to take a regional scheme straightaway, and
you can have a look at `londonregionalmetro.com'.
2243. Just comparing the regional with the Promoters'
metro-type operation, when the Promoters looked at the regional
express as opposed to their slow scheme, their results, briefly
reported in one of their documents, said that it generated higher
revenues and also performed better on mode transfer from private
to public transport, so really a regional Crossrail scheme, as
we have already discussed, connecting the major towns would generate
more money, which is fairly obvious, and the trains would travel
much further effectively using the central tunnels. The reasons
for choosing the slow operation were that it was more robust due
to segregation, long-term sustainability and consistency with
land-use planning and social inclusion and consistency with the
Mayor's Transport Strategy. Now, that all totally ignores the
east and south-east of England and the national railways system
which should have a major interest in Crossrail. The project is
a London project, not a regional project and this is a huge mistake.
2244. Just dealing with the Promoters' response
to my Petition, the Promoters say that, by limiting the number
of branches operating on segregated tracks, an efficient and reliable
service would be provided. Spreading the service over numerous
routes would increase the risk of importing delays from other
lines, and you would have to accept that that would be true at
times, but, in my view, the Promoters have vastly overestimated
the importance of this single issue to keep Crossrail as a London-only
project. The Promoters' response says that Thameslink is only
a success because it has one route to the north and two routes
to the south, the same as Crossrail. The Promoters obviously totally
ignore Thameslink 2000 currently under construction, three main
routes to the north and many branches to the south. The Government
and train operators are obviously convinced that Thameslink 2000
will be a sound and reliable operation.
2245. The Government is now investing billions
in rail maintenance, signalling and new trains to deal with the
reliability problems the Promoters are concerned about, so in
another few years, 2015, the railway will be reliable and punctual
and the Crossrail Promoters are wrong to say that they must base
their project on a railway system so hopelessly unreliable that
they have to completely segregate their trains and cautiously
stop at every station and go to as few stations as possible. With
Crossrail operating on a segregated basis on main lines into London,
the remaining services will suffer as flexibility is lost. Trains
are going to be barred from switching between lines, so problems
will be magnified. We have all been on Underground stations when
a failed train brings a whole line to paralysis and this will
happen with the Promoters' scheme. A wider network and flexible
operations will minimise the effect of these problems and maintain
a stream of trains through the central tunnels. Four-track railways
should be operated as four-track railways and not as two parallel
two-track railways.
2246. The Promoters say that, by creating numerous
opportunities for connection and interchange with other services
and other modes of transport, Crossrail will provide improved
transport over a wide area of the South-East. I have shown earlier
that Crossrail, as it is promoted, will attract minimal usage
and is not attractive to many of those travelling from outside
London itself. A regional Crossrail will be infinitely better,
giving better interchange, better connections, more relief to
the London termini and more relief to the congested Underground.
2247. The Promoters say that Crossrail will
link the Thames Gateway, Docklands, the City, Stratford, the West
End and Heathrow, but of course virtually all the Thames Gateway
stations have been removed from the Promoters' scheme. It will
also serve the western and eastern suburbs, both of which are
expected to see major traffic growth, but of course a regional
Crossrail would do all of this plus serve the Government's really
big development areas of Milton Keynes, South Midlands, Northampton
and Aylesbury, the Cambridge Stansted M11 development corridor,
the Lea Valley, so a regional Crossrail is infinitely better in
dealing with the Government's wider development aspirations. The
regions around London are where rail travel is really growing.
There was a 50 per cent growth in the east of England in a recent
seven-year period. London's inner suburbs served by the Promoters'
Crossrail are unlikely to grow at the rate of the areas outside
London.
2248. The Promoters say that to change now would
mean major delays, but these can be limited as the most difficult
part of the scheme is unchanged and there has already been a large
amount of work done in looking at alternatives. I do not really
see regional Crossrail as an extension of the scheme, but a more
effective joining of Crossrail into the national rail network.
In some ways, it would simplify the project with trains terminating
where they do now and stabled and maintained rather than having
to provide expensive, new facilities where trains are going to
be maintained, stored and turned. I think if billions of pounds
are going to be spent on Crossrail, it is vital to get it right
and not just to plough on with the wrong scheme because this is
where we are.
2249. Just to conclude, Crossrail is a once-in-a-generation
opportunity. The New Civil Engineer magazine says that
it is the largest infrastructure project in the northern hemisphere.
