(SES1) Pt 2

---

Appendix 2

Woodseer Street Track Option Alignment

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Woodseer Street Track Alignment Option Technical Note No.

1D0300-C1V13-00850

Cross London Rail Links Limited 1 Butler Place London SW1H 0PT

Woodseer Street Track Alignment Option Report No. 1D0300-C1V13-00850 March 2005

Mott MacDonald St Anne House 20-26 Wellesley Road Croydon Surrey CR9 2UL UK Tel : 44 (0)20 8774 2000 Fax : 44 (0)20 8681 5706

March 2005

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Woodseer Street Track Alignment Option Technical Note No.

1D0300-C1V13-00850

March 2005

Executive Summary This technical note has been prepared to provide further detail and comparison of the impacts on train operation, track design, maintenance and renewal of the option to site the shaft at Woodseer Street as an alternative to Hanbury Street. This additional technical detail has been prepared following a request to CLRL from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. This technical note is intended to support the report; Use of Woodseer Street Site as an alternative to Hanbury Street Shaft, No 1D0300-C1V13-0837 dated 12th November 2004 which compares all aspects of the works at these two potential sites. When considering the alternative Woodseer Street alignment in terms of operational impact plus track maintenance or renewal, there is no merit whatever in adopting the Woodseer Street alignment. It demonstrates significant disadvantages in terms of operation and increased track maintenance. With RT60, Grade A rail and rail lubrication installed on the Woodseer Street alignment, it is predicted that rail life on the sharpest curves would be 7 months or less compared with between 12 & 15 years on the Hanbury Street alignment. The Woodseer Street alignment results in more frequent rail replacement necessitating substantially more track possessions over the operating life of Crossrail. The installation of rail flange lubricators on both tracks to reduce noise and rates of rail & wheel wear would be essential for the Woodseer Street alignment. This equipment introduces significant amounts of grease into the tunnel environment. It is designed to distribute grease along the rail but it also contaminates the track slab. Without regular cleaning this can affect the reliability of signalling equipment and potentially introduce contaminants into the local track drainage system. The Woodseer Street alignment introduces tight curvature into the Crossrail alignment, a longer railway (54m) and a reduction in speed to 80kph. Based upon these factors the overall journey time between Liverpool Street to Whitechapel stations will increase by between 10 and 15 seconds. The additional journey times quoted are dependant on the speed profile of trains stopping at Whitechapel and Liverpool Street stations. It is therefore recommended that the original Hanbury Street alignment is retained when considering only operational and track maintenance/renewal impacts.

-i-

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Woodseer Street Track Alignment Option Technical Note No.

1D0300-C1V13-00850

March 2005

List of Contents

Page

Executive Summary 1

Introduction

1

2

Purpose of this Technical Note

1

3

Track Specification

1

3.1

General

1

3.2

Woodseer Street

2

3.3

Hanbury Street

2

4

5

6

Track Alignment Options

3

4.1

Introduction

3

4.2

Woodseer Street

3

4.3

Hanbury Street

4

Comparison of Track Maintenance Requirements

5

5.1

5

Table of maintenance requirements

Comparison of Track Renewals

6

6.1

6

Table of rates of track renewal

7

Operational & System Impacts

6

8

Conclusions

8

Appendix A:

Drawings

A-1

Appendix B:

Calculations

B-1

-i-

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Woodseer Street Track Alignment Option Technical Note No.

1

1D0300-C1V13-00850

March 2005

Introduction

This technical note has been prepared to provide further detail and comparison of the impacts on train operation, track design, maintenance and renewal of the option to site the shaft at Woodseer Street as an alternative to Hanbury Street. The additional technical detail has been prepared following a request to CLRL from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The track alignment design has been influenced by the need to intersect the shaft position at Woodseer Street which has been determined by a previous study (Use of Woodseer Street Site as an alternative to Hanbury Street Shaft, Technical Note No 1D0300-C1V13-0837 dated 12th November 2004).

2

Purpose of this Technical Note

It is intended that this technical note compares only the merits of the track alignment and operational impact for the alternative Woodseer Street shaft position when compared with the existing Hanbury Street shaft track alignment. It will consider the implications of adopting the alternative alignment on train speed, track maintenance and track renewal. This technical note is intended to support the report; Use of Woodseer Street Site as an alternative to Hanbury Street Shaft, Technical Note No 1D0300-C1V13-0837 dated 12th November 2004 which covers all other aspects of the works at these two potential sites.

3

Track Specification

The Crossrail Project Design Standards – Permanent Way, have been applied to both alignments and reflect the track specification common to the running tunnels throughout the Crossrail central section. The specification also complies with Network Rail Company Specifications for track alignment design and inspection. Where features differ between the two options these are detailed separately for each alignment. 3.1

General

The Crossrail Project design standards state the following criteria should be applied; x

100kph design train speed;

x

For 100kph line speeds the desirable minimum horizontal curve radius 525m should be specified wherever possible to meet the required passenger comfort requirements and optimise maintenance activities. The absolute minimum radius that will permit a speed of 100kph is 455m;

x

For 80kph line speed the absolute minimum radius 300m curve is required. This curve radius and restriction in speed may be applied only where physical constraints on the alignment prevent 100kph being achieved economically and is subject to the approval of the Crossrail Chief Executive;

x

Maximum applied cant shall be 150mm and maximum cant deficiency shall be 110mm;

-1-

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Woodseer Street Track Alignment Option Technical Note No.

x

1D0300-C1V13-00850

March 2005

Maximum gradient, desirable 1 in 40, absolute minimum 1 in 30.

Network rail standards specify the use of RT60 profile rail but 3 different steel types are listed; Grade A rail steel ; Normal rail steel used throughout the network for rail replacement Grade B rail steel; No longer used in running lines High wear resistant (MHT) rail; Network Rail policy only allows use of this type of rail for replacement at existing sites. For use at new locations this must be approved by Network Rail prior to installation. Throughout the tunnel, section RT60 grade A rail will be specified with appropriate fixings to mitigate noise and vibration where needed. An unballasted track form will be provided throughout the tunnel section of the route. Exact specifications for the design of the track slab form and drainage systems for each section of the tunnel are yet to be developed but the track form will need to incorporate the requirement for derailment containment and noise and vibration mitigation where appropriate. 3.2

Woodseer Street

The track alignment design has been influenced by the need to intersect the shaft position at Woodseer Street which has been determined by previous study (refer Technical Note No 1D0300-C1V13-0837, Section 5.1). To reach the shaft position the alignment is constrained by the piled foundations of several buildings. This option complies with the Crossrail Project design standards specification except with regard to desirable minimum curvature and speed. The curves specified do however comply with the absolute minimum limits allowable within Crossrail Project design standards for track alignment design but only by application of a speed restriction to 80kph. The other changes in specification to reflect the more severe curvature of the alignment (see drawings in appendix A) include; 1.

Increased number of rail fixings per metre;

2.

Installation of rail flange lubricators;

3.

Rail profile grinding programme;

4.

Increased number of signals due to limited sighting distances.

3.3

Hanbury Street

The track alignment design has been influenced by the need to intersect the shaft position at Hanbury Street which has been determined by previous study (refer Technical Note No 1D0300-C1V13-0837, Section 4.1). This option complies with the Crossrail Project design standards specification with regard to desirable minimum curvature, whilst maintaining a 100kph line speed.

-2-

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Woodseer Street Track Alignment Option Technical Note No.

1D0300-C1V13-00850

4

Track Alignment Options

4.1

Introduction

March 2005

When a train follows a curved path a centrifugal force is exerted outwards. The magnitude of this force is affected by several factors including the speed of the train and the radius of the curve. The limiting values used to determine that which is acceptable may be defined by either: x x x x

Safety considerations; the desire to maintain a reasonable level of passenger comfort; optimise track maintenance activity; Optimise track component life.

Curves are canted (banked) to reduce the lateral forces and improve passenger comfort. To achieve this one rail is raised above the other by a calculated amount. Equilibrium speed is the speed at which the vehicle negotiating the canted curve is balanced. When a vehicle travels round a curve at higher than equilibrium speed the curve can be described as deficient in cant. Providing this is calculated to be within design limits it is acceptable and is described as cant deficiency. Therefore the maximum speed at which a train can traverse a curve is dependant on a combination of radius, cant and cant deficiency. When designing the track alignment to pass through the two shaft positions the Crossrail Project design standards have been applied. Neither design exceeds these minimum requirements. Therefore both can nominally be considered as compliant to Crossrail design standards, though the Woodseer Street alignment requires a reduced line speed of 80kph, which has not been approved by the Crossrail Chief Executive. This technical note is therefore only concerned with a comparison of the implications on train operations plus track maintenance and renewal activity of each of the proposed alignments. 4.2

Woodseer Street

Figure 1 Woodseer Street track alignment

-3-

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Woodseer Street Track Alignment Option Technical Note No.

1D0300-C1V13-00850

March 2005

Describing the alignment from west to east; from a straight at chainage 9220 the line takes a right hand transition onto a 335m radius curve with 120mm of cant & 107mm of cant deficiency. Then at chainage 9482 the curve flattens out to 515m radius, with 85mm of cant & 100mm of cant deficiency. At chainage 9671 the alignment becomes straight for a short distance before curving left again at chainage 9870 onto a left hand, 500m radius curve with 120mm of cant & 95mm of cant deficiency. At chainage 10046 the line returns to a straight as the track approaches the station at Whitechapel. This alignment results in a reduction in speed from 100kph to 80kph for approximately 800m. It should be noted that the westbound alignment through this section has a 320m minimum radius curve with the same restriction in maximum allowable speed. The horizontal alignment differs substantially from that described for Hanbury Street and exceeds the minimum desirable curvature (525m) specified by Crossrail Project design standards and thus dictates the lower speed. It does not exceed the minimum allowable curvature. This design provides a vertical profile that positions the tracks 4.7m deeper in the proposed shaft than for the Hanbury Street alignment. This is to avoid the suspected piled foundations under Trumans Brewery, McGlashon House and Arthur Deakin House. The vertical alignment therefore changes significantly with a constant 1 in 170 gradient rising from Liverpool Street towards Whitechapel Station. The construction impacts of lowering the alignment are discussed in Technical Note No 1D0300-C1V13-0837. 4.3

Hanbury Street

Figure 2 Hanbury Street track alignment Describing the alignment from west to east; from a straight at chainage 9030 the line takes a right hand, 595m radius curve with 100mm of cant & 99mm of cant deficiency. Then at chainage 9410 the alignment returns to a straight. At chainage 9712 there is a short 1500m left hand curve to chainage 9800 then another straight as the track approaches the station at Whitechapel. This allows a maximum speed of 100kph through this section of the line. It should be noted that the westbound alignment has a 495m minimum radius curve. Described in the same direction the vertical alignment follows a 1 in 40 gradient climbing towards Hanbury Street shaft. It then falls slightly towards the station. The vertical and horizontal position of the track at the shaft has been determined by the constraints found on the surface, and to found the shaft wholly within London Clay (refer Technical Note No 1D0300-C1V13-0837).

-4-

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Woodseer Street Track Alignment Option Technical Note No.

1D0300-C1V13-00850

March 2005

This design complies with the Crossrail Project design standards design criteria for vertical gradients and horizontal alignment for a line speed of 100kph.

5

Comparison of Track Maintenance Requirements

5.1

Table of maintenance requirements

The following table summarises the key inspection and maintenance differences concerned with a tight radius curve. It does not detail all the inspection or maintenance items common to both alignments. Routine inspection Hanbury Street

Weekly

Woodseer Street

Weekly

Monitor rail side wear 12 monthly then 3 monthly 3 monthly then monthly

Rail profile grinding Every 6–8 years

Maintain rail flange lubricators No

Track slab cleaning Not required

Rail Fixings & pad spot replacement 20 No per year

Rail foot inspection

Every 3-4 months

2 per line Monthly inspection & refill

12 monthly

50 No per year

3 monthly

Every 6–8 years

The frequencies quoted above reflect Network Rail minimum standards for inspection. The frequencies quoted for rail grinding, slab cleaning and rail fixings & pad replacement are based on an estimated rate of deterioration. The table above assumes the use of RT60, Grade A rail on both the Hanbury Street and Woodseer Street alignment options. The frequency for monitoring rail side wear is defined in Network Rail standards and is determined by either the predicted or actual rate of wear. The process is the same for either option. Once side wear reaches certain limits the frequency of inspection increases until the rail wear reaches the maximum allowable then it is either replaced or if possible reprofiled. A programme of rail grinding would be required to maintain rail profile for both alignments. The tight curves on the Woodseer Street alignment would however have a very high rate of wear and grinding may not be a viable solution. If this is the case then replacement of the worn rail is the only alternative. It should be noted that the Woodseer Street alignment option will require more track fixings to be installed and is 54m longer than the Hanbury Street alignment. This will by definition increase the amount of maintenance activity in terms of minor maintenance work and the amount of infrastructure to be inspected. Examples of similar track alignment between the Heathrow Express tunnels and airport junction have required significant additional maintenance activity and have caused operational delay due to component failure. On a curve of similar radius to that specified for the Woodseer Street alignment rails are currently being replaced or transposed every 3 to 4 years. This is with a service pattern of 4 trains per hour over 19 hours per day. The proposed Crossrail service is more frequent than the -5-

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Woodseer Street Track Alignment Option Technical Note No.

