Woodseer Street Track Option Alignment…- 3 - 4 Track Alignment Options 4.1 Introduction When a train follows a curved path a centrifugal force is exerted outwards. The magnitude

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 March 2005

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 CroydonSurrey CR9 2UL UKTel : 44 (0)20 8774 2000 Fax : 44 (0)20 8681 5706




- i -

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 -

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 Track Alignment Options 3

4.1 Introduction 3

4.2 Woodseer Street 3

4.3 Hanbury Street 4

5 Comparison of Track Maintenance Requirements 5

5.1 Table of maintenance requirements 5

6 Comparison of Track Renewals 6

6.1 Table of rates of track renewal 6

7 Operational & System Impacts 6

8 Conclusions 8

Appendix A: Drawings A-1

Appendix B: Calculations B-1




- 1 -

1 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;

100kph design train speed;

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;

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;

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




- 2 -

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.




- 3 -

4 Track Alignment Options

4.1 Introduction

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:

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




- 4 -

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).




- 5 -

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.

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

Routine inspection

Monitorrail

side wear

Railprofile

grinding

Maintainrail flange lubricators

Trackslab

cleaning

Rail Fixings & pad spot replacement

Rail foot inspection

Hanbury Street

Weekly 12 monthly

then 3 monthly

Every 6 – 8 years

No Not required

20 No per year

Every 6 – 8 years

WoodseerStreet

Weekly 3 monthly then

monthly

Every 3 - 4

months

2 per line Monthly

inspection& refill

12monthly

50 No per year

3monthly




- 6 -

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

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.

Rail transposing or

replacement

Track fixing replacement

Rail flange lubricator

replacement

Spacing of track fixings

Hanbury Street

Every 6 – 8 years at isolated locations –

remainder every 12 – 15 years

Repadding every 10 - 12 years. Other items every 12 – 15 years

Not required Standard spacing 700mm

WoodseerStreet

300m radius curves every 7 months or less. Other sections as per

Hanbury St

Repadding when rail is replaced

Every 4 – 6 years with heavy

overhaul every 2 - 3 years

Reduce spacing to 610mm on curves

less than 500m radius




- 7 -

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.




- 8 -

8 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:

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;

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.

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;

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;

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;

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;

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

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.

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.




- A-1 -

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




- B-1 -

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

CrossrailRuns 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

Appendix 3

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


Crossrail Construction Programme - Programme Impact without Hanbury Street Shaft as a TBM Launch Site

Technical Note No. No. 1D0300-C1N00-00839/A April 2005

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 Limited1 Butler PlaceLondonSW1H 0PT

April 2005

Mott MacDonaldSt Anne House20-26 Wellesley RoadCroydonSurreyCR9 2ULUKTel : 44 (0)20 8774 2000Fax : 44 (0)20 8681 5706




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


S-1

Executive Summary

This report was prepared by Mott MacDonald for Cross London Rail Links Limited (CLRLL) toreview the programme impact of not using Hanbury Street Shaft as an intermediate tunnelling site (thebase case). The report assesses and compares the programme durations for the introduction of revenueservices for Crossrail Line 1 with and without the use of Hanbury Street Shaft. In the optionsconsidered the revenue service strategy is based upon a staged opening sequence, with the revenueservice that operates services between Paddington and Shenfield considered as the benchmark forfinancial planning. The main depot for Crossrail Line 1 is located at Romford and must be availablefor commissioning, trial running and the commencement of revenue service. As a comparator therevenue 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, twofurther 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 toFisher Street constructed using an open face shield in predominantly London Clay groundconditions, and the section from Pudding Mill Lane to Fisher Street constructed using a closedface TBM in predominantly Lambeth Group ground conditions;

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

Adoption of the base case tunnelling strategy reduces the Project’s risk of a delay in the introductionof revenue services (64 months), as a result of tunnelling, by adopting four shorter tunnel drive lengthsbetween Royal Oak and Pudding Mill Lane Portals. Therefore should construction difficulties slow orstop one of the tunnel drives there is potentially more opportunity for one of the other tunnel drives tocompensate. This strategy is also compatible with the revenue service strategy where the easterntunnel section is completed in advance of the western tunnel section, thus reducing delay in thecommencement of the first stage of revenue service.

Option 1 combines three tunnel drive lengths from the base case into one tunnel drive length ofapproximately 8395m, for the section between Pudding Mill Lane Portal and Fisher Street Shaft. Thisresults in a significant imbalance in the construction programme with the section between PuddingMill Lane and Fisher Street being approximately 65% longer than the section between Royal Oak andFisher 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 thetunnel drive mid point. In doing so, it creates additional constraints as to the tunnelling methodologyand rate due to poorer ground conditions in the Farringdon area. Option 2 also introduces additionalrisks into the project at the Crossrail station at Paddington; the Northern Line Platform Tunnels atTottenham Court Road Station; and the Central Line, in respect of internal project interfaces andinterfaces with third parties such as Network Rail and London Underground Limited. Risks are alsointroduced at the Crossrail station at Farringdon in respect to internal interfaces for decommissioningand removal of the tunnelling machines. The programme risk at Paddington is due to additional worksinvolved in receiving and re-launching the closed face TBM (EPBM) and its associated backup




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


S-2

equipment within the station area, compared to the smaller and lighter open face Shield which will beused for the base case and Option 1. This additional work at Paddington will add two months to theconstruction programme. At Tottenham Court Road Station, the eastbound Crossrail tunnel passesabove the existing LUL Northern Line platform tunnels with a clearance of approximately 0.5m. Theuse of the heavier closed face TBM (EPBM) will impose much greater travelling loads on the tunnelsand will require additional structural support to be installed inside the Northern Line platform tunnelsto facilitate the crossing. Between Tottenham Court Road Station and Fisher Street Shaft, bothCrossrail 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 supportwithin the LUL tunnels. It is probable that the crossings of the Northern Line and Central Line willresult in a closure being required. This could be up to two months for the Northern Line crossing andup to three months for the Central Line crossing. Programme analysis for Option 2 shows that thesedelays 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 delayeduntil tunnelling and cleanout is completed between Pudding Mill Lane and Fisher Street andFarringdon (Option 1 and Option 2 respectively).

Without the use of an intermediate tunnelling site at Hanbury Street Shaft, the revenue service datewould be delayed by 19 months for Option 1, and 16 months for Option 2 compared with the basecase. This results in the project programme for Crossrail Line 1 being outside the 6 year timetable forfunding as determined by the Department for Transport (DfT).

