My name is down to this clause stand part debate, and I support what the noble Lord said. Clearly any amendment to the Bill about an extension would be wrong. It would delay things and cause obfuscation in the project costs and delivery, which clearly nobody would want to see. Everybody would say that it would cost more if Crossrail were extended; of course it would cost more, but that does not mean that it would be less efficient.
What should happen—and I hope that my noble friend can give some positive words on this—is that Network Rail should apply for funding, although I question whether it needs Transport and Works Act approval to electrify from Maidenhead to Reading. Crossrail would not have to build the maintenance depot at Maidenhead. I entirely agree with the noble Lord’s comments about employment, and it could be built at Reading for the same cost. It is the cost of electrification. The Crossrail trains are already provided for in the excellent Reading refurbishment scheme.
The problem may be that somebody will say that there is no business case. Not many people from Reading are going to take an all-stations train to Crossrail and go down the hole. The noble Lord said that clearly the answer as to have a fast and a slow service; the fast ones would clearly go on the fast lines and the slow ones on the slow lines. When we get near London, the same comment applies to the Heathrow Express, which should be going into the Crossrail tunnel—BAA does not want that, presumably because it will lose revenue on its £20 single second-class fare—and it would need some kind of grade separation outside Paddington. Looking at this strategically, I hope that my noble friend can say that they will at least look at this and not start the works at Maidenhead, which are necessary for the project, until there has been a really good debate about whether there could not be a fast service. It does not matter who runs it, whether it is Crossrail, a state or government-funded operator or a franchise, but the thing should be looked at holistically. I am convinced that it is the answer. The Crossrail project as it is needs revenue from trains going through the central tunnel to help the funding situation. I am convinced that faster trains going through would increase the revenue, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, would like to see them going on to Essex, rather than starting at Shenfield and stopping at all stations to London, but I leave him to comment on that if he wishes. I look forward to my noble friend’s comments.
Crossrail Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Berkeley
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 26 June 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Crossrail Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
702 c707-8GC Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-09-19 11:26:58 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_487456
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_487456
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_487456