1D0300-C1V13-00850

March 2005

Heathrow service with 24 trains per hour and thus it can be reasonably concluded that rail life will be 7 months or less on the 300m curves at Woodseer Street. Whilst it is clear that certain potential maintenance problems can be mitigated at the design stage it will not be possible to remove them completely. Frequency of rail & fixing replacement is clearly increased if the Woodseer Street alignment were to be adopted.

6

Comparison of Track Renewals

6.1

Table of rates of track renewal

Hanbury Street

Woodseer Street

Rail transposing or replacement Every 6 – 8 years at isolated locations – remainder every 12 – 15 years 300m radius curves every 7 months or less. Other sections as per Hanbury St

Track fixing replacement Repadding every 10 12 years. Other items every 12 – 15 years Repadding when rail is replaced

Rail flange lubricator replacement Not required

Every 4 – 6 years with heavy overhaul every 2 3 years

Spacing of track fixings Standard spacing 700mm

Reduce spacing to 610mm on curves less than 500m radius

The table assumes the use of RT60, Grade A rail on both the Hanbury Street and Woodseer Street alignment options When determining when a rail must be replaced the limits of wear tolerances are specified within Network Rail standards are to be applied. Replacement of the worn rail can be achieved in two ways. Rail side wear will only occur on the outside rail on the curve. Therefore when it needs to be replaced this can be achieved initially by transposing the rails on site thus avoiding having to transport new rail into the tunnel. But once the maximum tolerance for side wear is reached again then the only course of action available would be to import new rail to the site and remove the now scrap rails.

7

Operational & System Impacts

Crossrail Project design standards specify a line speed of 100kph for all running lines wherever possible. The Hanbury Street alignment permits a line speed of 100kph. Due to the tight curvature the Woodseer Street design requires an 80kph restriction over approximately 800m of both the east and west bound lines. It is also longer (54m) than the Hanbury Street alignment. Based upon these observations this will increase the overall journey time between Liverpool Street to Whitechapel stations by between 10 and 15 seconds if the Woodseer Street option is accepted. The journey times quoted are dependant on the speed profile of trains stopping at Whitechapel and Liverpool Street stations.

-6-

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Woodseer Street Track Alignment Option Technical Note No.

1D0300-C1V13-00850

March 2005

If a conventional signalling system is adopted for the Crossrail tunnels then signal sighting could be problematic for the Woodseer Street alignment. This will be assessed during the design stage, but with the tight curvature required it is highly likely that additional signals will be needed to comply with sighting distances for drivers. This could impact on minimum train headways through this section and thus have the potential to restrict the maximum number of trains per hour through this part of the line. A significant operational impact when considered over the longer term will be the requirement for track possessions for track maintenance and rail replacement. It is clear the Woodseer Street option creates additional infrastructure and reduces the life of the rail when compared with the Hanbury Street alignment. The additional maintenance works can be planned within the normal no train periods on the route. However both options will demand the rail to be replaced or transposed due to wear at some time and this work will require operationally disruptive possessions. As has been described earlier the Woodseer Street alignment considerably reduces the life of the rail and therefore as a consequence increases the number of disruptive possessions required for rail replacement over the life of Crossrail. It should be noted that where excessive rail side wear occurs an increase in wear rates on the wheels of the Crossrail rolling stock will also be evident. This will result in an increase in the frequency of wheel reprofiling and replacement. As with rails this problem is mitigated to a limited degree by the use of rail flange lubricators but it is still a significant issue with trains being out of use more often whilst repairs are carried out. At locations of high rates of wear to rails and wheels steel “filings” are created. These will mix with the rail flange lubricant creating a paste which can become electrically conductive. This can potentially cause problems with conventional signalling track circuits and introduce stray currents from the traction power supply if not regularly removed.

-7-

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Woodseer Street Track Alignment Option Technical Note No.

8

1D0300-C1V13-00850

March 2005

Conclusions

In terms of operation and increased track maintenance/renewal there is no merit whatever in adopting the Woodseer Street alignment as it demonstrates significant disadvantages. The disadvantages for the Woodseer Street alignment are discussed below: x

The base case (Hanbury Street) maintains a line speed of 100kph. The Woodseer Street design requires a speed restriction of 80kph over approximately 800m. This will result in an increase in journey times between Liverpool Street & Whitechapel stations of between 10 and 15 seconds. This is dependant on the speed profile of rolling stock accelerating or braking between Liverpool Street and Whitechapel stations;

x

The rate of rail side wear is predicted to be significantly greater on the Woodseer Street alignment option. With RT60 grade A rail and rail lubrication, it is predicted that rail life would be reduced on the 300m radius curves to 7 months or less. The more frequent rail replacement will substantially increase the number of disruptive track possessions over the operating life of Crossrail.

x

Rail grinding to maintain the rail profile would be required with a frequency of up to four times that required for the Hanbury Street alignment;

x

The Woodseer Street option would require wheel flange lubrication equipment to be installed. This will introduce significant amounts of contaminants into the tunnel environment which would demand regular cleaning and maintenance. Without regular cleaning the dirty environment could affect the reliability of signalling equipment and introduce contaminants into the local drainage system;

x

High lateral forces would be introduced into the rail on a 300m curve which would require higher toe loadings to be accommodated within the track form design;

x

An increase in the rate of wear on rolling stock wheel sets will result in more frequent reprofiling and replacement. As a consequence stock availability would reduce;

x

Signal sighting is potentially worse in the alternative Woodseer Street option;

x

Rail/wheel noise and vibration is significantly increased. This is unlikely to worsen noise levels on the surface but will travel along the tunnels and may be heard in adjacent stations.

x

The mix of steel “filings” created as a result of the wear on rails & wheels has the potential to cause problems with conventional signalling track circuits and introduce stray currents from the traction power supply if not regularly removed.

It is therefore recommended that the original Hanbury Street alignment is retained.

-8-

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Woodseer Street Track Alignment Option Technical Note No.

1D0300-C1V13-00850

March 2005

Appendix A: Drawings

Alignment – Plan and Profile Liverpool Street to Whitechapel Station Eastbound track 1D0100-C1T13-T00-P-00001

Rev A

Alignment – Plan and Profile Woodseer Street Shaft Crossrail Alternative Eastbound track 1D0100-C1T13-T00-P-00002

Rev A

- A-1 -

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Woodseer Street Track Alignment Option Technical Note No.

1D0300-C1V13-00850

March 2005

Appendix B: Calculations

Basic calculations for predicted rail life on 300m radius curve at Woodseer Street The following calculations are derived from information obtained by Crossrail from Heathrow Express (HEX). The data is from a similar radius curve on the HEX branch off the GW main line. HEX state that rail replacement occurs at between 3 & 4 year intervals. This information together with the service levels on HEX have been used to predict the rate of wear on Crossrail with an increased train frequency.

HEX Runs 4tph over 19 hours per day = 76 trains per day Each train is 8 cars or 32 axles Therefore 32 x 76 = 2432 axles per day

Crossrail Runs 24tph peak times & reduced service off peak Average 16tph over 19 hours per day = 304 trains per day Each train is 10 cars or 40 axles Therefore 40 x 304 = 12160 axles per day

If HEX replaces rails every 4 years = 3502080 axles Crossrail at 12160 axles per day - same level of use after 288 days – 9.6 months

If HEX replaces rails every 3 years = 2626560 axles Crossrail at 12160 axles per day - same level of use after 216 days – 7.2 months

From these figures it can be assumed Crossrail will replace rails approximately every 7 months

- B-1 -

Appendix 3

Crossrail Construction Programme, Programme Impact Without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

Cross London Rail Links Limited 1 Butler Place London SW1H 0PT

&URVVUDLO&RQVWUXFWLRQ 3URJUDPPH 3URJUDPPH,PSDFWZLWKRXW +DQEXU\6WUHHW6KDIWDVD 7%0/DXQFK6LWH 1R'&1$ April 2005

Mott MacDonald St Anne House 20-26 Wellesley Road Croydon Surrey CR9 2UL UK Tel : 44 (0)20 8774 2000 Fax : 44 (0)20 8681 5706

P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

Executive Summary This report was prepared by Mott MacDonald for Cross London Rail Links Limited (CLRLL) to review the programme impact of not using Hanbury Street Shaft as an intermediate tunnelling site (the base case). The report assesses and compares the programme durations for the introduction of revenue services for Crossrail Line 1 with and without the use of Hanbury Street Shaft. In the options considered the revenue service strategy is based upon a staged opening sequence, with the revenue service that operates services between Paddington and Shenfield considered as the benchmark for financial planning. The main depot for Crossrail Line 1 is located at Romford and must be available for commissioning, trial running and the commencement of revenue service. As a comparator the revenue service staging has been developed from east to west in each case. In addition to the base case, which uses Hanbury Street Shaft as an intermediate tunnelling site, two further options were considered for the central tunnels drives without using Hanbury Street Shaft: •

Option 1 - Tunnel drive mid-point at Fisher Street Shaft, with the section from Royal Oak to Fisher Street constructed using an open face shield in predominantly London Clay ground conditions, and the section from Pudding Mill Lane to Fisher Street constructed using a closed face TBM in predominantly Lambeth Group ground conditions;

•

Option 2 - Tunnel drive mid-point at Farringdon Station, with the section from Royal Oak Portal to Farringdon Station and the section from Pudding Mill Lane to Farringdon Station both constructed using closed face TBMs (Earth Pressure Balance Machine) due to poorer ground conditions in the Farringdon area.

Adoption of the base case tunnelling strategy reduces the Project’s risk of a delay in the introduction of revenue services (64 months), as a result of tunnelling, by adopting four shorter tunnel drive lengths between Royal Oak and Pudding Mill Lane Portals. Therefore should construction difficulties slow or stop one of the tunnel drives there is potentially more opportunity for one of the other tunnel drives to compensate. This strategy is also compatible with the revenue service strategy where the eastern tunnel section is completed in advance of the western tunnel section, thus reducing delay in the commencement of the first stage of revenue service. Option 1 combines three tunnel drive lengths from the base case into one tunnel drive length of approximately 8395m, for the section between Pudding Mill Lane Portal and Fisher Street Shaft. This results in a significant imbalance in the construction programme with the section between Pudding Mill Lane and Fisher Street being approximately 65% longer than the section between Royal Oak and Fisher Street. The resulting revenue service date for Option 1 is 19 months longer than the base case. Option 2 reduces the tunnel drive length imbalance of Option 1 by using Farringdon Station as the tunnel drive mid point. In doing so, it creates additional constraints as to the tunnelling methodology and rate due to poorer ground conditions in the Farringdon area. Option 2 also introduces additional risks into the project at the Crossrail station at Paddington; the Northern Line Platform Tunnels at Tottenham Court Road Station; and the Central Line, in respect of internal project interfaces and interfaces with third parties such as Network Rail and London Underground Limited. Risks are also introduced at the Crossrail station at Farringdon in respect to internal interfaces for decommissioning and removal of the tunnelling machines. The programme risk at Paddington is due to additional works involved in receiving and re-launching the closed face TBM (EPBM) and its associated backup

201985/1D0300-C1N00-00839/A3/April 2005

S-1

P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

equipment within the station area, compared to the smaller and lighter open face Shield which will be used for the base case and Option 1. This additional work at Paddington will add two months to the construction programme. At Tottenham Court Road Station, the eastbound Crossrail tunnel passes above the existing LUL Northern Line platform tunnels with a clearance of approximately 0.5m. The use of the heavier closed face TBM (EPBM) will impose much greater travelling loads on the tunnels and will require additional structural support to be installed inside the Northern Line platform tunnels to facilitate the crossing. Between Tottenham Court Road Station and Fisher Street Shaft, both Crossrail tunnels pass above the existing LUL Central Line tunnels with clearances of less than 0.5m. Again, the use of a heavier closed face TBM (EPBM) will require the installation of structural support within the LUL tunnels. It is probable that the crossings of the Northern Line and Central Line will result in a closure being required. This could be up to two months for the Northern Line crossing and up to three months for the Central Line crossing. Programme analysis for Option 2 shows that these delays will increase the revenue service date by 16 months over the base case. In addition, completion of the tunnel fit out between Isle of Dogs and Stepney Green will be delayed until tunnelling and cleanout is completed between Pudding Mill Lane and Fisher Street and Farringdon (Option 1 and Option 2 respectively). Without the use of an intermediate tunnelling site at Hanbury Street Shaft, the revenue service date would be delayed by 19 months for Option 1, and 16 months for Option 2 compared with the base case. This results in the project programme for Crossrail Line 1 being outside the 6 year timetable for funding as determined by the Department for Transport (DfT). It is therefore recommended that the use of Hanbury Street Shaft as an intermediate tunnelling site be maintained as part of the tunnelling strategy for Crossrail Line 1.