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




i201985/1D0300-C1N00-00839/A3


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 Tunnelling Requirements 4

3.1 General 4

3.2 Ground Conditions 4

3.3 TBM Type and Tunnelling Rate 5

4 Review of Tunnelling without Hanbury Street Intermediate Tunnelling Site 7

4.1 Tunnelling Strategy 74.1.1 Option 1- Tunnel Drive Mid-point at Fisher Street Shaft 8

(i) Tunnel Drive Strategy 8(ii) Programme 8

4.1.2 Option 2 - Tunnel Drive Mid-point at Farringdon Station 9(i) Tunnel Drive Strategy 9(ii) Programme 13

5 Review of Tunnelling with Intermediate Tunnelling Site (Base Case) 14

5.1 Tunnelling Strategy 14

5.2 Programme 15

6 Programme Comparison 16

6.1 Option 1 16

6.2 Option 2 17

6.3 Additional Considerations 17

7 Conclusions 19

Appendix A Time Chainage Programmes A-1

Appendix B Review of Intermediate Tunnelling Sites B-1




1P:\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

1 Introduction

This report was prepared by Mott MacDonald for Cross London Rail Links Limited (CLRLL) toreview the effect on the overall Crossrail Construction Programme for Line 1 in the event that theHanbury Street Shaft site was not available for use as an intermediate tunnelling site. The reportcompares the integrated construction programme ICP17, which is the base case and uses HanburyStreet Shaft in conjunction with the adjacent Pedley Street work site as a tunnelling site, to alternativetunnelling strategies where the eastern tunnel drive commences from Pudding Mill Lane (PML) Portaland terminates the drives at Fisher Street Shaft or Farringdon Station without an intermediatetunnelling 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 ofPaddington to the Great Eastern lines out of Liverpool Street. The central tunnel sections extendedfrom 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 theconstruction from Paddington to Tottenham Court Road with the balance of the tunnelling beingcarried out from Allen Gardens.

This strategy was adopted for environmental and logistic supply reasons and allowed for rail haulageof 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 periodfrom 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 Westernsurface lines for continuation to Maidenhead, but the central tunnelled section of Crossrail Line 1extends to a new station at Whitechapel and continues to an eastern portal at Pudding Mill Lane, nearStratford. 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 newstation at Isle of Dogs, immediately north of Canary Wharf development, and continues to a portal atVictoria Dock. The overall length, portal to portal, for the central tunnel section is approximately19.5km.

From Victoria Dock Portal, the railway connects with the new Thames Crossing Tunnels forcontinuation to Abbey Wood. The Thames Crossing Tunnels are independent of the Central Tunnelssection and do not influence the tunnelling methodologies and construction programme.





An initial assessment of the programme period, based upon Classic Crossrail constructionmethodology of driving the tunnels from portals at the extremities and taking into account theadditional tunnelled length, showed that the overall programme for the new scheme would beextended 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 timerequired for station construction resulting in significant delays to the construction programme forcompletion of the station works. Alternative construction strategies were therefore investigated toreduce the programme period, particularly for the tunnel drives.

Construction of the railway tunnels is essentially a linear process, involving in turn the excavation andsupport of the tunnels, clean out and removal of temporary facilities, followed by the installation inseparate operations of the first stage track-bed, the track-form (rails and fixings), walkways, pipe-workand cable brackets and then railway systems. To reduce the programme it was necessary to introduceadditional work fronts into the programme.

Since that initial assessment, the construction programme has been significantly developed. It nowincludes intermediate tunnelling worksites to provide an optimised project wide constructionprogramme 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 theDepartment for Transport (DfT). The Project’s current (base case) tunnels drive strategy for thecentral 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.

1Refer 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.





2.3 Revenue Service Strategy

The revenue service staging has been developed from east to west. This enables the main depot for therolling stock, located at Romford, to be accessed for commencement of revenue services. Initially therolling stock will be operated from that depot although eventually it will be stabled at various locationsalong the line to avoid unnecessary empty running.

The strategy for bringing Crossrail into Revenue Service has been based upon the following stagedsequence:

Stage 0. Trial running of Crossrail rolling stock, initially on test tracks, then on outer suburban lineswithout passengers, and then introduce Crossrail Rolling Stock into service on theLiverpool Street (surface station) to Shenfield line – working from the new Romford Depotand Stabling Yard;

Stage 1. Commence revenue service from Liverpool Street Station to Isle of Dogs Station (usingPudding Mill Lane Portal to introduce rolling stock into the tunnels from Romford depotand 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 Tunnelling Requirements

3.1 General

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

TBM Type TBM Support Mechanism Typical Ground Condition

Open FaceShield

Open face machine which provides no supportto the face comprising an articulated diggerhoused within a shield. It assumes that thetunnel face has sufficient stand-up timewithout support.

Stable, cohesive material (i.e.London Clay)

Earth PressureBalance (EPB)

Closed face machine which providescontinuous support to the tunnel face bybalancing earth pressure against the thrustpressure of the machine through the control ofexcavated materials from the face.

Water bearing non-cohesive / soft-very soft cohesive material withpermeability ranging between 10-3

to 10-4m/s. (i.e. Lambeth Group,Thanet Sand, Chalk)

Slurry2 Closed face machine which providescontinuous support to the tunnel face bybalancing earth and water pressure in the insitusoil with pressurised bentonite slurry. A largeseparator plant is required at the surface toseparate excavated materials from the slurry,allowing it to be recycled.

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

3.2 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 densesand and stiff to hard clay), overlying;

2The 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.





• 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 SuperficialDeposits, with the London Clay stratum forming an impermeable layer below the aquifer. The loweraquifer 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 betweenprincipal 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 theground condition, the length of the tunnel drive, and the location of the drive with respect to surfacestructures and their susceptibility to settlement. The following average tunnelling rates have beenadopted for planning purposes for ICP17:

Tunnel Drive TBM Type Planned Average Tunnelling Rate

Royal Oak Portal to FisherStreet Shaft;

Open Face Shield 40m/wk – Royal Oak to Paddington

71m/wk – Paddington to Fisher Street

Hanbury Street Shaft to FisherStreet Shaft;

Earth Pressure Balance 65m/wk

Hanbury Street Shaft toWhitechapel Station;

Open Face Shield 65m/wk

Pudding Mill Lane Portal toWhitechapel Station;

Earth Pressure Balance 77m/wk – PML to Stepney Green

70m/wk – Stepney Green toWhitechapel Station






Isle of Dogs Station to StepneyGreen Shaft;


Limmo Shaft to Isle of DogsStation; and


Limmo Shaft to Victoria DockPortal


An eight week learning curve has been introduced at the commencement of the drive where typically50% of the advance rate is assumed, except for Royal Oak to Paddington where a tunnelling rate of40m/week has been assumed.

Tunnelling operations will be carried out on a 24 hour, 7 day week basis, allowing for planned andunplanned stoppages; maintenance and replacement of equipment; extension of conveyors and servicerailway; slowing of TBMs through areas of importance through central London; and removal ofobstructing features, where and if necessary. Where possible, tunnelling will be carried outcontinuously to control ground movements.