As it is, it is going to be a big disappointment for those expecting
a world-class addition to the national rail system. There must
be something wrong if Network Rail, the custodian and operator
of the national railway network, is an objector rather than an
enthusiastic promoter of Crossrail. The passenger and freight
train operators, British Airports Authority, the South-East and
East of England regional assemblies all want Crossrail, but not
the Promoters' scheme.
2250. Obviously I hope that the Committee will
look carefully at a regional option for Crossrail. At little extra
cost and using existing lines into the east and south-east of
England, many passengers travelling far more miles would use Crossrail
and contribute far more fare revenue to the costs. With the maximum
possible relief to the London rail network, central termini and
London Underground, the greatest possible support to the Government's
development plans and aspirations to reduce greenhouse gases,
it would really cross the capital and connect the UK. Just to
illustrate this, my Table 2, supposing you turn up at Farringdon
in ten years' time and look at the train indicator board, this
is what you will see: Thameslink 2000 northbound would be Bedford,
King's Lynn, Luton, Peterborough, Bedford, Cambridge and southbound
would be Wimbledon, Brighton, Dartford, Ashford, Guildford, Horsham,
a really dynamic range of use of stations.[14]
After spending £16 billion on Crossrail, your westbound station
will go Paddington, Maidenhead, Paddington, Paddington, Heathrow,
Paddington, and eastbound it will be Abbey Wood, Shenfield, Abbey
Wood, Shenfield, Abbey Wood, Shenfield. This is not a dynamic
addition to the national rail network. With a regional Crossrail,
your westbound traveller would have Reading, Northampton, Aylesbury,
Heathrow, Watford, Milton Keynes and eastbound he would have Abbey
Wood, Southend, Shenfield, Cambridge, Abbey Wood, Ipswich, and
one of the Abbey Woods would probably be Ebbsfleet if we added
it back in. That is the sort of thing people are going to expect
from Crossrail. They do not expect it to be a London Underground-type
operation.
2251. I have gone to the trouble of petitioning
the Committee myself as obviously getting Crossrail to Milton
Keynes and Northampton means a change of strategy. At my age I
am probably too old to see Crossrail finished, but I think it
is vital to see that Crossrail does go forward as a dynamic addition
to the national rail network, not downgrading the national rail
network to a London Underground-type operation. The more I looked
into it, the more convinced I became that regional Crossrail is
the way forward and it meets all the Government's objectives.
2252. I would like to conclude, thank you for
listening to my petition. I would like to thank Sarah Price and
Darren Hackett for helping me with the computerisation and making
sure I presented it all properly. Thank you.
2253. CHAIRMAN: Mr Middleton, we are
very happy to listen to your petition and we are glad you have
been helped by the clerks. What is it you want us to do?
2254. MR MIDDLETON: If I was on a committee
and my scheme had spent four years in the Houses of Parliament
I would want the people that looked at this to look at the strategy,
not just the detail.
2255. CHAIRMAN: What do you want this
Committee to do?
2256. MR MIDDLETON: I would like you
to report that my views are correct, that as well as looking at
the details, which the Chairman of the other Committee said you
were charged to look at the details of the scheme, not whether
it was the right strategy or the right approach to Crossrail globally.
I am sure in the introduction to your final report you could say
what you like about Crossrail as a project. I do not understand
the nicety of this, but if you are someone like me out in the
countryside I am not sure if Crossrail is great like this. I think
I made my point quite clear why I think regional Crossrail is
right, but if you step back and say, "Well, we're convinced
Crossrail must have the minimum number of stations as it is, must
operate slowly stop by stop, stop, stop, stop as it is, it must
serve mature London suburbs rather than the major developments",
but I think people in the wider sense would expect committees
to look at the whole thing, the project, not just at the details.
I think this is what I would like the Committee to do, to think
about Crossrail as a project.
2257. CHAIRMAN: It is not what the public
would like, it is what we can do within the parliamentary constraints
and you will appreciate the principle is this Bill has been given
a second reading as it is and it simply is not possible to graft
on a whole collection of extensions that you think without starting
again. You say that the Promoters—this is on page six—"to
change now would mean major delays", that is an understatement.
It would mean completely starting all over again with the parliamentary
process, which really has been going on since 2003, is it?
2258. MS LIEVEN: It is three years, my
Lord, so 2005.
2259. CHAIRMAN: 2005, with a whole collection
of other complications. Mr Middleton, it just is not practicable
within the parliamentary rules for us to do anything to implement
your suggestions. Did you not understand that?
14 Committee Ref: A15, Table 2-Farringdon 2015-typical
train indicator boards for 15 mins in peak hours (LINEWD-1_05-009) Back
|