201985/1D0300-C1N00-00839/A3/April 2005

S-2

P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

List of Contents Executive Summary 1

Introduction

1

2

Development of the Crossrail Programme

1

2.1

Classic Crossrail

1

2.2

Crossrail Line 1

1

2.3

Revenue Service Strategy

3

3

4

Tunnelling Requirements

4

3.1

General

4

3.2

Ground Conditions

4

3.3

TBM Type and Tunnelling Rate

5

Review of Tunnelling without Hanbury Street Intermediate Tunnelling Site 4.1

5

6

7

Tunnelling Strategy 4.1.1 Option 1- Tunnel Drive Mid-point at Fisher Street Shaft (i) Tunnel Drive Strategy (ii) Programme 4.1.2 Option 2 - Tunnel Drive Mid-point at Farringdon Station (i) Tunnel Drive Strategy (ii) Programme

7 7 8 8 8 9 9 13

Review of Tunnelling with Intermediate Tunnelling Site (Base Case)

14

5.1

Tunnelling Strategy

14

5.2

Programme

15

Programme Comparison

16

6.1

Option 1

16

6.2

Option 2

17

6.3

Additional Considerations

17

Conclusions

19

Appendix A

Time Chainage Programmes

A-1

Appendix B

Review of Intermediate Tunnelling Sites

B-1

i 201985/1D0300-C1N00-00839/A3 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

1

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

Introduction

This report was prepared by Mott MacDonald for Cross London Rail Links Limited (CLRLL) to review the effect on the overall Crossrail Construction Programme for Line 1 in the event that the Hanbury Street Shaft site was not available for use as an intermediate tunnelling site. The report compares the integrated construction programme ICP17, which is the base case and uses Hanbury Street Shaft in conjunction with the adjacent Pedley Street work site as a tunnelling site, to alternative tunnelling strategies where the eastern tunnel drive commences from Pudding Mill Lane (PML) Portal and terminates the drives at Fisher Street Shaft or Farringdon Station without an intermediate tunnelling site; all other tunnelling arrangements remaining the same.

2

Development of the Crossrail Programme

2.1

Classic Crossrail

The original ‘Classic Crossrail’ developed in the 1990s, linked the Great Western lines out of Paddington to the Great Eastern lines out of Liverpool Street. The central tunnel sections extended from the western portal at Royal Oak to a portal adjacent to the Great Eastern lines at Allen Gardens. The overall length, portal to portal, of the central tunnel alignments was planned to be 9.0km. It was planned that the construction of the running tunnels would be serviced from the two portals – Royal Oak in the west and Allen Gardens to the east. The Royal Oak Portal would service the construction from Paddington to Tottenham Court Road with the balance of the tunnelling being carried out from Allen Gardens. This strategy was adopted for environmental and logistic supply reasons and allowed for rail haulage of the excavated material thus further reducing the impact of the works on the highway network. The Classic Crossrail construction programme was developed in 1994 and forecast an overall period from commencement of construction to revenue service of approximately 66 months.

2.2

Crossrail Line 1

In the current scheme, the western portal is still at Royal Oak to allow connection to the Great Western surface lines for continuation to Maidenhead, but the central tunnelled section of Crossrail Line 1 extends to a new station at Whitechapel and continues to an eastern portal at Pudding Mill Lane, near Stratford. There the route joins the Great Eastern Lines for continuation to Shenfield on surface lines. The central tunnel section also extends to the southeast from a junction at Stepney Green to a new station at Isle of Dogs, immediately north of Canary Wharf development, and continues to a portal at Victoria Dock. The overall length, portal to portal, for the central tunnel section is approximately 19.5km. From Victoria Dock Portal, the railway connects with the new Thames Crossing Tunnels for continuation to Abbey Wood. The Thames Crossing Tunnels are independent of the Central Tunnels section and do not influence the tunnelling methodologies and construction programme. 1 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

An initial assessment of the programme period, based upon Classic Crossrail construction methodology of driving the tunnels from portals at the extremities and taking into account the additional tunnelled length, showed that the overall programme for the new scheme would be extended to 93 months1. This is 27 months more than the original Classic Crossrail programme. It was found that the increase in construction duration for the tunnels was disproportionate to the time required for station construction resulting in significant delays to the construction programme for completion of the station works. Alternative construction strategies were therefore investigated to reduce the programme period, particularly for the tunnel drives. Construction of the railway tunnels is essentially a linear process, involving in turn the excavation and support of the tunnels, clean out and removal of temporary facilities, followed by the installation in separate operations of the first stage track-bed, the track-form (rails and fixings), walkways, pipe-work and cable brackets and then railway systems. To reduce the programme it was necessary to introduce additional work fronts into the programme. Since that initial assessment, the construction programme has been significantly developed. It now includes intermediate tunnelling worksites to provide an optimised project wide construction programme and tunnel drive strategy that achieves the requirements of the revenue service strategy (refer to Section 2.3) and also completes construction within a six year timetable as determined by the Department for Transport (DfT). The Project’s current (base case) tunnels drive strategy for the central section is summarised by the following: •

Royal Oak Portal to Fisher Street Shaft;

•

Hanbury Street Shaft to Fisher Street Shaft;

•

Hanbury Street Shaft to Whitechapel Station;

•

Pudding Mill Lane Portal to Whitechapel Station;

•

Isle of Dogs Station to Stepney Green Shaft;

•

Limmo Shaft to Isle of Dogs Station; and

•

Limmo Shaft to Victoria Dock Portal.

1

Refer to Programme Number ICP1 (Report No. 1D0300-C1N00-00013/A). This programme was developed between Royal

Oak Portal (in the west) and Bow Portal (in the east). The portal at Bow has been relocated further east to Pudding Mill Lane.

2 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

2.3

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

Revenue Service Strategy

The revenue service staging has been developed from east to west. This enables the main depot for the rolling stock, located at Romford, to be accessed for commencement of revenue services. Initially the rolling stock will be operated from that depot although eventually it will be stabled at various locations along the line to avoid unnecessary empty running. The strategy for bringing Crossrail into Revenue Service has been based upon the following staged sequence: Stage 0.

Trial running of Crossrail rolling stock, initially on test tracks, then on outer suburban lines without passengers, and then introduce Crossrail Rolling Stock into service on the Liverpool Street (surface station) to Shenfield line – working from the new Romford Depot and Stabling Yard;

Stage 1.

Commence revenue service from Liverpool Street Station to Isle of Dogs Station (using Pudding Mill Lane Portal to introduce rolling stock into the tunnels from Romford depot and the crossovers at Farringdon and Isle of Dogs to turn trains around);

Stage 2.

Extend revenue service to Paddington Station (turning trains around at Westbourne Park);

Stage 3.

Introduce a revenue service through Paddington Station to Shenfield services;

Stage 4.

Extend revenue services west to Heathrow and Maidenhead;

Stage 5.

Extend revenue services east to Abbey Wood.

3 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

3

Tunnelling Requirements

3.1

General

April 2005

For any underground project, the tunnelling methodology and tunnelling rate is predominately dependant upon the ground conditions to be encountered. The central tunnelled section of Crossrail Line 1 between Royal Oak Portal in the west and Pudding Mill Lane and Victoria Dock Portals in the east and southeast respectively will be constructed using tunnel boring machines (TBMs) with either bolted or expanded precast concrete linings erected within the tunnelling machine. For Crossrail Line 1, the following TBM types have been used for planning: TBM Type Open Shield

TBM Support Mechanism

Typical Ground Condition

Face Open face machine which provides no support Stable, cohesive material (i.e. to the face comprising an articulated digger London Clay) housed within a shield. It assumes that the tunnel face has sufficient stand-up time without support.

Earth Pressure Closed face machine which provides Balance (EPB) continuous support to the tunnel face by balancing earth pressure against the thrust pressure of the machine through the control of excavated materials from the face.

Water bearing non-cohesive / softvery soft cohesive material with permeability ranging between 10-3 to 10-4m/s. (i.e. Lambeth Group, Thanet Sand, Chalk)

Slurry2

Water bearing non-cohesive / softvery soft cohesive material with a higher permeability to 10-2m/s. (i.e. Lambeth Group, Thanet Sand, Chalk)

3.2

Closed face machine which provides continuous support to the tunnel face by balancing earth and water pressure in the insitu soil with pressurised bentonite slurry. A large separator plant is required at the surface to separate excavated materials from the slurry, allowing it to be recycled.

Ground Conditions

The geology along the central section is varied with thick clay strata (London Clay) found in the west, thinning to the east and southeast. In general, the geology within London typically comprises: •

Superficial Deposits (made ground, alluvium and terrace gravels), overlying;

•

London Clay (stiff to hard clay), overlying;

•

Lambeth Group (split into five sub sections typically comprising layers of medium to very dense sand and stiff to hard clay), overlying;

2

The use of a Slurry TBM has been planned for the Thames Crossing Tunnels, located to the east of Victoria Dock Portal,

and is not currently planned for use in the Central Tunnels Section.

4 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

•

Thanet Sands (very dense fine sand), overlying;

•

Chalk (rock ranging in consistency from low to very high density).

Two aquifers exist; the upper and lower. The upper aquifer is usually confined to the Superficial Deposits, with the London Clay stratum forming an impermeable layer below the aquifer. The lower aquifer is charged from the Chalk and influences both the Thanet Sands and Lambeth Group. The following tabulates the ground conditions likely to be encountered by the tunnels between principal scheme components: Route Section

Predominant Ground Condition

Royal Oak Portal to Fisher Street Shaft

London Clay

Fisher Street Shaft to Hanbury Street Shaft

London Clay & Lambeth Group (With Thanet Sands at tunnel level at Farringdon)

Hanbury Street Shaft to Whitechapel Station

London Clay

Whitechapel Station to Stepney Green Shaft

Lambeth Group

Stepney Green Shaft to Pudding Mill Lane Portal

Lambeth Group

Stepney Green Shaft to Victoria Dock Portal

Lambeth Group / Thanet Sand

3.3

TBM Type and Tunnelling Rate

The type of tunnel boring machine (TBM) and tunnelling rate has been developed based upon the ground condition, the length of the tunnel drive, and the location of the drive with respect to surface structures and their susceptibility to settlement. The following average tunnelling rates have been adopted for planning purposes for ICP17: Tunnel Drive

TBM Type

Royal Oak Portal to Fisher Open Face Shield Street Shaft;

Planned Average Tunnelling Rate 40m/wk – Royal Oak to Paddington 71m/wk – Paddington to Fisher Street

Hanbury Street Shaft to Fisher Earth Pressure Balance Street Shaft;

65m/wk

Hanbury Street Shaft Whitechapel Station;

65m/wk

to Open Face Shield

Pudding Mill Lane Portal to Earth Pressure Balance Whitechapel Station;

77m/wk – PML to Stepney Green 70m/wk – Stepney Whitechapel Station

Green

5 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

to

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

Tunnel Drive

April 2005

TBM Type

Planned Average Tunnelling Rate

Isle of Dogs Station to Stepney Earth Pressure Balance Green Shaft;

65m/wk

Limmo Shaft to Isle of Dogs Earth Pressure Balance Station; and

60m/wk

Limmo Shaft to Victoria Dock Earth Pressure Balance Portal

60m/wk

An eight week learning curve has been introduced at the commencement of the drive where typically 50% of the advance rate is assumed, except for Royal Oak to Paddington where a tunnelling rate of 40m/week has been assumed. Tunnelling operations will be carried out on a 24 hour, 7 day week basis, allowing for planned and unplanned stoppages; maintenance and replacement of equipment; extension of conveyors and service railway; slowing of TBMs through areas of importance through central London; and removal of obstructing features, where and if necessary. Where possible, tunnelling will be carried out continuously to control ground movements.

6 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

4

Review of Tunnelling without Hanbury Street Intermediate Tunnelling Site

4.1

Tunnelling Strategy

The tunnelling strategy assumes that tunnelling through central London will be carried out from each of the portals at Royal Oak and Pudding Mill Lane without the need for additional work fronts through an intermediate tunnelling site at Hanbury Street Shaft. Two options have been considered:

Option 1 - Tunnel Drive Mid-point at Fisher Street Shaft Tunnel Drive

Ground Conditions

Royal Oak Portal to Fisher Street Shaft;

Predominantly London Clay ground conditions

Pudding Mill Lane to Fisher Street Shaft;

Predominantly Lambeth Group ground conditions, with tunnel drives into the lower levels of London Clay between Hanbury Street and Whitechapel Station, at immediately to the east of Fisher Street Shaft

Option 2 - Tunnel Drive Mid-point at Farringdon Station Tunnel Drive

Ground Conditions

Royal Oak Portal to Farringdon Station;

Predominantly London Clay, with Lambeth Group and Thanet Sand at Farringdon

Pudding Mill Lane to Farringdon Station;

Predominantly Lambeth Group ground conditions, with tunnel drives into the lower levels of London Clay between Hanbury Street and Whitechapel Station

The tunnelling strategy and any issues associated with each are outlined in the following sections.