4 Review of Tunnelling without Hanbury Street IntermediateTunnelling Site

4.1 Tunnelling Strategy

The tunnelling strategy assumes that tunnelling through central London will be carried out from eachof the portals at Royal Oak and Pudding Mill Lane without the need for additional work fronts throughan 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 groundconditions, with tunnel drives into the lowerlevels of London Clay between Hanbury Streetand Whitechapel Station, at immediately to theeast 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 LambethGroup and Thanet Sand at Farringdon

Pudding Mill Lane to Farringdon Station; Predominantly Lambeth Group groundconditions, with tunnel drives into the lowerlevels of London Clay between Hanbury Streetand Whitechapel Station

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





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:


Royal Oak Portal to FisherStreet Shaft;

Open Face Shield 40m/wk – Royal Oak to Paddington

71m/wk – Paddington to Fisher Street

Pudding Mill Lane to FisherStreet Shaft;


70m/wk – Stepney Green to FisherStreet







(ii) Programme

The programme was developed using Primavera P3 – an industry standard software programme. Forclarity and ease of understanding a “Time – Chainage Diagram” (TCD) was generated from the P3programme using a software package developed by PCF Ltd. The construction programme ispresented 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



The construction programmes critical path follows the tunnel drive from Pudding Mill Lane Portal toFisher Street Shaft where the average length of the tunnel drive is approximately 8395m. This is





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 programmewith the section between Pudding Mill Lane and Fisher Street being approximately 65% longer thanthe section between Royal Oak and Fisher Street. To reduce this imbalance, the programme for tunnelfit out was accelerated by the introduction of two work fronts working from both Fisher Street Shaftand Pudding Mill Lane Portal towards Stepney Green Shaft for tunnel cleanout and installation oftrack bed, walkways and building services for the tunnel section between Pudding Mill Lane andFisher Street. This allows for early commencement of the installation of rail, overhead line equipmentand systems works which will be serviced from Pudding Mill Lane Portal. For the section betweenRoyal 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 LanePortal and Fisher Street Shaft is operational. This is because there is no crossover where the trainsfrom the west can be turned until east of Farringdon Station. This can be accessed when the tunnelfrom 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:


Royal Oak Portal to FarringdonStation;

Earth Pressure Balance 40m/wk – Royal Oak to Paddington

65m/wk – Paddington to Farringdon

Pudding Mill Lane toFarringdon Station;


70m/wk – Stepney Green to Farringdon







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





tunnelling machine used in the base case and Option 1. The use of an EPBM between Royal Oak andFarringdon imposes additional risk to the programme and project viability at the proposed Crossrailstations 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 theimpacts 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 poorerground conditions east of Fisher Street Shaft and in the Farringdon area. Immediately to the east ofFisher Street Shaft the tunnels bore into the Lambeth Group, staying in that deposit to FarringdonStation. 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, indicatesignificant structural disturbance of the strata in the vicinity of Farringdon since the levels fall fromapproximately 100mATD in the north-west to 82.6mATD in the south-east, which are matched byincreases in the thickness of the London Clay. This is believed to reflect the presence of a number offaults since a similar fall in level is evident for the Chalk-Thanet Sand interface where this has beenproven by drilling.

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





From past historical experience of tunnelling through fault zones in London Clay on the Jubilee LineExtension Project the faulting mentioned is unlikely to be encountered as a single discrete plane ofdisplacement but is likely to be exposed as a series of complex cross cutting and intersecting generallynon-linear fault surfaces with both vertical and lateral displacements. These create blocks within theground which can be adversely arranged and oriented for face stability during tunnelling. Thetunnelling methods adopted for construction need to address this structural variability.

Within the Harwich Formation and the Upper Lambeth Group the vertical and lateral variation inlithologies 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 bedifficult to locate and give rise to problems during construction.

For these reasons, a closed face earth pressure balance tunnelling machine (EPBM) has been adoptedfor 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 atPaddington assumes the following for all options including the base case:

a) Use the first tunnelling machine reaching Paddington to bore the temporary central tunnel betweenthe two work shafts, which are located at either end of the station. The second tunnelling machinereaching Paddington will be disassembled, lifted-up from western work shaft and re-launched atthe eastern work shaft to continue its operation eastward. The sequence for the operations is listedbelow:

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 diaphragmwall to commence boring the central temporary tunnel (245m long) to the eastern work shaftand between the already-installed intermediate piles; re-assemble tunnelling machine trainsequentially behind.

ii) Break through the interim diaphragm wall of the eastern work shaft; within the eastern workshaft, slide the tunnelling machine laterally back to the original tunnel alignment; re-assembletunnelling machine train; breakout through the east end diaphragm wall and proceed withbored running tunnel beyond the station. Use the temporary central tunnel for transport ofexcavated material through station back to the construction site at Royal Oak and/or to railhead.

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; breakout 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 toRoyal Oak Portal for onward transport to the designated disposal sites.





b) Construct station box by top-down method (sequence of construction based on casting a slabfollowed by subsequent excavation below that slab). To minimise the impact at street level fromthe handling and transportation of large volumes of excavated material, the bulk of this materialwill 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 2for the following reasons:

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

• Construction of the temporary tunnel will take longer using an EPBM due to re-launchrequirements 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 componentsand the need to have a greater portion of the back up equipment assembled for an EPBM. Thislatter requirement would result in the need to construct a larger western work shaft at PaddingtonStation, resulting in additional programme to the station works and greater impact to adjacentlisted structures.

Northern Line at Tottenham Court Road Station

A critical interface is the crossing of the Northern Line platform tunnels at Tottenham Court RoadStation, where the eastbound Crossrail tunnel passes closely above (with approximately 0.5mclearance) the existing cast iron lined platform tunnels. The westbound tunnel passes with clearancesabove 2m. In the base case and Option 1 tunnelling strategies, this crossing is achieved using an openface shield which is considerably lighter in weight than a closed-face TBM, limiting the impact on theexisting tunnels.

Transferring a closed-face TBM over these tunnels will impose much greater loads on the linings andexpose the LUL infrastructure to greater risk of collapse than with the open-face shield. These loadsare mitigated to some extent by advance construction of a sprayed concrete tunnel across the existingtunnels. However, even with this safeguard, there is a high risk that structural assessment of theexisting platform tunnel linings will identify that additional supports are required within the NorthernLine Platform tunnels. Incorporation of such internal structural support would require blockades ofthe Northern Line resulting in significant disruption to LUL operations with a probable closure of theNorthern 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 Linetunnels between Tottenham Court Road Station and Fisher Street Shaft where clearances are less than0.5m. Structural support will be required to maintain the integrity of the existing Central Line tunnellinings. Incorporation of such internal structural support would require blockades of the Central Lineresulting in significant disruption to LUL operations with a probable closure of services for a period ofup to three months.





Interface with Farringdon Station

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

(ii) Programme

The programme was developed using Primavera P3 – an industry standard software programme. Forclarity and ease of understanding a “Time – Chainage Diagram” (TCD) was generated from the P3programme using a software package developed by PCF Ltd. The construction programme ispresented in Appendix A – Time Chainage Report TCDT4HS and summarised below:







The critical path follows the tunnel drive from Pudding Mill Lane Portal to Farringdon Station withthe tunnel drive average length being approximately 6795m. This is compared with the tunnel drivelength from Royal Oak Portal to Farringdon Station which averages approximately 6214m. Toaccelerate 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 bothFarringdon and Pudding Mill Lane to allow early commencement of the installation of rail, overheadline equipment and systems works which will be serviced from Pudding Mill Lane Portal. Tunnel fitout 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 betweenPudding Mill Lane Portal and Fisher Street Shaft is operational. This is because there is no crossoverwhere trains from the west can be turned until east of Farringdon Station. This can only be accessedwhen the tunnel from the east are complete.