7 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

4.1.1

Option 1- Tunnel Drive Mid-point at Fisher Street Shaft

(i)

Tunnel Drive Strategy

The following tunnel drive strategy and average tunnelling rate has been adopted for Option 1: Tunnel Drive

TBM Type

Royal Oak Portal to Fisher Open Face Shield Street Shaft;

Planned Average Tunnelling Rate 40m/wk – Royal Oak to Paddington 71m/wk – Paddington to Fisher Street

Pudding Mill Lane to Fisher Earth Pressure Balance Street Shaft;

77m/wk – PML to Stepney Green 70m/wk – Stepney Green to Fisher Street

Isle of Dogs Station to Stepney Earth Pressure Balance Green Shaft;

65m/wk

Limmo Shaft to Isle of Dogs Earth Pressure Balance Station; and

60m/wk

Limmo Shaft to Victoria Dock Earth Pressure Balance Portal

60m/wk

(ii)

Programme

The programme was developed using Primavera P3 – an industry standard software programme. For clarity and ease of understanding a “Time – Chainage Diagram” (TCD) was generated from the P3 programme using a software package developed by PCF Ltd. The construction programme is presented in Appendix A – Time Chainage Report TCDT3HS and summarised below: Commencement Date

June 2007

Complete all tunnel drives for Stage 1

52 months

Complete tunnel fit out for Stage 1

72 months

Commence Revenue Stage 1

83 months

Commence Revenue Stage 2

85 months

Commence Revenue Stage 3

87 months

The construction programmes critical path follows the tunnel drive from Pudding Mill Lane Portal to Fisher Street Shaft where the average length of the tunnel drive is approximately 8395m. This is 8 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

compared with the average length of the tunnel drive from Royal Oak Portal to Fisher Street Shaft, which is approximately 5102m. This results in a significant imbalance in the construction programme with the section between Pudding Mill Lane and Fisher Street being approximately 65% longer than the section between Royal Oak and Fisher Street. To reduce this imbalance, the programme for tunnel fit out was accelerated by the introduction of two work fronts working from both Fisher Street Shaft and Pudding Mill Lane Portal towards Stepney Green Shaft for tunnel cleanout and installation of track bed, walkways and building services for the tunnel section between Pudding Mill Lane and Fisher Street. This allows for early commencement of the installation of rail, overhead line equipment and systems works which will be serviced from Pudding Mill Lane Portal. For the section between Royal Oak and Fisher Street, tunnel fit out will be serviced from the portal at Royal Oak. Although the tunnel section between Royal Oak Portal and Fisher Street Shaft is completed first, systems testing and trial running cannot commence until after the railway between Pudding Mill Lane Portal and Fisher Street Shaft is operational. This is because there is no crossover where the trains from the west can be turned until east of Farringdon Station. This can be accessed when the tunnel from the east are complete.

4.1.2

Option 2 - Tunnel Drive Mid-point at Farringdon Station

(i)

Tunnel Drive Strategy

The following tunnel drive strategy and average tunnelling rate has been adopted for Option 2: Tunnel Drive

TBM Type

Royal Oak Portal to Farringdon Earth Pressure Balance Station;

Planned Average Tunnelling Rate 40m/wk – Royal Oak to Paddington 65m/wk – Paddington to Farringdon

Pudding Mill Lane Farringdon Station;

to Earth Pressure Balance

77m/wk – PML to Stepney Green 70m/wk – Stepney Green to Farringdon

Isle of Dogs Station to Stepney Earth Pressure Balance Green Shaft;

65m/wk

Limmo Shaft to Isle of Dogs Earth Pressure Balance Station; and

60m/wk

Limmo Shaft to Victoria Dock Earth Pressure Balance Portal

60m/wk

Option 2 reduces the tunnel drive length imbalance of Option 1 by using Farringdon Station as the tunnel drive mid point and in doing so, creates additional constraints to the selection of tunnelling method and progress rate due to poorer ground conditions in the Farringdon area. The additional constraints result from the use of a more elaborate and heavier earth pressure balance tunnelling machine (EPBM) required for Option 2 compared with a less elaborate and lighter open face

9 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

tunnelling machine used in the base case and Option 1. The use of an EPBM between Royal Oak and Farringdon imposes additional risk to the programme and project viability at the proposed Crossrail stations at Paddington and Farringdon, and existing LUL infrastructure at Tottenham Court Road (Northern Line Platform Tunnels) and the Central Line at Holborn. The need to use an EPBM and the impacts from its use are discussed in more detail below. Ground Conditions Option 2 changes the tunnelling machine specification and the progress rate as a result of the poorer ground conditions east of Fisher Street Shaft and in the Farringdon area. Immediately to the east of Fisher Street Shaft the tunnels bore into the Lambeth Group, staying in that deposit to Farringdon Station. At Farringdon Station itself the invert of the tunnels bore into the underlying Thanet Sands. Refer to Figure 4.1 below. The levels reported for the top of the Lambeth Group, found at the base of the London Clay, indicate significant structural disturbance of the strata in the vicinity of Farringdon since the levels fall from approximately 100mATD in the north-west to 82.6mATD in the south-east, which are matched by increases in the thickness of the London Clay. This is believed to reflect the presence of a number of faults since a similar fall in level is evident for the Chalk-Thanet Sand interface where this has been proven by drilling.

Figure 4.1: Ground Conditions between Fisher Street & Hanbury Street Shafts

10 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

From past historical experience of tunnelling through fault zones in London Clay on the Jubilee Line Extension Project the faulting mentioned is unlikely to be encountered as a single discrete plane of displacement but is likely to be exposed as a series of complex cross cutting and intersecting generally non-linear fault surfaces with both vertical and lateral displacements. These create blocks within the ground which can be adversely arranged and oriented for face stability during tunnelling. The tunnelling methods adopted for construction need to address this structural variability. Within the Harwich Formation and the Upper Lambeth Group the vertical and lateral variation in lithologies mean that local trapped aquifers are often found which are not linked to either main aquifer, and the water they contain can be under pressure. These unpredictable bodies of groundwater can be difficult to locate and give rise to problems during construction. For these reasons, a closed face earth pressure balance tunnelling machine (EPBM) has been adopted for Option 2, with an average advance rate of 65m/week compared with 71m/week used in both ICP17 (the base case) and Option 1. Paddington Station The construction sequence for interfacing the tunnel drives with the proposed Crossrail station at Paddington assumes the following for all options including the base case: a) Use the first tunnelling machine reaching Paddington to bore the temporary central tunnel between the two work shafts, which are located at either end of the station. The second tunnelling machine reaching Paddington will be disassembled, lifted-up from western work shaft and re-launched at the eastern work shaft to continue its operation eastward. The sequence for the operations is listed below: i)

First tunnelling machine breaks through the outer diaphragm wall of the western work shaft; slide the machine laterally to centre-line of the station; break through the interim diaphragm wall to commence boring the central temporary tunnel (245m long) to the eastern work shaft and between the already-installed intermediate piles; re-assemble tunnelling machine train sequentially behind.

ii) Break through the interim diaphragm wall of the eastern work shaft; within the eastern work shaft, slide the tunnelling machine laterally back to the original tunnel alignment; re-assemble tunnelling machine train; breakout through the east end diaphragm wall and proceed with bored running tunnel beyond the station. Use the temporary central tunnel for transport of excavated material through station back to the construction site at Royal Oak and/or to rail head. iii) Second tunnelling machine breaks through the diaphragm wall of the western work shaft; dismantle and lift out TBM from this shaft; transport on the surface to the eastern work shaft; lower back onto the correct alignment within the shaft and reassemble machine back-up; break out from the eastern end diaphragm wall and proceed with second tunnel beyond the station. The central tunnel will be used by both machines for transporting excavated material back to Royal Oak Portal for onward transport to the designated disposal sites.

11 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

b) Construct station box by top-down method (sequence of construction based on casting a slab followed by subsequent excavation below that slab). To minimise the impact at street level from the handling and transportation of large volumes of excavated material, the bulk of this material will be discharged down to rail level for transport underground westward to the Royal Oak site (i.e. in addition to the running tunnel excavated material). The above sequence is likely to be modified and the programme extended by two months for Option 2 for the following reasons: •

Tunnelling machine back up equipment is of longer length for an EPBM, and re-launch of the first TBM described above will be more difficult due to the greater number of components and complexity of operation;

•

Construction of the temporary tunnel will take longer using an EPBM due to re-launch requirements of the machine and slower progress rates in constrained conditions;

•

Dismantling and re-assembly of the second TBM will take longer due to the heavier components and the need to have a greater portion of the back up equipment assembled for an EPBM. This latter requirement would result in the need to construct a larger western work shaft at Paddington Station, resulting in additional programme to the station works and greater impact to adjacent listed structures.

Northern Line at Tottenham Court Road Station A critical interface is the crossing of the Northern Line platform tunnels at Tottenham Court Road Station, where the eastbound Crossrail tunnel passes closely above (with approximately 0.5m clearance) the existing cast iron lined platform tunnels. The westbound tunnel passes with clearances above 2m. In the base case and Option 1 tunnelling strategies, this crossing is achieved using an open face shield which is considerably lighter in weight than a closed-face TBM, limiting the impact on the existing tunnels. Transferring a closed-face TBM over these tunnels will impose much greater loads on the linings and expose the LUL infrastructure to greater risk of collapse than with the open-face shield. These loads are mitigated to some extent by advance construction of a sprayed concrete tunnel across the existing tunnels. However, even with this safeguard, there is a high risk that structural assessment of the existing platform tunnel linings will identify that additional supports are required within the Northern Line Platform tunnels. Incorporation of such internal structural support would require blockades of the Northern Line resulting in significant disruption to LUL operations with a probable closure of the Northern Line services for a period of up to two months. Central Line between Tottenham Court Road Station and Fisher Street Shaft The use of a heavier closed face TBM will impose greater loads on the linings of the Central Line tunnels between Tottenham Court Road Station and Fisher Street Shaft where clearances are less than 0.5m. Structural support will be required to maintain the integrity of the existing Central Line tunnel linings. Incorporation of such internal structural support would require blockades of the Central Line resulting in significant disruption to LUL operations with a probable closure of services for a period of up to three months.

12 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

Interface with Farringdon Station Removal of TBM components will be required at Farringdon Station. At the end of the drives, the steel skins of the TBMs would be left in the ground, the machine backup modules and some internal components within the steel skin removed via the tunnels back to the portals, and the cutter heads broken up and removed via the station access construction shafts. At the western end of Farringdon Station this can be achieved with minimum effect on the overall programme. At the eastern end of the station there is limited access to the surface and a one month delay in the station programme at platform level has been allowed for to transfer the cutter head components from the eastern end to the western end for subsequent removal to surface.

(ii)

Programme

The programme was developed using Primavera P3 – an industry standard software programme. For clarity and ease of understanding a “Time – Chainage Diagram” (TCD) was generated from the P3 programme using a software package developed by PCF Ltd. The construction programme is presented in Appendix A – Time Chainage Report TCDT4HS and summarised below: Commencement Date

June 2007

Complete all tunnel drives for Stage 1

48 months

Complete tunnel fit out for Stage 1

69 months

Commence Revenue Stage 1

80 months

Commence Revenue Stage 2

83 months

Commence Revenue Stage 3

85 months

The critical path follows the tunnel drive from Pudding Mill Lane Portal to Farringdon Station with the tunnel drive average length being approximately 6795m. This is compared with the tunnel drive length from Royal Oak Portal to Farringdon Station which averages approximately 6214m. To accelerate the tunnel fit out programme between Pudding Mill Lane Portal and Farringdon Station, tunnel cleanout and the installation of track bed, walkways and building services is planned from both Farringdon and Pudding Mill Lane to allow early commencement of the installation of rail, overhead line equipment and systems works which will be serviced from Pudding Mill Lane Portal. Tunnel fit out between Royal Oak and Farringdon will be serviced from the portal at Royal Oak. Although the tunnel section between Royal Oak Portal and Farringdon Station is completed first, systems testing, commissioning and trial running cannot commence until after the railway between Pudding Mill Lane Portal and Fisher Street Shaft is operational. This is because there is no crossover where trains from the west can be turned until east of Farringdon Station. This can only be accessed when the tunnel from the east are complete.

13 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

5

Review of Tunnelling with Intermediate Tunnelling Site (Base Case)

5.1

Tunnelling Strategy

To reduce the project wide construction duration and in particular to minimise delay to the construction of stations at Liverpool Street and Farringdon, the programme for Crossrail Line 1 was reviewed to include an intermediate tunnelling site, so as to separate the route into approximately one third lengths. To minimise the construction impact of the project, the location of an intermediate tunnelling site was combined with other Crossrail infrastructure such as stations or intermediate shafts. The station locations were defined by the Project and the emergency intervention access shaft locations were determined by the need to satisfy HMRI fire life safety regulations for underground railways, which require emergency access points at about 1.0km centres. The following were identified as potential TBM launch sites: •

Mile End Park Shaft;

•

Stepney Green Shaft;

•

Whitechapel Station;

•

Hanbury Street Shaft;

•

Farringdon Station.

Each of the above potential TBM launch sites were assessed with respect to programme, feasibility of the site in terms of tunnelling and logistics, and environmental implications. A review of the potential TBM launch sites is presented in Appendix B. The optimum construction programme was achieved by locating the intermediate tunnelling site to coincide with Hanbury Street Shaft within Spitalfields as it is located at approximately the third point of the total tunnel length between Royal Oak to Pudding Mill Lane and thereby offering the potential to balance the TBM drive lengths. By providing a temporary adit from Hanbury Street Shaft to a temporary shaft located within the disused railway lands at Pedley Street, the excavated material from the tunnels will be transported to the surface and conveyed to a railhead at Mile End (Devonshire Street) sidings. The work site at Pedley Street will also be used to locate site offices for tunnelling operations and for the stockpiling and supply of tunnelling supplies, including tunnel segments. This significantly reduces the impact from lorries around Hanbury Street with the site entrance to the Pedley Street work site being from Vallance Road. The use of the Hanbury Street site for the launch of TBMs has been assessed as being an adequate site3 when used in conjunction with the work site at Pedley Street. The tunnel drive strategy and tunnelling rates are those currently adopted by the Project in programme ICP17 and presented in Section 3.3. 3

Refer Technical Note No. 1D0300-C1N00-00838 Hanbury Street TBM Assembly.

14 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

5.2

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

Programme

The programme was developed using Primavera P3 – an industry standard software programme. For clarity and ease of understanding a “Time – Chainage Diagram” (TCD) was generated from the P3 programme using a software package developed by PCF Ltd. The construction programme is presented in Appendix A – Time Chainage Report TCD17 (aka. ICP17) and summarised below: Commencement Date

June 2007

Complete all tunnel drives for Stage 1

37 months

Complete tunnel fit out for Stage 1

53 months

Commence Revenue Stage 1

64 months

Commence Revenue Stage 2

71 months

Commence Revenue Stage 3

71 months

The tunnel drive strategy offers an optimum construction programme with the principal tunnel drives being integral with the station works and thereby minimising periods of inactivity. It also offers a construction programme which is compatible with the Project’s revenue service strategy where Stage 1 is operational whilst Stage 2 is being completed.

15 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

6

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

Programme Comparison

Comparisons of the base case (ICP17) with the two alternative tunnelling options are summarised below in Table 6.1 and Table 6.2 for Option 1 and Option 2 respectively. In each case, Stage 3 of the revenue service is considered to the benchmark for financial planning, as this is the stage when Crossrail Line 1 becomes self funding.

6.1

Option 1

Table 6.1: Option 1 - Programme with Tunnel Drive Mid-point at Fisher Street Shaft Programme Without Intermediate Tunnelling Site (TCDT3HS)

Programme With Intermediate Tunnelling Site (ICP17)

Programme saving using intermediate tunnelling site at Hanbury Street Shaft

Commencement Date

June 2007

June 2007

0 Months

Complete all tunnel drives for Stage 1

52 Months

37 Months

15 Months

Complete all tunnel fit out for Stage 1

72 Months

53 Months

19 Months

Commence Revenue Stage 1

83 Months

64 Months

19 Months

Commence Revenue Stage 2

85 Months

71 Months

14 Months

Commence Revenue Stage 3

87 Months

71 Months

16 Months

A 19 month or 22% saving in programme is achieved for Stage 1 of the revenue service between Liverpool Street and Isle of Dogs Stations by using Hanbury Street Shaft as an intermediate tunnelling site. This saving is reduced to 16 months or 18% for Stage 3 of the revenue service allowing the railway to operate between Paddington to Isle of Dogs and includes services to Shenfield.

16 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

6.2

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

Option 2

Table 6.2: Option 2 - Programme with Tunnel Drive Mid-point at Farringdon Station Programme Without Intermediate Tunnelling Site (TCDT4HS)

Programme With Intermediate Tunnelling Site (ICP17)

Programme saving using intermediate tunnelling site at Hanbury Street Shaft

Commencement Date

June 2007

June 2007

0 Months

Complete all tunnel drives for Stage 1

48 Months

37 Months

11 Months

Complete all tunnel fit out for Stage 1

69 Months

53 Months

13 Months

Commence Revenue Stage 1

80 Months

64 Months

16 Months

Commence Revenue Stage 2

83 Months

71 Months

12 Months

Commence Revenue Stage 3

85 Months

71 Months

14 Months

A 16 month or 20% saving in programme is achieved for Stage 1 of the revenue service between Liverpool Street and Isle of Dogs Stations by using an intermediate tunnelling within Spitalfields. This saving is reduced to 14 months or 16.5% for Stage 3 of the revenue service allowing the railway to operate between Paddington to Isle of Dogs and includes services to Shenfield.

6.3

Additional Considerations

The above comparison assesses the impact on construction programme by adopting tunnelling rates applicable to the ground conditions and TBM type for each of the tunnel drives and their options. Additional considerations related to logistical issues arise when the tunnel drive length increases resulting in extra risk to the tunnelling operations. These risks include: •

Interface between the completed tunnel drive from Isle of Dogs Station to Stepney Green Shaft and the continuing tunnelling operations for the drive from Pudding Mill Lane, with respect to decommissioning the TBMs for the completed drive whilst ensuring the incoming tunnelling supplies, including segments, and the removal of excavated materials for the TBMs heading towards central London are not interrupted. It is proposed that the TBM skins will be left in situ at the end of the Isle of Dogs to Stepney Green tunnel drive and that the machine components and back up modules would be dismantled and transported back along the tunnel to the station box at Isle of Dogs. The principal risks are during the initial break through of the TBMs and during the dismantling process which will require the use of heavy lifting equipment, especially for the cutter

17 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

head. Whilst the tunnel drive from Isle of Dogs is not critical to the overall construction programme, delays will be incurred during the TBM decommissioning process for Options 1 and 2 that are not incurred for the base case. •

Supply of tunnel segments and other tunnelling supplies to TBM will be hindered by the additional travel time from portal to TBM. This is likely to require additional passing points along the tunnel for the segment trains and this may impact on the size of the tunnels at localised points to accommodate this. Hand excavation would be required to achieve the tunnel enlargements after the TBMs have passed and this will delay the TBMs and increase the construction programme;

•

Increased length of conveyor for carrying excavated material from TBM to portal increases the risk of breakdown;

•

Increased length for supply of ventilation during tunnelling.

18 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

7

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

Conclusions

This report compares the impacts on the construction programme for the central tunnel section of Crossrail Line 1 between Royal Oak and Pudding Mill Lane Portals both with and without an intermediate tunnelling site. It is concluded that the incorporation of an intermediate tunnelling site located at Hanbury Street Shaft has significant construction programme benefits. The use of a tunnelling site comprising the Hanbury Street Shaft and Pedley Street working sites (the base case) is fundamental to the success of Crossrail Line 1 as it: •

Introduces Stage 1 revenue services, between Liverpool Street and Isle of Dogs Stations, 19 months earlier for Option 1, and 16 months earlier for Option 2 than if tunnelling from Pudding Mill Lane Portal without the Hanbury Street Shaft site. This represents a programme saving of 22% and 20% respectively for the base case;

•

Introduces Stage 3 revenue services, between Paddington to Shenfield and to Isle of Dogs, 16 months earlier for Option 1, and 14 months earlier for Option 2 than if tunnelling from Pudding Mill Lane Portal without the Hanbury Street Shaft site. This represents a programme saving of 18% and 16.5% respectively for the base case. Stage 3 of the revenue service is considered the benchmark for financial planning, as this is the stage when Crossrail Line 1 becomes self funding;

•

Completes construction within the six year time frame for funding, as developed by the Department for Transport;

•

Optimises the project wide construction programme by reducing periods of inactivity between station and railway tunnel construction durations;

•

Is compatible with the revenue service strategy where the eastern tunnel section (Stage 1) is completed in advance of the western tunnel section (Stage 2), thus reducing delay in the commencement of the Stage 1 revenue service;

•

Reduces the Project’s risk of a delay in the introduction of revenue services, as a result of tunnelling, by adopting four shorter tunnel drive lengths between Royal Oak and Pudding Mill Lane Portals. Therefore should construction difficulties slow or stop one of the tunnel drives there is more opportunity for the other tunnel drives to compensate;

•

Does not require London Underground Limited to suspend services on the Northern Line and Central Line to allow installation of internal structural support to facilitate the crossing of EPB TBMs, as required in Option 2;

•

Reduces opportunity for programme delay and increased risk from logistical issues that arise when the tunnel drive length increases.

It is therefore recommended that the use of Hanbury Street Shaft as an intermediate tunnelling site be maintained as part of the tunnelling strategy for Crossrail Line 1.

19 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

Appendix A Time Chainage Programmes

Time Chainage Report TCDT3HS –

Tunnelling to Fisher Street Shaft without an intermediate tunnelling site at Hanbury Street Shaft (Option 1)

Time Chainage Report TCDT4HS –

Tunnelling to Farringdon Station without an intermediate tunnelling site at Hanbury Street Shaft (Option 2)

Time Chainage Report TCD17 (ICP17) – Tunnelling with an intermediate tunnelling site at Hanbury Street Shaft (Base Case)

A-1 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

rte nin al s

Settlement / Ground Monitoring PML

u nn

els T WB

Construct Box

3654

Prep for TBM's

SCL Excavation Station Tunnels Site setup

n stallatio

C&C Diaph Walls

Deliver, Erect & Commission TBM's

Exec & Conc to Cut & Cover Site Setup inc Rail Sidings

Open Cut

Backfill

Retained Cut

Settlement Monitoring

Westbourne Park

Advanced Services Diversions

SIGNALLING FIT OUT

Static Testing WB

Trial Running Stage 1

Systems Test & Commissioning

SIGNALLING

FIT OUT

el-FAR itechap FIT OUT SIGNALLING

WB Wh Static Testing

SIGNALLING

COMMUNICATIONS OHLE

HV & LV

Testing Local Systems

chapel-FARR PUDD-IOD--White

FIT OUT

COMMUNICATIONS

OHLE OHLE

Liverpool St WB Han.to Trackwork

HV & LV

OHLE

Combined System Test&Commissioning WBP-FAR

SIGNALLING FIT OUT

OHLE

FIT OUT

SIGNALLING

HV & LV

OHLE

HV & LV COMMUNICATIONS

OHLE

Trackwork WB Paddington to Bond Street Trackwork EB Paddington to Bond St.

BOS-Hyd e Pk services WB

FIT OUT

SIGNALLING

OHLE

Site Setup New Yard

Construct Retaining Wall Site Prep

Construct Platform Construct Foundations x3

Install OHLE & Signalling Platforms x3

Crossrail Track & Rail

Old Oak Common Depot & sidings

Western Limit of Route

Enabling Works

210

@ Grade

SIGNALLING

TBM Design, Manufacture & Assembly

Enabling Works

520

Clean & con

Launch Chamber

Cut & Cover

FIT OUT

816

Start Bored Tunnel

Station Fit out

to Portal

Royal Oak Portal

Settlement / Ground Monitoring PAD

WB PAD

Transfer EB TBM to East End

& buildin g services

crete trackb ed - WB PAD to po

Exc. & Convc base West box

& building

rtal

Interface Tunnels

Sink Shaft

Form West Box SD Walls

HV & LV

& trackbe Clean out

Arrange TBM in East Box

Exc. & Conc Station Box inc base,int and roofslab

Walkway

Diaph.Wall Central box Rtg Walls West box

1245

Exc. & Convc base East box

Prep for TBM

Form East Rtg Walls South box Box SD Walls

Prep for TBM

Enabling Works

Road Deck

Advanced Services Diversions

Site Set up

Paddington Station

1578 1410

Walkway

Clean out &

Exc.Intervention Passages

Prep for TBM's

Ventilation Passage

OHLE HV & LV COMMUNICATIONS

Vent Tunnel Addits

Exc. & Primary Lining

WB Porta l to Padding ton Trackwork EB Portal to Pad dington

Site setup

Trackwork

Enabling Works Settlement Monitoring

bed WB - BOS

- Hyde Pk

Advanced Services Diversions

d WB Hyd

2225

WB

Hyde Park Vent shaft

Exc. & line interv'n passages

Pk-PAD

Construct box Settlement Monitoring

concrete track

Air Intake/Stair struct

Vent Tunnels

Exc. & Primary Lining

e Pk-PAD

Site Set up

WB Hyde

Enabling Works

Walkway & buildin g services

Advanced Services Diversions

TBM 1 tun nel d rive Pad ding ton EB T to B BM2 ond tunn St. el dri ve P addin gton to B ond St.

3016

Systems Test & Commissioning

hapel PUDD-IOD-Whitec

System

OHLE

FIT OUT

wide in

-SG

to White chapel itechapel Han to Wh

rvices EB

Walkway& build'g se S FAR to LI ices EB

services WB Fisher St to FARR

Fisher St

WB FAR to crete trackbe d

Walkway& building

Clean out& con

Walkway & build ing

Station Fit out

Settlement / Ground Monitoring - west end BOS

Park Lane Vent Shaft

HV & LV COMMUNICATIONS

to TCR

Bond TCR to bed WB

drive

Secondary concrete WB & EB linings to Stations Platform Structure

Construct Davies St Box

Trial Running Stage 2

Construct Vent Shaft & Tmp Adits to Station Tunnel

Shaft Fit out

Systems Test & Commissioning

MGT

Advanced Services Diversions

M2 tu nnel

Hanover Sq.demo Exc. & Line Shaft

3820

Static Testing WB West Por tal-FAR Static Testing EB West Portal-FA R

Bond Street Station

3986

EB T B

Temp access Shaft East

WB Prep for TBM1 tu nnel TBM's d

rive Bo

Bon d

nd S

t.to T o

Settlement / Ground Monitoring - west end TCR

WB & EB Platform Structure Str

Prep for TBM's

rete tra ck

SCL Excavation Station Tunnels

out & conc

Phased Piling

Clean

Phased Demo Dean St

WB

Exc Adit

Ct.R d

Fareham St - Demo

ttenh am C t.Rd

4716

Construct Astoria St Box Construct Goslett Yard Box

Sink Shaft

Sink Shaft

St.to Tott enha m

Astoria Demo Goslett Yard Demo Advanced Services Diversions

Secondary concrete linings to Stations

Tottenham Court Road Station

5060 4888

Trackwor kW Trackwor B Bond Street to k EB Bo nd Street TCR to TCR

Vent Tunnels & Adits

WB Fisher St

Sec Lining

Exc. & Primary Lining

MGT

rete trackbed

Enabling Works

Advanced Services Diversions

TBM 1

5825

Clean out& conc

Fisher Street Vent Shaft

driv e To tten ham Cou rt R EB T d to BM2 drive Fish Totte er S nham t. Court Rd to Fish er St.