5 Review of Tunnelling with Intermediate Tunnelling Site (BaseCase)

5.1 Tunnelling Strategy

To reduce the project wide construction duration and in particular to minimise delay to theconstruction of stations at Liverpool Street and Farringdon, the programme for Crossrail Line 1 wasreviewed to include an intermediate tunnelling site, so as to separate the route into approximately onethird lengths.

To minimise the construction impact of the project, the location of an intermediate tunnelling site wascombined with other Crossrail infrastructure such as stations or intermediate shafts. The stationlocations were defined by the Project and the emergency intervention access shaft locations weredetermined by the need to satisfy HMRI fire life safety regulations for underground railways, whichrequire 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 ofthe site in terms of tunnelling and logistics, and environmental implications. A review of the potentialTBM launch sites is presented in Appendix B.

The optimum construction programme was achieved by locating the intermediate tunnelling site tocoincide with Hanbury Street Shaft within Spitalfields as it is located at approximately the third pointof the total tunnel length between Royal Oak to Pudding Mill Lane and thereby offering the potentialto balance the TBM drive lengths. By providing a temporary adit from Hanbury Street Shaft to atemporary shaft located within the disused railway lands at Pedley Street, the excavated material fromthe tunnels will be transported to the surface and conveyed to a railhead at Mile End (DevonshireStreet) sidings. The work site at Pedley Street will also be used to locate site offices for tunnellingoperations and for the stockpiling and supply of tunnelling supplies, including tunnel segments. Thissignificantly reduces the impact from lorries around Hanbury Street with the site entrance to thePedley Street work site being from Vallance Road. The use of the Hanbury Street site for the launchof TBMs has been assessed as being an adequate site3 when used in conjunction with the work site atPedley Street.

The tunnel drive strategy and tunnelling rates are those currently adopted by the Project in programmeICP17 and presented in Section 3.3.

3Refer Technical Note No. 1D0300-C1N00-00838 Hanbury Street TBM Assembly.





5.2 Programme

The programme was developed using Primavera P3 – an industry standard software programme. Forclarity and ease of understanding a “Time – Chainage Diagram” (TCD) was generated from the P3programme using a software package developed by PCF Ltd. The construction programme ispresented in Appendix A – Time Chainage Report TCD17 (aka. ICP17) and summarised below:







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





6 Programme Comparison

Comparisons of the base case (ICP17) with the two alternative tunnelling options are summarisedbelow 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, asthis 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 WithoutIntermediate

Tunnelling Site(TCDT3HS)

Programme WithIntermediate

Tunnelling Site(ICP17)

Programme savingusing intermediatetunnelling site at

Hanbury Street Shaft

Commencement Date June 2007 June 2007 0 Months

Complete all tunneldrives for Stage 1

52 Months 37 Months 15 Months

Complete all tunnelfit out for Stage 1


Commence RevenueStage 1






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





6.2 Option 2

Table 6.2: Option 2 - Programme with Tunnel Drive Mid-point at Farringdon Station

Programme WithoutIntermediate

Tunnelling Site(TCDT4HS)

Programme WithIntermediate

Tunnelling Site(ICP17)

Programme savingusing intermediatetunnelling site at

Hanbury Street Shaft

Commencement Date June 2007 June 2007 0 Months

Complete all tunneldrives for Stage 1


Complete all tunnelfit out for Stage 1








A 16 month or 20% saving in programme is achieved for Stage 1 of the revenue service betweenLiverpool 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 railwayto 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 ratesapplicable 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 increasesresulting in extra risk to the tunnelling operations. These risks include:

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





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

• Supply of tunnel segments and other tunnelling supplies to TBM will be hindered by theadditional travel time from portal to TBM. This is likely to require additional passing points alongthe tunnel for the segment trains and this may impact on the size of the tunnels at localised pointsto accommodate this. Hand excavation would be required to achieve the tunnel enlargements afterthe 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 therisk of breakdown;

• Increased length for supply of ventilation during tunnelling.





7 Conclusions

This report compares the impacts on the construction programme for the central tunnel section ofCrossrail Line 1 between Royal Oak and Pudding Mill Lane Portals both with and without anintermediate tunnelling site. It is concluded that the incorporation of an intermediate tunnelling sitelocated 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 (thebase 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, 19months earlier for Option 1, and 16 months earlier for Option 2 than if tunnelling from PuddingMill Lane Portal without the Hanbury Street Shaft site. This represents a programme saving of22% and 20% respectively for the base case;

• Introduces Stage 3 revenue services, between Paddington to Shenfield and to Isle of Dogs, 16months earlier for Option 1, and 14 months earlier for Option 2 than if tunnelling from PuddingMill Lane Portal without the Hanbury Street Shaft site. This represents a programme saving of18% and 16.5% respectively for the base case. Stage 3 of the revenue service is considered thebenchmark 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 theDepartment for Transport;

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

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

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

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

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

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




A-1P:\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

Appendix A Time Chainage Programmes

Time Chainage Report TCDT3HS – Tunnelling to Fisher Street Shaft without an intermediatetunnelling site at Hanbury Street Shaft (Option 1)

Time Chainage Report TCDT4HS – Tunnelling to Farringdon Station without an intermediatetunnelling site at Hanbury Street Shaft (Option 2)

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

J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Crossrail Facilities Buildings & Civil