Settlement Monitoring

don rring to Fa gdon in er St. Fish t to Farr e v Trackwork WB TCR el dri Fisher S to Fisher St. shaf WB & EB tunn e t TBM nel driv Platform WB n Structure M tu Trackwork EB TCR to Fisher St.shaft EB TB

6980

to Fisher St

SCL Excavate Station Tunnels

services EB TCR

Construct Piled Box & Tunnel Adits

Secondary concrete lining to Station

Enabling Works

Advanced Services Diversions

Prep for TBM's

Site Set up

Farringdon Station

Station Fit out

7160

FIT OUT

Crossover lining invert WB

Crossover Tunnel

COMMUNICATIONS

Sink shaft

Local Systems Testin g FAR-Portal

7498

7340

&build 'g serv

7646

Secondary concrete lining to Station

Walkw ay

Settlement Monitoring

Settlement / Ground Monitoring LIS

WB & EB Platform Structure

8110

SCL Excavation Station Tunnels

Construct piled box&tunnel adits

over AR X r to F ve e LIS FAR Xo driv nnel ve LIS to tu l dri TB M WB M tunne B EB T

Enabling Works

Prep for TBM's

Station Fit out

Site Set up

Advanced Services Diversions

Sink Shaft

Liverpool Street Station

8462

el to Whitechap

to SG itechapel c.trackbe d WB Wh Clean & con

:HVWERXQG

(DVWERXQG

Settlement / Ground Monitoring HAS

8286

Clean & tra ckbed co nc. -

tun

E/B Chamber

Form EPBM adit chambers & backshunt

Enabling Works

St. o ol M iverp EB TB t. ry-L ol S nbu erpo e Ha iv iv r -L d ry nel nbu Tun e Ha TBM driv WB nel Tun BM T EB

Settlement/Background Monitoring

Acc adit & break up

Advanced Services Diversions

Exc. & line shafts

WB Han

yS

Sec Lining

Tunnels & Adits

Setup Railhead

MGT

Station Fit out

WB

9500

Essex Wharf Stage 4

Essex Wharf Stage 3

to Whitech

Essex Wharf Stage 1

Essex Wharf Stage 2

MGTExc & Line Shaft

Enabling Works

Advanced Services Diversions

Pedley St Shaft 9532

Hanbury Street Vent Shaft

WB & EB Prep for Secondary Platform Structures TBM's Linings Essex Wharf Stage 5

SCL Excavation Station Tunnels

10130 9952

West Shaft

Dismantle WBTBM5 at Whitechapel

Enabling Works

M TB

Whitechapel Station

Central Shaft

Construct Box Advanced Services Diversions

apel

Settlement / Ground Monitoring WHI

10442 10285

Combined System Test&Commissioning PUDD-FAR

EB IOD-

End

SG

e End

Prep.for TBM's

WB SG Trackwork

EB Chamber WB Chamber

Exc. & line WB shaft

t.t

Construct Box

bur Han

MGT

e driv nel tun

Enabling Works

Walkway &buildin g service s WB SG

Exc. & line EB shaft

11405

Stepney Green E&W Vent Shaft & Turnouts

SIGNALLING

Ground Treatment Running Tunnels

COMMUNICATIONS

Vent Tunnel adits

Fit out

Sink Shaft

Sink Caisson

hv & lv

Construct Box

Caission Preparation

Walkway&B

MGT

OHLE

Services Diversions/Enabling

Trackwork WB IOD

Services diversions/Enabling Site Set Up

B BT reenW

rive Md

12340 12276

Eleanor-Mile

Sink Escape Shaft

Mob & Grd Treatment

rk installation WB Trackwo

Enabling Works

el clean

Settlement / Ground Monitoring HES

13195

End Mile norElea

Vent Tunnels adits

WB Tunn

Sink Shaft

Site Set Up

Advanced Services Diversions

uild'g service s WB IOD-SG

Settlement / Ground Monitoring ELS

13324

Eleanor St Shaft

nd ile E p.G t -Ste or-M ell S End lean L ow Mile ve E ves en TBM dri D to ri re d IO G t e EB TBM pney ell S driv te w l WB o e -S L n nd en tun D to l ile E Gre ve IO hape drive M TB M ney M WB hitec el dri tep to W EB TB tunn to S n t M e S B re ell EB T ey G Low tepn pel rive ve S n cha el d Gree el dri hitetunn ney tunn Step BM toTWBM T to n l B t e B e W ell S GreW hap Low ney itec drive tep Wh nnel eS BM tu driv St.to EB T n el ury n b l tu n a M pe WB Clean out eH cha EB TB &Trackbed IOD driv hite -SG nel oW

Settlement / Ground Monitoring IOD

Hertsmere Road Shaft

Mile End Park Shaft

anorckbed Ele out& Tra

Del,Erec & Comm TBM's

Launch Chamber

OHLE

Mile End

Cofferdam

-Mil vices Eleanor ay&E&M Ser

Site Setup

Advanced Services Diversions

13575

Lowell Stree Vent Shaft

Station Infill Structure

Main Station Structure

WB Walkw

Deliver,Erect,Comm.TBM

Start Bored Tunnel Isle of Dogs Station

DLR Embankment 2

/Sig n

Procure TBM

PUDD Retained Cut

PUDD Cut & Cover

s tem Sys

PUDD Diaph.Walls

OH LE

Spoil Loading Installation

Mill Lane CB

tru ct. sh o

Po rta ls tru ctu re m

DLR Puding Mill Station

Launch chamber Advanced Services Diversion

14123

a no -Ele UDD on P llati Insta

od

s.

gm

od s

City Mills Bridge DLR Station DLR Viaduct Access culvert Marshgate Lane

14579

OH LE

Pudding Mill Lane

r St

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J AS

Crossrail Facilities Buildings & Civil New EWS Facility

J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J AS 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

SFI

0RWW 0DF'RQDOG

Option 1Crossrail Time ChainageTCDT3HS Tunnel to Fisher St(not using Hanbury St)

u nn

els T WB

IOD-SG

Launch Chamber

Cut & Cover

TBM Design, Manufacture & Assembly

Enabling Works

520

C&C Diaph Walls

Deliver, Erect & Commission TBM's

Exec & Conc to Cut & Cover Site Setup inc Rail Sidings

Open Cut

Backfill

Retained Cut

Westbourne Park

Advanced Services Diversions

Combined System Test&Commissioning PUDD-FAR hitechapel-FARR ing PUDD-IOD--W

Trial Running Stage 1

Test Local Systems

Systems Test & Commissioning SIGNALLING

SIGNALLING

Static Testing

hapel-FAR WB Whitec FIT OUT

COMMUNICATIONS OHLE

FIT OUT

HV & LV

OHLE

Portal-FAR

SIGNALLING FIT OUT

HV & LV COMMUNICATIONS FIT OUT

Trial Running Stage 2

Combined System Test&Commissioning WBP-FAR

HV & LV

SIGNALLING FIT OUT

OHLE OHLE SIGNALLING

Site Setup New Yard

Construct Retaining Wall Site Prep

Construct Platform Construct Foundations x3

Install OHLE & Signalling Platforms x3

Crossrail Track & Rail

Old Oak Common Depot & sidings

Western Limit of Route

SIGNALLING FIT OUT

HV & LV COMMUNICATIONS

OHLE to Fisher St.shaft Trackwork EB TCR

St. shaft

St to Fisher services EB TCR

Trackwork WB TCR to Fisher

Walkway & building

to TCR

to TCR

nd Street

nd Street

Settlement Monitoring Enabling Works

210

@ Grade

FIT OUT

816

Start Bored Tunnel

Station Fit out

SIGNALLING

Settlement/Grd Monitoring PAD

OHLE

Add'l time to transfer EB EPBM to East End

HV & LV COMMUNICATIONS

Add'l time to align EPBM

Prep for TBM

Exc. & Convc base West box

Trackwork WB Paddington to Bond Street Trackwork EB Paddington to Bond St.

Interface Tunnels

Sink Shaft

Form West Box SD Walls

OHLE HV & LV

ed WB & trackb Clean ou t

Add'l time to align EPBM

Add'l time to arrange EPBM in East Box

Exc. & Conc Station Box inc base,int and roofslab

Clean & con crete trackb ed - WB PAD to po rtal Walkway & building services WB PAD to Porta l

Diaph.Wall Central box Rtg Walls West box

1245

Exc. & Convc base East box

Prep for TBM

Form East Rtg Walls South box Box SD Walls

Road Deck

Site Set up

Enabling Works

Royal Oak Portal

Paddington Station

Advanced Services Diversions

concrete track bed WB - BOS Clean out &

Exc.Intervention Passages

Prep for TBM's

Ventilation Passage

1578 1410

ices WB BOS -Hyde Pk

- Hyde Pk

Vent Tunnel Addits

Exc. & Primary Lining

D

Site setup

Pk-PAD

Enabling Works Settlement Monitoring HP

WB Hyde

Advanced Services Diversions

M1 tu

2225

WB TB

Hyde Park Vent shaft

Exc. & line interv'n passages

Walkway &

Construct box Settlement Monitoring

building serv

Air Intake/Stair struct

Vent Tunnels

Exc. & Primary Lining

Walkway & buildin g services

Site Set up

Trackwork WB Portal to Pad dington Trackwork EB Portal to Pad dington

Enabling Works

Hyde Pk -PA

Advanced Services Diversions

nne l dri EB ve P TBM ad d 2 tu ingto nne n to l dri Bon ve P d St. ad d ingto n to Bon d St.

3016

FIT OUT

OHLE

Liverpool St WB Han.to Trackwork

Clean out& con to TCR WB Fisher St rete trackbed Str

M2 d

Station Fit out

Settlement/Grd Monitoring BOS

Park Lane Vent Shaft

Systems Test & Commissioning

Static Testing

SIGNALLING FIT OUT

COMMUNICATIONS

OHLE

Han to Wh

rvices EB

Walkway& build'g se R to LIS

Fisher St

services WB Fisher St to FARR

l dri M tu nne

Clean out& conc

Tott en

EB T B

Secondary concrete WB & EB linings to Stations Platform Structure

Systems Test & Commissioning

Prep for TBM's

Construct Davies St Box

Static Testing EB West Portal-FAR

3654

Static Testing WB West

Construct Box SCL Excavation Station Tunnels

Site setup

k EB Bo

Construct Vent Shaft & Tmp Adits to Station Tunnel

Trackwor

MGT

Advanced Services Diversions

Station Fit out

Construct Dean St Box

Settlement/Grd Monitoring TCR

Trackwor

Hanover Sq.demo Exc. & Line Shaft

3820

Shaft Fit out

to Bond

WB

SCL Excavation Station Tunnels

WB & EB Platform Structure

& concre te trackbe d WB TCR

Phased Piling

Prep for TBM's

LUL NL closure for Protection works

Clean out

Phased Demo Dean St

ham C

mC

Bond Street Station

3986

Sink Shaft

rive

tten ha driv e To

4716

Fareham St - Demo

EB T B

TBM 1

Advanced Services Diversions

Exc Adit

Secondary concrete linings to Stations

4888

Construct Astoria St Box Construct Goslett Yard Box

Sink Shaft

WB TBM 1 tun nel d EB T rive BM2 Bon d St. tunn to To el d rive ttenh Bon am C d St. t.Rd to T otte nha mC t.Rd

Temp access Shaft East

Astoria Demo Goslett Yard Demo

Prep for TBM's

Tottenham Court Road Station

5060

k WB Bo

Vent Tunnels & Adits

Walkway& building

ishe r ve F

Fish rive nne ld Sec Lining

Exc. & Primary Lining

MGT

Rd to F ishe ourt r St. WB TB Rd to M tu

Enabling Works

Fish LUL Central Line closure er S t. for protective works

Advanced Services Diversions

crete trackbe d

St to

er S t.to

Remove WB TBM3 at FAR via HANB shaft or PML

ourt

5825

WB FAR to

Settlement/Grd Monitoring FAR

Fisher Street Vent Shaft

WB & EB Platform Structure

Farr ingd on

6980

Dismantle & remove WB TBM1 at FAR via Fisher St.