Crossrail Track & Rail

Exec & Conc to Cut & CoverC&C Diaph Walls

Enabling WorksSettlement Monitoring

Advanced Services Diversions

Exc. & Convc base East box

Exc. & Convc base West box

VentTunnel Addits

Advanced Services Diversions Enabling Works

Settlement Monitoring

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

NS

Enabling Works


SIG

NALL

ING

Acc adit & break up


Advanced Services DiversionsSCL Excavation Station Tunnels

Advanced Services DiversionsCofferdam

Syst

ems

Test

&Co

mm

issi

onin

g

Services Diversions/Enabling

Construct Goslett Yard BoxAstoria Demo

Goslett Yard Demo

Advanced Services Diversions Sink Shaft Vent Tunnels adits

Services diversions/Enabling

Advanced Services Diversion

DLR StationAccess culvert

Station Fit out

Station Fit out

Shaft Fit out

Site Setupinc Rail Sidings

Enabling Works

MGT

OH

LE

WB

&EB

Plat

form

Stru

ctur

eEnabling Works

FIT

OUT

Enabling Works

MGT

Prep forTBM's

Main Station Structure

Site

Set

up

Syst

ems

Test

&Co

mm

issi

onin

g

ExcAdit

Fareham St - Demo Sink Shaft

Site Set Up

Site Set Up

DLR Viaduct

Prep forTBM's

Construct box

Retained Cut

Site

Setu

p

Exc. & Primary Lining

Phased Demo Dean St

HV&

LV

Site

Setu

p

Enabling Works

Prep for

TBM

's

Site

Setu

p

Station InfillStructure

DLR Puding Mill Station

Spoil Loading Installation

Phased Piling SCL ExcavationStation Tunnels

Construct Piled Box & Tunnel Adits

Secondary concretelining to Station

Sin

kS

haft

Diaph.WallCentral box

Exc.Intervention Passages

Exc. & Conc Station Boxinc base,int and roofslab

Seco

ndar

yco

ncre

telin

ings

toSt

atio

ns

COM

MUN

ICAT

IONS

FIT

OU

T

SCL Excavate Station Tunnels

OHL

E

WB

&EB

Plat

form

Stru

ctur

e

SecondaryLinings

Hanover Sq.demo

Rtg Walls South box

Vent Tunnels

Prep forTBM's

Prep

for

TBM

's

HV&

LV

Seco

ndar

yco

ncre

telin

ing

toSt

atio

n

WB & EBPlatform Structures

Construct Box

Form EastBox SD Walls

Roa

dD

eck

WB & EBPlatformStructure

Sink Shaft

Interface Tunnels

Station Fit out

OH

LEH

V&

LVC

OM

MU

NIC

ATI

ON

S

FIT

OU

T

OH

LE

HV

&LV

OH

LE

FIT

OU

T

Exc. & line interv'n passages

WB & EBPlatform Structure

Prep forTBM's

Secondary concretelinings to StationsSCL Excavation Station Tunnels

HV&

LV

FIT

OU

T

SCL Excavation Station Tunnels

Prep

for

TBM

's

Station Fit out

Construct piled box&tunnel adits

SIG

NA

LLIN

G

Site SetupNew Yard

SIG

NA

LLIN

G


SIG

NA

LLIN

G

Construct VentShaft & Tmp Aditsto Station Tunnel

Construct BoxMGTExc. & Line Shaft

SIG

NA

LLIN

G

Construct Astoria St Box

SIG

NA

LLIN

G

Enabling Works

Launch Chamber

Construct Davies St Box

Sink Shaft

Deliver, Erect &Commission TBM'sTBM Design, Manufacture & Assembly

Clea

n&

conc

rete

track

bed

-W

BPA

Dto

porta

l

Trac

kwor

kEB

Port

alto

Padd

ingt

on

Trac

kwor

kW

BPo

rtal t

oPa

ddin

gton

Wal

kway

&bu

ildin

gse

rvic

esW

BPA

Dto

Porta

l

New EWS Facility

ConstructPlatform

Foundations x3Construct Platforms x3Site Prep

Install OHLE& Signalling

ConstructRetaining

Wall


Backfill

Launch Chamber

Enabling Works

EBTB

M2

tunn

eldr

ive

Padd

ingt

onto

Bond

St.

WB

TBM

1tu

nnel

driv

ePa

ddin

gton

toBo

ndSt

.

Clea

nou

t &co

ncre

tetra

ckbe

dW

B- B

OS- H

yde

Pk

Clea

nou

t &tra

ckbe

dW

BHy

dePk

-PAD

Trac

kwor

kEB

Padd

ingt

onto

Bond

St.

Trac

kwor

kW

BPa

ddin

gton

toBo

ndSt

reet

Wal

kway

&bu

ildin

gse

rvic

esW

BBO

S-Hy

dePk

Wal

kway

&bu

i ldin

gse

rvic

esW

BHy

dePk

-PAD

Prep for

TBM

Prep for

TBMRtg Walls

West box Transfer EB TBM to East End

Arrange TBMin East Box

Advanced Services Diversions Enabling Works Exc. & PrimaryLining

HV

&LVO

HLE

EBTB

M2

tunn

eldr

ive

Bond

St.to

Totte

nham

Ct.R

d

WB

TBM

1tu

nnel

driv

eBo

ndSt

.toTo

ttenh

amCt

.Rd

FIT

OU

T

Clea

nou

t &co

ncre

tetra

ckbe

dW

BTC

Rto

Bond

Str

Trac

kwor

kEB

Bond

Stre

etto

TCR

Trac

kwor

kW

BBo

ndSt

reet

toTC

R


Site setup

Com

bine

dSy

stem

Test

&Com

mis

sion

ing

WBP

-FAR

EBTB

M2

driv

eTo

ttenh

amCo

urt R

dto

Fish

erSt

.

WB

TBM1

driv

e Tot

tenh

amCo

urt R

dto

Fish

erSt

.

Clea

nou

t&co

ncre

tetra

ckbe

dW

BFi

sher

Stto

TCR

Trac

kwor

kEB

TCR

toFi

sher

St.s

haft

Trac

kwor

kW

BTC

Rto

Fish

erSt

. sha

ft

Wal

kway

&bu

ildin

gse

rvic

esEB

TCR

toFi

sher

St


Advanced Services DiversionsSec Lining

Exc. & Primary LiningVent Tunnels & Adits

COM

MUN

ICAT

IONS

HV&

LVOHL

E

EBTB

Mtu

nnel

driv

eLI

Sto

FAR

Xove

r

WB

TBM

tunn

eldr

ive

LIS

toFA

RXo

ver

SIG

NALL

ING

FIT

OUT

Wal

kway

&bui

ld'g

serv

ices

EBFA

Rto

LIS

EBTB

Mtu

nnel

driv

eFi

sher

Stto

Farri

ngdo

n

WB

TBM

tunn

eldr

ive

Fish

erSt

.toFa

rring

don

Clea

nou

t&co

ncre

tetra

ckbe

dW

BFA

Rto

Fish

erSt

Wal

kway

&bu

ildin

gse

rvic

esW

BFi

sher

Stto

FARR

Crossover Tunnel Crossover lininginvert WB


COM

MUN

ICAT

IONS

hv&

lv

OHL

E

EBTB

Mtu

nnel

driv

eHa

nbur

ySt

.toW

hite

chap

el

WB

TBM

tunn

eldr

ive

Hanb

ury

St.to

Whi

tech

apel

Clea

n&

track

bed

conc

. -W

BHa

nto

Whi

tech

apel

Wal

kway

&bui

ld'g

serv

ices

EBHa

nto

Whi

tech

apel

COM

MUN

ICAT

IONS

EBTB

MTun

neld

rive

Hanb

ury-

Live

rpoo

lSt.

WB

TBM

Tunn

eldr

iveH

anbu

ry-L

iver

pool

St.

SIG

NALL

ING

FIT

OUT

Trac

kwor

kW

BHa

n.to

Live

rpoo

lSt

MGT Exc. & line shafts

Setup Railhead

E/B Chamber

Form EPBM adit chambers & backshunt


CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

NS

OH

LE

EBTB

Mtu

nnel

driv

eSt

epne

yGr

een

toW

hite

chap

el

WB

TBM

tunn

eldr

ive

Step

ney

Gre

ento

Whi

tech

apel

SIG

NA

LLIN

G

FIT

OU

T

Clea

n&

conc

.trac

kbed

WB

Whi

tech

apel

toSG

Trac

kwor

kW

BSG

toW

hite

chap

el

Wal

kway

&bui

ldin

gse

rvic

esW

BSG

toW

hite

chap

el

Del,Erec& Comm TBM's

EBTB

Mtu

nnel

driv

eLo

wel

lStt

oSt

epne

yG

reen

EBTB

Mtu

nnel

driv

eIO

Dto

Low

ellS

t

Syst

emw

ide

inst

alla

tion

EBIO

D-SG

WB

Cle

anou

t&Tr

ackb

edIO

D-S

G

Trac

kwor

kW

BIO

D-SG

Wal

kway

&Bui

ld'g

serv

ices

WB

IOD-

SG

Sink CaissonCaissionPreparation

Ground TreatmentRunning Tunnels

Mob & Grd TreatmentEnabling Works Sink Escape Shaft

Advanced Services Diversions MGTEnabling Works Sec LiningExc & Line Shaft Tunnels & Adits

Loca

lSys

tem

sTe

stin

gPU

DD-IO

D--W

hite

chap

el-F

ARR

Loca

lSys

tem

sTe

stin

gFA

R-Po

rtal

MGTEnabling Works

EB ChamberExc. & line EB shaft

Exc. & line WB shaftWB Chamber

Stat

icTe

stin

gW

BW

est P

orta

l-FAR

Stat

icTe

stin

gEB

Wes

t Por

tal-F

AR

Stat

icTe

stin

gW

BW

hite

chap

el-F

ARSt

atic

Test

ing

WB

PUDD

-IOD-

Whi

tech

apel

Syst

ems

Test

&Co

mm

issi

onin

g

Tria

lRun

ning

Sta

ge2

Tria

lRun

ning

Sta

ge1

WB

TBM

tunn

eldr

ive

IOD

toLo

wel

lSt

WB

TBM

tunn

eldr

ive

Low

ellS

tto

Step

ney

Gre

en

Sink shaft

Settlement / Ground Monitoring HAS


Settlement / Ground Monitoring - west end TCR

Dismantle WBTBM5 at Whitechapel

Settlement / Ground Monitoring PML

WB

Tunn

els

Syst

ems

Inst

alla

tion

PUD

D-E

lean

orSt

EB

TBM

driv

eE

lean

or-M

ileE

ndW

BTB

Mdr

ive

Ele

anor

-Mile

End

WB

Tunn

elcl

ean

out&

Trac

kbed

Elea

nor-M

ileEn

d

WB

Trac

kwor

kin

stal

latio

nEl

eano

r-Mile

End

WB

Wal

kway

&E&M

Serv

ices

Elea

nor-M

ileEn

d

EB

TBM

driv

eM

ileE

nd-S

tepn

eyG

reen

WB

TBM

driv

esM

ileE

nd-S

tep.

Gre

en

Essex Wharf Stage 1 Essex WharfStage 2

Essex WharfStage 3

Essex WharfStage 4 Essex Wharf Stage 5

OH

LE

OH

LE

FIT

OU

T

OH

LE

Fito

ut

Sink Shaft Vent Tunnel adits

PUDD Cut & Cover

City Mills Bridge

Deliver,Erect,Comm.TBM

DLR Embankment 2PUDD Diaph.WallsLaunch chamber

Marshgate LaneMill Lane CB

Procure TBM

PUDD Retained Cut

Construct Box Prep.for TBM's

Form WestBox SD Walls

Site setup

Ventilation Passage

Air Intake/Stair structSite Set up

Construct Box

Settlement/Background Monitoring

Com

bine

dS

yste

mTe

st&

Com

mis

sion

ing

PU

DD

-FA

R

Settlement / Ground Monitoring ELS

Station Fit out

Settlement / Ground Monitoring PAD

Settlement / Ground Monitoring - west end BOS

Settlement / Ground Monitoring LIS

Settlement / Ground Monitoring HES

Settlement / Ground Monitoring WHI

Settlement / Ground Monitoring IOD

OHL

EPo

rtal s

truct

ure

mod

s.

OHL

E/Si

gnal

stru

ct.s

horte

ning

mod

s

Option 1Crossrail Time ChainageTCDT3HSTunnel to Fisher St(not using Hanbury St)

13324Eleanor St Shaft

Mile End Park Shaft

Lowell Stree Vent Shaft

Stepney Green E&WVent Shaft & Turnouts

Central Shaft

10130

10285

10442

9952West Shaft

Hanbury Street Vent Shaft

9500

9532

Pedley StShaft

4716

4888

5060

3654

3820

3986Temp access Shaft East

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

Cut & Cover

Open Cut

@ Grade

816

520

210

��

Roy

alO

akPo

rtal

2225Hyde Park Vent shaft

5825Fisher Street Vent Shaft

��

1578

1245

1410

Pudd

ing

Mill

Lane

14579

Park Lane Vent Shaft 3016

14123

7498

7340

7160

6980

7646

8462

8286

8110

Hertsmere Road Shaft13195

Old

Oak

Com

mon

Dep

ot&

sidi

ngs

Start Bored Tunnel

13575

Isle

ofD

ogs

Stat

ion

Live

rpoo

lSt

reet

Stat

ion

Farri

ngdo

nSt

atio

nPa

ddin

gton

Stat

ion

Start Bored Tunnel

Western Limit of Route

Wes

tbou

rne

Park

Bond

Stre

etSt

atio

n

Totte

nham

Cou

rtR

oad

Stat

ion

Whi

tech

apel

Stat

ion

11405

12276

12340



2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

NS

Deliver, Erect &Commission TBM's

HV

&LV

OH

LE

TBM Design, Manufacture & Assembly

SIG

NA

LLIN

G

FIT

OU

TClea

n&

conc

rete

track

bed

-W

BPA

Dto

porta

l

Trac

kwor

kEB

Porta

l to

Padd

ingt

on

Trac

kwor

kW

BPo

rtal

toPa

ddin

gton

Wal

kway

&bu

ildin

gse

rvic

esW

BPA

Dto

Porta

l


New EWS Facility


ConstructPlatform

Foundations x3Construct Platforms x3Site Prep


ConstructRetaining

Wall


BackfillExec & Conc to Cut & CoverC&C Diaph Walls

Launch Chamber

Enabling Works

Enabling WorksSettlement Monitoring


Site SetupNew Yard

HV

&LV

OH

LE

EBTB

M2

tunn

eldr

ive

Padd

ingt

onto

Bond

St.

WB

TBM

1tu

nnel

driv

ePa

ddin

gton

toBo

ndSt

.

SIG

NA

LLIN

G

FIT

OU

T

Clea

nou

t &co

ncre

tetra

ckbe

dW

B- B

OS- H

yde

Pk

Clea

nou

t &tra

ckbe

dW

BHy

dePk

-PAD

Trac

kwor

kEB

Padd

ingt

onto

Bond

St.