on

SCL Excavate Station Tunnels

Farr ingd

Construct Piled Box & Tunnel Adits

Secondary concrete lining to Station

Enabling Works

Advanced Services Diversions

Prep for TBM's

Site Set up

Farringdon Station

Station Fit out

7160

COMMUNICATIONS

Crossover lining invert WB

Crossover Tunnel

Local Systems Testin g FAR-Portal

Sink shaft

7340

Walkwa y&build 'g service s EB FA

7646 7498

WB SG Trackwork

c.trackbe d WB Wh Clean & con

el

Settlement Monitoring

Station Fit out

WB & EB Platform Structure

SCL Excavation Station Tunnels

Construct piled box&tunnel adits

n r Tun Xove TB M FAR EB IS to ve L ri d r el Xove tunn FAR TB M WB LIS to drive nnel Secondary concrete tu M B lining to Station EB T

driv nel

Tun TBM WB

8110

Prep for TBM's

Site Set up

Enabling Works

Advanced Services Diversions

Sink Shaft

Liverpool Street Station

8462 8286

apel WB Han Clean & tra ckbed co nc. -

B t.E ol S po iver ry-L

ry-L nbu e Ha

:HVWERXQG

(DVWERXQG

Settlement / Ground Monitoring HAS

nbu e Ha driv

E/B Chamber

Form EPBM adit chambers & backshunt

Enabling Works

to Whitech

yS

Settlement/Background Monitoring

Acc adit & break up

Advanced Services Diversions

Exc. & line shafts

T BM

Setup Railhead

MGT

e driv nel tun

Sec Lining

Tunnels & Adits

Station Fit out

bur Han

Essex Wharf Stage 4

Essex Wharf Stage 3

ne tun

Essex Wharf Stage 1 MGTExc & Line Shaft

Enabling Works

Advanced Services Diversions

Essex Wharf Stage 2

M TB

9500

WB & EB Prep for Secondary Platform Structures TBM's Linings Essex Wharf Stage 5

SCL Excavation Station Tunnels

Pedley St Shaft 9532

Hanbury Street Vent Shaft

Dismantle WBTBM5 at Whitechapel

Enabling Works

10130 9952

West Shaft

Advanced Services Diversions

SBt. ooWl iverp

Whitechapel Station

Construct Box 10285

itechapel

Add'l time to dismantle WB TBM 7

hitechapel WB PUDD-IOD-W

OHLE

FIT OUT

wide System

-SG

n EB installatio

End Eleanor-Mile rk installation WB Trackwo

Prep.for TBM's

10442 Central Shaft

el to Whitechap

EB Chamber WB Chamber

Exc. & line WB shaft

to White chapel

Construct Box

itechapel

MGT

Walkway &buildin g service s WB SG

Enabling Works

to SG

Exc. & line EB shaft

11405

Stepney Green E&W Vent Shaft & Turnouts

SIGNALLING

Ground Treatment Running Tunnels

Fit out

Vent Tunnel adits

COMMUNICATIONS

Sink Shaft

Sink Caisson

hv & lv

Construct Box

Caission Preparation

Walkway&B

MGT

HV & LV

Services Diversions/Enabling

OHLE

Services diversions/Enabling Site Set Up

Trackwork WB IOD

12340 12276

B BT reenW

rive Md

Mile End Park Shaft Lowell Stree Vent Shaft

e End

Sink Escape Shaft

Mob & Grd Treatment

WB Walkw

Enabling Works

OHLE

r-Mile End

Settlement / Ground Monitoring HES

13195

ano Trackbed Ele clean out&

End Mile norElea

Vent Tunnels adits

WB Tunnel

Sink Shaft

uild'g service s WB IOD-SG

Settlement / Ground Monitoring ELS Site Set Up

Advanced Services Diversions

Hertsmere Road Shaft

nd ile E well St p.G -Ste or-M Lo End lean D to Mile ve E en ves ve IO M dri y Gre ri ri e B d n d T p l t EB TBM n ne ell S d-Ste n tu E WB Low ile BM D to l ve M eeBn T GrW ve IO hapeM dri hiteBc TB ney el dri tep to W E tunn S n M e B re St to EB T ey G well tepn p el e Lo ve S n cha driv Gree el dri hite nel ney tunn tun Step to W TBM to M n B t B e W T re ell S WB el yG Low pne hap drive Ste nnel itec ive Wh BM tu l dr EB T t.to nne S l e tu y r BM hap WB Clean out nbu &Trackbed IOD itec EB T Ha Wh -SG ive l dr t.to

Del,Erec & Comm TBM's

Launch Chamber

13324

Station Infill Structure

Cofferdam

-Mil vices Eleanor ay&E&M Ser

Site Setup

Isle of Dogs Station

Settlement / Ground Monitoring PML

Main Station Structure

13575

Eleanor St Shaft

s tem Sys

al s

Deliver,Erect,Comm.TBM

Start Bored Tunnel

Advanced Services Diversions

DLR Embankment 2

/Sig n

Procure TBM

PUDD Retained Cut

PUDD Cut & Cover

OH LE

Spoil Loading Installation

o lean D-E PUD

rte nin

PUDD Diaph.Walls

Launch chamber Advanced Services Diversion

14123

Mill Lane CB

tru ct. sh o

Po rta ls tru ctu re m

DLR Puding Mill Station

on llati Insta

od

s.

gm

od s

City Mills Bridge DLR Station DLR Viaduct Access culvert Marshgate Lane

14579

OH LE

Pudding Mill Lane

r St

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J AS

Crossrail Facilities Buildings & Civil New EWS Facility

J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J A SOND J FMAM J J AS 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

SFI

0RWW 0DF'RQDOG

Option 2 Crossrail Time Chainage TCDT4HS Tunnel to Farringdon (not using Hanbury St)

o lean D-E PUD

Mill Lane CB DLR Puding Mill Station

PUDD Retained Cut

PUDD Cut & Cover

Spoil Loading Installation

Advanced Services Diversion

Deliver,Erect,Comm.TBM

Procure TBM

Settlement / Ground Monitoring PML

T WB

EB allation st wide in System

FARR D--Whitechapel-

Exc. & Line Shaft

Construct Vent Shaft & Tmp Adits to Station Tunnel

Construct Box Prep for TBM's

NATM Excavation Station Tunnels Site setup

3654

Secondary concrete linings to Stations

FIT OUT

Combined System Test&Commissioning WBP-FARR

SIGNALLING FIT OUT

COMMUNICATIONS

HV & LV

shaft

WB & EB Platform Structure Station Fit out

Construct Davies St Box

Settlement Monitoring

Westbourne Park Station

Advanced Services Diversions

l PAD to Po rta

St.

d Street

Systems Test & Commissioning

dington to Bon

on to Bond EB Paddingt

OHLE

FIT OUT

SIGNALLING

Trackwork WB Pad

Trackwork

Site Setup New Yard

Construct Retaining Wall Site Prep

Construct Platform Foundations x3

Install OHLE & Signalling Construct Platforms x3

Crossrail Track & Rail

Old Oak Common Depot & sidings

Western Limit of Route

FIT OUT

Retained Cut

Enabling Works

210

@ Grade

SIGNALLING

Backfill

OHLE HV & LV COMMUNICATIONS

Exec & Conc to Cut & Cover Site Setup inc Rail Sidings

Walkway &

C&C Diaph Walls

Open Cut

HV & LV

d WB Hyd

Launch Chamber TBM Design, Manufacture & Assembly

Enabling Works

520

Walkway & buildin

& trackbe Clean out

to portal

Royal Oak Portal

816

Cut & Cover

Station Fit out

vices WB

Transfer EB TBM to East End

Settlement / Ground Monitoring PAD

Start Bored Tunnel

g service s WB BO S-Hyde Pk

WB - BOS -

tunn

Interface Tunnels

Sink Shaft

Exc. & Convc base West box

Clean & concrete trackbed - WB PA D

Form West Box SD Walls

Arrange TBM in East Box

Exc. & Conc Station Box inc base,int and roofslab

building ser

Diaph.Wall Central box Rtg Walls West box

1245

Exc. & Convc base East box

Prep for TBM

Form East Rtg Walls South box Box SD Walls

Prep for TBM

Enabling Works

Road Deck

Advanced Services Diversions

Site Set up

Paddington Station

1578 1410

Walkway & buildin

ton to

Exc.Intervention Passages

rtal to Pa ddington Trackwork EB Portal to Pad dington

Prep for TBM's

Ventilation Passage

Trackwo rk WB Po

Exc. & Primary Lining

BM2

Site setup

EB T

Enabling Works Settlement Monitoring

Exc. & line interv'n passages

el dri ve P add in

P ad ding el d rive tunn

Advanced Services Diversions

WB TBM 1

2225

concrete track bed

Construct box

Settlement Monitoring

Hyde Park Vent shaft

St.

Air Intake/Stair struct

Vent Tunnels

Clean out &

Exc. & Primary Lining

e Pk-PAD

Site Set up

g service s WB Hyd e Pk-PAD

Enabling Works

to B ond

Advanced Services Diversions

gton

3016

Bon d

Park Lane Vent Shaft

St.

Hyde Pk

Settlement / Ground Monitoring - west end BOS

Trial Running Stage 2

MGT

Advanced Services Diversions

Portal

Hanover Sq.demo

3820

Prep for TBM's

Bond Street Station

3986

COMMUNICATIONS

OHLE

Settlement / Ground Monitoring - west end TCR

Temp access Shaft East

to Fisher St.shaft

WB & EB Platform Structure

Local Systems Testing FARR-

Prep for TBM's

Static Testing WB West Portal-FARR Static Testing EB West Portal-FA RR

NATM Excavation Station Tunnels

FIT OUT

Phased Piling

HV & LV

Phased Demo Dean St

OHLE

Sink Shaft

OHLE

Fareham St - Demo

Trackwor k WB Bo nd Street Trackwor to k EB Bo nd Street TCR to TCR

4716

Exc Adit

Sink Shaft

HV & LV

OHLE Walkway & building serv ices

Clean out&

Advanced Services Diversions

Secondary concrete linings to Stations

Tottenham Court Road Station

Construct Astoria St Box Construct Goslett Yard Box

Astoria Demo Goslett Yard Demo

5060 4888

Trackwork EB TCR

er St EB TCR to Fish

Vent Tunnels & Adits

TCR to Fisher St.

Wa

con Clean out&

Sec Lining

Exc. & Primary Lining

Trackwork WB

MGT

to TCR

Enabling Works

WB Fisher St

Advanced Services Diversions

concrete track bed

5825

Walkw

ay Fisher Street Vent Shaft

St to FARR

crete trackb

r t e Fa er S driv Fish nel n to tun gdo TBM arrin F WB e riv el d tunn BM EB T

don ring

t. er S ish to F

Settlement Monitoring

Station Fit out

es WB Fisher lding servic lkway& bui

6980

to Fisher St ed WB FAR

NATM Excavate Station Tunnels

WB & EB Platform Structure

Construct Piled Box & Tunnel Adits

Secondary concrete lining to Station

Enabling Works

Prep for TBM's

Advanced Services Diversions

Site Set up

Farringdon Station

7160

Trial Running Stage 1

D-IO s Testing PUD Local System SIGNALLING

HV & LV

OHLE

Crossover lining invert WB

Crossover Tunnel

7340

SIGNALLING

Sink shaft

Systems Test & Commissioning

SIGNALLING

FIT OUT

COMMUNICATIONS

hv & lv

OHLE

FIT OUT

SIGNALLING

COMMUNICATIONS

OHLE el to Whitechap

EB FAR ices 'g serv &build

7646

7498

Systems Test & Commissioning

FIT OUT

OHLE

WB IOD-SG

SG to Wh itechapel

n to White

apel

to Whitech

Settlement / Ground Monitoring LIS

SIGNALLING

Settlement Monitoring

Secondary concrete lining to Station

to LIS

NATM Excavation Station Tunnels

WB & EB Platform Structure

Construct piled box&tunnel adits

Prep for TBM's

Sink Shaft

Enabling Works

8110

Station Fit out

Site Set up

Advanced Services Diversions

SIGNALLING FIT OUT

:HVWERXQG

(DVWERXQG Liverpool Street Station

8462 8286

hapel-FARR WB Whitec FIT OUT Static Testing

Deleiver Erect & commission TBM

Settlement / Ground Monitoring HAS

WB Han.to Trackwork

Enabling Works

COMMUNICATIONS

E/B Chamber

Form EPBM adit chambers & backshunt

Liverpool St

Settlement/Background Monitoring

Acc adit & break up

Advanced Services Diversions

Exc. & line shafts

WB SG Trackwork

Setup Railhead

MGT

Station Fit out

rvices EB

Sec Lining

WB Han

Essex Wharf Stage 4

Essex Wharf Stage 3

Tunnels & Adits

WB & EB Platform Structures

Walkway& build'g se

9500

Essex Wharf Stage 2

MGT Exc & Line Shaft

Enabling Works

Advanced Services Diversions

Pedley St Shaft 9532

Hanbury Street Vent Shaft

Secondary Linings Essex Wharf Stage 5

Clean & tra ckbed co nc. -

Essex Wharf Stage 1

10130 9952

West Shaft

Dismantle WBTBM5 at Whitechapel

Prep for TBM's

NATM Excavation Station Tunnels

pel

10285

Enabling Works

. l St oo erp Liv rynbu . t a H lS oWo rive erp B TBM el d -Liv nn tun Tu nel ury driv BM anb T H eH e WB anb driv ury ne l n St.t u oW MT B hite T cha EB

Whitechapel Station

Central Shaft

Construct Box

Advanced Services Diversions

Combined System Test&Commissioning PUDD-FARR

End

IOD-SG

End

WB Clean out

T EB Settlement / Ground Monitoring WHI

10442

Clean & con

BM

driv n el tun

c.trackbe d WB Wh

itechapel

ney tep eS

to SG

e Gre

Prep.for TBM's

services EB

EB Chamber WB Chamber

Exc. & line WB shaft

to White chapel

Construct Box

chapel Walkway& building

MGT

Walkway &buildin g service s WB SG Ha

Enabling Works

11405

n to

Exc. & line EB shaft

Stepney Green E&W Vent Shaft & Turnouts

ite Wh

cha

p el

WB

hapel PUDD-IOD-Whitec

Ground Treatment Running Tunnels

Static Testing WB

Vent Tunnel adits

HV & LV COMMUNICATIONS

Sink Shaft

Sink Caisson

TB

Construct Box

Caission Preparation

Fit out

MGT

OHLE

Site Set Up

Services Diversions/Enabling

Trackwork

Services diversions/Enabling

12340

12276

nd ile E r-M ano Ele

Mile End Park Shaft

Sink Escape Shaft

Mob & Grd Treatment

rive Md

Enabling Works

13195

Eleanor-Mile rk installation

Settlement / Ground Monitoring HES

Hertsmere Road Shaft

WB Trackwo

Vent Tunnels adits

ile Eleanor-M

Sink Shaft

&Trackbed IOD-SG

Site Set Up

Advanced Services Diversions

vices ay&E&M Ser WB Walkw

Settlement / Ground Monitoring ELS

13324

Eleanor St Shaft

WB Tunnel

t ell S Low D to t e IO ell S iv w r o d L nel D to tun ve IO ri BM d T el WB tunn TBM EB

Settlement / Ground Monitoring IOD

13575

OHLE

End ile Eleanor-M Trackbed clean out&

Del,Erec & Comm TBM's

Launch Chamber

Station Infill Structure

uild'g service s WB IOD-SG

Cofferdam Advanced Services Diversions

Walkway&B

Isle of Dogs Station

Site Setup

Main Station Structure

u nn

els

14123

s tem Sys

DLR Embankment 2

PUDD Diaph.Walls

Start Bored Tunnel

Lowell Stree Vent Shaft

on llati Insta

City Mills Bridge DLR Station DLR Viaduct Access culvert Marshgate Lane

14579

Enabling Works

Pudding Mill Lane

r St

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 J J A S ON D J FMAM J J A S O N D J FMAM J J A S ON D J F MAM J J A S ON D J FMAM J J A S ON D J FM A M J J A S O N D J FM A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J FM A M J J A S OND

Crossrail Facilities Buildings & Civil New EWS Facility

J J A S ON D J FMAM J J A S O N D J FMAM J J A S ON D J F MAM J J A S ON D J FMA M J J A S ON D J FM A M J J A S O N D J FM A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J FM A M J J A S OND 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

SFI

0RWW 0DF'RQDOG

Crossrail Time Chainage TCD17 P3 Revision ICP17

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

Appendix B B.1

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

Review of Intermediate Tunnelling Sites

Criteria for TBM Launch Sites

Selection of potential TBM launch sites was based upon the following criteria: •

Programme;

•

Feasibility of the site in terms of tunnelling and logistics; and

•

Impact on the surrounding environment.

To support the TBM drives any of the sites would need to be of such a size that they handle consistently the removal of up to 2,800m3 of excavated material per day (equivalent to 200 lorry loads each way) and the supply of the tunnel linings and other necessary materials, about 30 lorry loads per day. Ideally the site should be of such a size that would allow the stock-piling of up to 48 hours production of both excavated material and tunnel linings to cater for disruptions in the supply chain supporting the operation. Given the volumes of excavated materials involved ideally the TBM launch site should be relatively close to rail infrastructure to enable this material to be hauled to the disposal site by rail.

B.2

Mile End Park

Site Location The tunnelling worksite would coincide with the intervention, ventilation and evacuation shaft located at the southeast corner of the Mile End Park, where Burdett Road intersects the railway viaduct. Construction Programme The tunnel drive is constrained by the construction of the turnouts at Stepney Green Shaft. The current philosophy is that the turnouts are constructed prior to the railway tunnels being constructed. As a result, the TBMs cannot be received at Stepney Green before about Month 28 (September 2009). Worksite A tunnelling worksite located immediately adjacent to the shaft is considered unfeasible due to the current expansion of sports facilities, which includes new football pitches and sports complex. Therefore, the tunnelling worksite would need to be sited northwards and further into the park, with a dedicated link between the tunnelling worksite and the shaft for launching TBMs. Excavated materials will be transported to the stockpile area at the northern end of Mile End Park for loading on to the railway at Mile End (Devonshire Street) sidings. The site is a considerable distance from the stockpile area. The excavated materials could be transported to the stockpiling site by either a conveyor through the park, a tunnelled adit connecting the tunnelling shaft with a temporary shaft at the stockpile area, or by lorry either directly to the stockpile area or direct to the landfill site. Tunnelling supplies, including segments, will be transported to site by lorry. B-1 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

Environmental Implications Locating the tunnelling worksite within Mile End Park would place a significant demand on the park and in particular the Mile End Park Sports Facility as construction sites would be required at both ends, with the tunnelling worksite and shaft at the southern end and the stockpile area at the northern. Closure of the Mile End Park Sports Facility main entrance and car parking area is required when transporting TBMs from the tunnelling worksite, where they will be erected, to the shaft for launch of the TBMs. Transporting TBM generated excavated materials between the tunnelling worksite (at the southern end of the park) and the area for stockpiling (to the north) would be disruptive either environmentally from a surface mounted conveyor or from an increase in construction duration for a tunnelled adit or from the significant burden on the local road network from the addition of 230 lorries per day both ways required to support tunnelling operations.

B.3

Stepney Green

Site Location The tunnelling worksite would coincide with the intervention, ventilation and evacuation shaft located within Stepney Green, adjacent to the road junction of Garden Street and Stepney Green. Construction Programme The tunnel drive is constrained by the construction of the turnouts at Stepney Green Shaft to launch the TBMs. Launch of the TBMs prior to completion of the primary lining for the turnouts may allow the tunnelling machines to commence at an earlier stage, but the launch date would be constrained by the new station at Whitechapel and the availability of the station platform tunnels to receive TBMs. Early release of the TBMs would significantly impact on the construction logistics for completing the turnouts at Stepney Green with both shaft construction and tunnelling operations being carried out simultaneously. The construction methods of the turnouts are already constrained by the westbound cavern being located within poor ground. Worksite The worksite required for Stepney Green Shaft will occupy an area of open space that includes a sports facility and the western paddocks of Stepping Stones Farm. To facilitate a tunnelling worksite, the working site will require expansion into the grassed playing field (Stepney Green), immediately west of the current sports facility, to facilitate mixed excavated material stockpile areas, sufficient to located and hold 48 hours capacity. Excavated materials would be transported by lorry either directly to the disposal site or to the Mile End Park stockpile for onward loading to the railhead at Mile End (Devonshire Street) sidings. The use of a surface mounted conveyor is considered unfeasible with no unobstructed direct corridor between Stepney Green and Mile End Park available, thereby limiting the conveyor route to follow that of the road network requiring the conveyor to change direction numerous times over short distances. A long tunnelled adit connecting Stepney Green Shaft with a temporary shaft at the northern end of Mile End Park is considered undesirable due to its long length and connection arrangement with the turnout caverns, which are at different levels. An obstruction free route for a temporary adit has not been developed, but will need to account for piled foundations (Royal London B-2 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

Hospital – Mile End and Queen Mary University of London), sewers, and LUL tunnels (Hammersmith & City and District Line). Tunnelling supplies, including segments, will be delivered to site by lorry. Environmental Implications Stepney Green Shaft site lies in a busy residential area and the main streets, including Mile End Road, Stepney Green and Commercial Road, are already heavily trafficked. The introduction of a tunnelling site would significantly increase traffic congestion with up to 230 lorry loads being required to support tunnelling operations in each direction. This is in addition to the numbers of lorries required for construction of the shaft itself.

B.4

Whitechapel

Site Location The tunnelling site would coincide with the proposed new Crossrail station at Whitechapel. Construction Programme Tunnelling operations would be constrained by the availability of the station platform tunnels. The TBMs would not be launched until the primary lining of the platform tunnels is complete. The station programme is likely to be extended as a result of tunnelling with station fit out being constrained by removal of excavated materials from the railway tunnels and the delivery of tunnel segments and supplies by the surrounding road network. The arrangement of the station will need to change to allow the TBMs to be lowered and positioned within the station ready for launch. Worksite The worksite around the proposed new Whitechapel Station is heavily constrained with commercial and residential premises, the existing LUL railway lines and associated LUL Whitechapel Station, Swanlea School and busy roads. There are limited worksites available for construction of the new station. The principal station worksites for Crossrail are the District Line worksite (bus stand and turning area on Durward Street); the Durward Street worksite (sports centre car park, Essex Wharf, substation and part of Swanlea School grounds); and the Sainsbury’s Car Park worksite (car park at the junction of Whitechapel Road and Cambridge Heath Road). To facilitate tunnelling operations, the working site area needs to be increased. This has not been developed in detail, though an initial assessment would be to use the Pedley Street tunnelling site and transport materials via Vallance Road. Excavated materials for the station construction will be transported directly to the landfill site by road. Excavated materials from tunnelling operations would be transported to the Pedley Street site by either lorry, conveyor or tunnelled adit. From the Pedley Street worksite, excavated materials would be transported by conveyor to Mile End Park for stockpiling and onward loading to the railhead at Mile End (Devonshire Street) sidings. Tunnelling supplies, including segments, will be transported to site by lorry.

B-3 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

Environmental Implications Combining the tunnelling operations with the station works will increase disruption to the surrounding environment through an increase in construction programme, additional lorries accessing the site and additional facilities for tunnelling and equipment to support tunnelling operations.

B.5

Hanbury Street Shaft (Base Case)

Site Location The TBM launch site would coincide with the intervention and ventilation shaft located at 68 to 102 Hanbury Street, Spitalfields and known as Hanbury Street Shaft. The principal tunnelling work site is located within Network Rail owned lands between the Great Eastern railway and Pedley Street. Access to the site is from Vallance Road. Construction Programme Spitalfields has the advantage of being located at approximately the third point of the total tunnel length from Royal Oak to Pudding Mill Lane, offering the potential for balancing the TBM drive lengths and thus achieving the optimum programme reduction. Worksite The TBMs will be launched from Hanbury Street Shaft, with the principal tunnelling work site being located at the Pedley Street worksite. A temporary tunnel and shaft (located within the Pedley Street worksite) will connect the two work sites. Excavated materials will be removed from the railway tunnels and brought to the surface at the Pedley Street site, and then conveyed to Mile End Park for stockpiling and onward loading to the railhead at Mile End (Devonshire Street) sidings. Tunnelling supplies, including segments, will be transported to the Pedley Street site by lorry. All materials for the construction of the Hanbury Street Shaft, including the removal of excavated materials, will be transported by lorry. Environmental Implications A shaft at Hanbury Street is required to satisfy fire, life and safety standards for the railway between the proposed new Liverpool Street and Whitechapel Stations. The construction of the shaft will impact on the environment through visual intrusion, demolition works, increased traffic, alternative pedestrian routes, dust generation, noise and vibration. The need for Hanbury Street Shaft to launch TBMs requires facilities for transporting the TBMs to site; TBM erection; craning TBM and back up modules into position; and TBM testing and commissioning. The environmental impacts normally associated with a tunnelling site are mitigated by the use of a working site at Pedley Street with all TBM generated excavated material being transported to the Pedley Street work site through a temporary tunnel where it will be conveyed to the railhead at Mile End (Devonshire Street) sidings. All tunnelling supplies and segments will be B-4 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Mott MacDonald

Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site Technical Note No.

No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A

April 2005

transported by lorry using Vallance Road (B108) and stored at the Pedley Street work site and then introduced into the tunnel system via the Pedley Street construction shaft. Use of the Pedley Street work site, including the temporary tunnel and shaft, minimises the tunnelling works at surface at Hanbury Street Shaft.

B.6

Farringdon

Site Location The tunnelling site would coincide with the proposed new Crossrail station at Farringdon. Construction Programme The use of Farringdon Station as a tunnelling site would require a significant change in the tunnel drive strategy for the central tunnels. As Farringdon Station and Fisher Street Shaft are close to each other, the TBMs would be driven eastwards from Farringdon to Whitechapel Station, removed, transported back to Farringdon by lorry and re-launched for the short drive westwards to Fisher Street Shaft. The other tunnel drives would be from Royal Oak to Fisher Street and from Pudding Mill Lane to Whitechapel, as per the base case. There are a number of constraints including the interface of constructing Farringdon Station whilst tunnelling is carried out, the interface with constructing the crossover located between Farringdon and Liverpool Street Stations and the availability of the station platform tunnels at Liverpool Street and Whitechapel for receipt of the tunnelling machines. Worksite The sites available for constructing Farringdon Station are very limited. Introducing a tunnelling site within this area is considered to be unfeasible with all available space being used as working sites for constructing the station. All materials into and out of the site would be by road. It is considered that the use of rail is unfeasible as the existing sidings lie in a cutting with difficult access and connect only to London Underground Ltd. lines. Their use would be limited to engineering hours between 12:30am and 4am, and would be dependant upon the availability of LUL works trains in the numbers required. Environmental Implications The principal environmental implications are the increased working site area required to support tunnelling operations which is likely to require demolition to create this space, increased lorry movements with excavated materials and incoming materials for both station and tunnel construction being transported by road, and an increased construction duration.

B.7

Review of Intermediate Tunnelling Sites – Conclusions

Being located at approximately the third point of the total tunnel length from Royal Oak to Pudding Mill Lane (B.5), an intermediate tunnelling site located at Hanbury Street offers the potential to balance the TBM drive lengths and reduce periods of inactivity between station and railway tunnel construction to provide a six year programme that achieves the revenue service dates required by the Project.

B-5 P:\Croydon\MMH\Tunnels\201985\Reports\Technical Notes\839 Programme Impact without Hanbury Shaft as a TBM Launch Site\Revision A - Final Issue\1D0300-C1N00-00839 A.doc/KLD