Trac

kwor

kW

BPa

ddin

gton

toBo

ndSt

reet

Wal

kway

&bu

ildin

gse

rvic

esW

BBO

S-Hy

dePk

Wal

kway

&bu

i ldin

gse

rvic

esW

BHy

dePk

-PAD





Prep for

TBM

Prep for

TBM

Roa

dD

eck

Rtg Walls South box

Rtg WallsWest box

Enabling Works

Sink Shaft

Site

Setu

p

Add'l time to transferEB EPBM to East End

Add'l time to arrangeEPBM in East Box


Settlement Monitoring HP

Exc. & PrimaryLining

VentTunnel Addits

Advanced Services Diversions Exc. & line interv'n passagesEnabling Works


Exc. & Primary LiningVent Tunnels

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

NS

HV

&LVO

HLE

EBTB

M2

tunn

eldr

ive

Bond

St.to

Totte

nham

Ct.R

d

WB

TBM

1tu

nnel

driv

eBo

ndSt

.toTo

ttenh

amCt

.Rd

SIG

NA

LLIN

GFI

TO

UT

Clea

nou

t &co

ncre

tetra

ckbe

dW

BTC

Rto

Bond

Str

Trac

kwor

kEB

Bond

Stre

etto

TCR

Trac

kwor

kW

BBo

ndSt

reet

toTC

R



Construct BoxMGT


Prep forTBM's

Secondary concretelinings to StationsSCL Excavation Station Tunnels

Exc. & Line Shaft

Site setup

Com

bine

dSy

stem

Test

&Com

mis

sion

ing

WBP

-FAR

HV&

LV

OH

LE

EBTB

M2

driv

eTo

ttenh

amCo

urt R

dto

Fish

erSt

.

WB

TBM

1 driv

eTo

ttenh

amCo

urt R

dto

Fish

erSt

.

SIG

NA

LLIN

GFI

TO

UT

Clea

nou

t&co

ncre

tetra

ckbe

dW

BFi

sher

Stto

TCR

Trac

kwor

kEB

TCR

toFi

sher

St.s

haft

Trac

kwor

kW

BTC

Rto

Fish

erSt

. sha

ft

Wal

kway

&bu

ildin

gse

rvic

esEB

TCR

toFi

sher

St



Phased PilingPhased Demo Dean St


Prep forTBM's

Seco

ndar

yco

ncre

telin

ings

toSt

atio

ns

SCL ExcavationStation Tunnels

Advanced Services Diversions MGTEnabling WorksSec Lining


COM

MUN

ICAT

IONS

HV&

LVOHL

E

EBTB

Mtu

nnel

driv

eLI

Sto

FAR

Xove

r

WB

TBM

tunn

eldr

ive

LIS

toFA

RXo

ver

SIG

NALL

ING

FIT

OUT

Wal

kway

&bui

ld'g

serv

ices

EBFA

Rto

LIS

COM

MUN

ICAT

IONS

HV&

LV

OH

LE

EBTB

Mtu

nnel

driv

eFi

sher

Stto

Farri

ngdo

n

WB

TBM

tunn

eldr

ive

Fish

erSt

.toFa

rring

don

SIG

NA

LLIN

G FIT

OU

T

Clea

nou

t&co

ncre

tetra

ckbe

dW

BFA

Rto

Fish

erSt

Wal

kway

&bu

ildin

gse

rvic

esW

BFi

sher

Stto

FARRAdvanced Services Diversions Construct Piled Box & Tunnel Adits

Crossover Tunnel

WB

&EB

Plat

form

Stru

ctur

e

Crossover lininginvert WB

Prep

for

TBM

'sEnabling Works

Seco

ndar

yco

ncre

telin

ing

toSt

atio

n

Settlement/Grd Monitoring FAR

SCL Excavate Station TunnelsSite

Setu

p

COM

MUN

ICAT

IONS

hv&

lv

OHL

E

EBTB

Mtu

nnel

driv

eHa

nbur

ySt

.toW

hite

chap

el

WB

TBM

tunn

eldr

ive

Hanb

ury

St.to

Whi

tech

apel

SIG

NALL

ING

FIT

OUT

Clea

n&

track

bed

conc

. -W

BHa

nto

Whi

tech

apel

Wal

kway

&bui

ld'g

serv

ices

EBHa

nto

Whi

tech

apel

COM

MUN

ICAT

IONS

HV&

LV

OHL

E

EBTB

MTun

neld

rive

Hanb

ury-

Live

rpoo

lSt.

WB

TBM

Tunn

eldr

iveH

anbu

ry-L

iver

pool

St.

SIG

NALL

ING

FIT

OUT

Trac

kwor

kW

BHa

n.to

Live

rpoo

lSt

Acc adit & break up


Setup Railhead

E/B Chamber

Enabling Works Form EPBM adit chambers & backshunt


WB

&EB

Plat

form

Stru

ctur

e

Prep for

TBM

's

Enabling Works

Seco

ndar

yco

ncre

telin

ing

toSt

atio

n



Site

Setu

p

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

NS

OH

LE

EBTB

Mtu

nnel

driv

eSt

epne

yGr

een

toW

hite

chap

el

WB

TBM

tunn

eldr

ive

Step

ney

Gre

ento

Whi

tech

apel

SIG

NA

LLIN

G

FIT

OU

T

Clea

n&

conc

.trac

kbed

WB

Whi

tech

apel

toSG

Trac

kwor

kW

BSG

toW

hite

chap

el

Wal

kway

&bui

ldin

gse

rvic

esW

BSG

toW

hite

chap

el


EBTB

Mtu

nnel

driv

eLo

wel

lStt

oSt

epne

yG

reen

EBTB

Mtu

nnel

driv

eIO

Dto

Low

ellS

t

Syst

emw

ide

inst

alla

tion

EBIO

D-SG

WB

Cle

anou

t&Tr

ackb

edIO

D-S

G

Trac

kwor

kW

BIO

D-SG

Wal

kway

&Bui

ld'g

serv

ices

WB

IOD-

SG


Ground TreatmentRunning TunnelsMGT




MGT

WB & EBPlatform StructuresPrep for

TBM's

Enabling Works

Enabling Works SecondaryLinings

Sec Lining


Exc & Line Shaft Tunnels & Adits


Launch Chamber

Main Station Structure Station InfillStructure

Site

Set

up

Loca

lSys

tem

sTe

stin

gPU

DD-IO

D--W

hite

chap

el-F

ARR

Loca

l Sys

tem

sTe

stin

gFA

R-Po

rtal

MGTEnabling Works



Stat

icTe

stin

gW

BW

est P

orta

l-FAR

Stat

icTe

stin

gEB

Wes

t Por

tal-F

AR

Stat

icTe

stin

gW

BW

hite

chap

el-F

ARSt

atic

Test

ing

WB

PUDD

-IOD-

Whi

tech

apel

Syst

ems

Test

&Co

mm

issi

onin

gSy

stem

sTe

st&

Com

mis

sion

ing

Syst

ems

Test

&Co

mm

issi

onin

g

Tria

lRun

ning

Sta

ge2

Tria

lRun

ning

Sta

ge1

Sin

kS

haft

WB

TBM

tunn

eldr

ive

IOD

toLo

wel

lSt

WB

TBM

tunn

eldr

ive

Low

ellS

tto

Step

ney

Gre

en

Sink shaft




Prep

for

TBM

's



Hanover Sq.demo

Construct Goslett Yard Box



WB

Tunn

els

Syst

ems

Inst

alla

tion

PUD

D-E

lean

orSt

EB

TBM

driv

eE

lean

or-M

ileE

ndW

BTB

Mdr

ive

Ele

anor

-Mile

End

WB

Tunn

elcl

ean

out&

Trac

kbed

Elea

nor-M

ileEn

d

WB

Trac

kwor

kin

stal

latio

nEl

eano

r-Mile

End

WB

Wal

kway

&E&M

Serv

ices

Elea

nor-M

ileEn

d

EB

TBM

driv

eM

ileE

nd-S

tepn

eyG

reen

WB

TBM

driv

esM

ileE

nd-S

tep.

Gre

en

Interface Tunnels


ExcAdit

Construct Dean St BoxFareham St - Demo

Astoria DemoGoslett Yard Demo Sink Shaft

Sink Shaft

Construct Box

Essex Wharf Stage 1 Essex WharfStage 2

Essex WharfStage 3


OH

LE

OH

LE

FIT

OU

T

OH

LE

Fito

ut

Advanced Services Diversions Sink ShaftSite Set Up Vent Tunnels adits

Services diversions/Enabling Sink ShaftSite Set Up Vent Tunnel adits


PUDD Cut & Cover

City Mills Bridge


DLR Embankment 2

DLR Puding Mill StationDLR Station

Access culvertDLR Viaduct

PUDD Diaph.WallsLaunch chamber

Marshgate LaneMill Lane CB

Procure TBM

PUDD Retained Cut





Exc.Intervention PassagesPrep forTBM's

Site setup

Ventilation Passage

Air Intake/Stair structConstruct boxSite Set up

Construct Box

Retained Cut


Com

bine

dS

yste

mTe

st&

Com

mis

sion

ing

PU

DD

-FA

R


Station Fit out

Station Fit out

Station Fit out

Station Fit out

Station Fit out

Station Fit out


OHL

EPo

rtal s

truct

ure

mod

s.

OHL

E/Si

gnal

stru

ct.s

horte

ning

mod

s

Shaft Fit out

Dismantle & remove WB TBM1 at FAR via Fisher St.

Remove WB TBM3 at FAR via HANB shaft or PML

Add'

ltim

eto

alig

nEP

BMAd

d'lt

ime

toal

ign

EPBM

LUL

Cent

ralL

ine

clos

ure

forp

rote

ctiv

ew

orks

LUL NL closurefor Protection works

Add'l time to dismantle WB TBM 7

Settlement/Grd Monitoring PAD

Settlement/Grd Monitoring BOS

Settlement/Grd Monitoring TCR

Option 2 Crossrail Time Chainage TCDT4HSTunnel to Farringdon (not using Hanbury St)


Mile End Park Shaft



Central Shaft

10130

10285

10442

9952West Shaft


9500

9532

Pedley StShaft

4716

4888

5060

3654

3820


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

Cut & Cover

Open Cut

@ Grade

816

520

210

��

Roy

alO

akPo

rtal



��

1578

1245

1410

Pudd

ing

Mill

Lane

14579


14123

7498

7340

7160

6980

7646

8462

8286

8110


Old

Oak

Com

mon

Dep

ot&

sidi

ngs

Start Bored Tunnel

13575

Isle

ofD

ogs

Stat

ion

Live

rpoo

lSt

reet

Stat

ion

Farri

ngdo

nSt

atio

nPa

ddin

gton

Stat

ion

Start Bored Tunnel


Wes

tbou

rne

Park

Bond

Stre

etSt

atio

n

Totte

nham

Cou

rtR

oad

Stat

ion

Whi

tech

apel

Stat

ion

11405

12276

12340

J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

EBTB

M2

tunn

eldr

ive

Padd

ingt

onto

Bond

St.

WB

TBM

1tu

nnel

driv

ePa

ddin

gton

toBo

ndSt

.

OH

LE

SIG

NA

LLIN

G

FIT

OU

T

Clea

nou

t &co

ncre

tetra

ckbe

dW

B- B

OS- H

yde

Pk

Clea

nou

t &tra

ckbe

dW

BHy

dePk

-PAD

Trac

kwor

kEB

Padd

ingt

onto

Bond

St.

Trac

kwor

kW

BPa

ddin

gton

toBo

ndSt

reet

Wal

kway

&bu

ildin

gse

rvic

esW

BBO

S-Hy

dePk

HV

&LV

Wal

kway

&bu

ildin

gse

rvic

esW

BHy

dePk

-PAD





Prep for

TBM

Prep for

TBM

Roa

dD

eck

Rtg Walls South box

Rtg WallsWest box

Enabling Works

Sink Shaft

Site

Setu

p

Transfer EB TBM to East End

Arrange TBMin East Box



Exc. & PrimaryLining

Site SetupNew Yard

Advanced Services Diversions Exc. & line interv'n passagesEnabling Works


Exc. & Primary LiningVent Tunnels


CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

NS

HV

&LVO

HLE

SIG

NA

LLIN

GFI

TO

UT

Trac

kwor

kEB

Bond

Stre

etto

TCR

Trac

kwor

kW

BBo

ndSt

reet

toTC

R




Construct BoxMGT


Prep forTBM's

Secondary concretelinings to Stations

Enabling Works

NATM Excavation Station Tunnels

Exc. & Line Shaft

Site setup

Com

bine

dSy

stem

Test

&Com

mis

sion

ing

WBP

-FAR

R

HV&

LV

OH

LE

Enabling Works

SIG

NA

LLIN

G

FIT

OU

T

Clea

nou

t&co

ncre

tetra

ckbe

dW

BFi

sher

Stto

TCR

Trac

kwor

kEB

TCR

toFi

sher

St.s

haft

Trac

kwor

kW

BTC

Rto

Fish

erSt

. sha

ft

Wa l

kway

&bu

ildin

gse

rvic

esEB

TCR

toFi

sher

St


Launch Chamber


Phased PilingPhased Demo Dean St


Prep forTBM's

Seco

ndar

yco

ncre

telin

ings

toSt

atio

ns

NATM ExcavationStation Tunnels

Advanced Services Diversions MGTEnabling WorksSec Lining

C&C Diaph Walls


COM

MUN

ICAT

IONS

HV&

LVOHL

E

SIG

NALL

ING

FIT

OUT

Exec & Conc to Cut & Cover

Wal

kway

&bui

ld'g

serv

ices

EBFA

Rto

LIS

COM

MUN

ICAT

IONS

HV&

LV

OH

LE

EBTB

Mtu

nnel

driv

eFa

rring

don

toFi

sher

St

WB

TBM

tunn

eldr

iveFa

rring

don

toFi

sher

St.

SIG

NA

LLIN

G FIT

OU

T

Clea

nou

t&co

ncre

tetra

ckbe

dW

BFA

Rto

Fish

erSt

Wal

kway

&bu

ildin

gse

rvic

esW

BFi

sher

Stto

FARRAdvanced Services Diversions

Backfill

Construct Piled Box & Tunnel Adits

Crossover Tunnel

WB

&EB

Plat

form

Stru

ctur

e

Crossover lininginvert WB

Prep

for

TBM

'sEnabling Works

Seco

ndar

yco

ncre

telin

ing

toSt

atio

n


NATM Excavate Station TunnelsSite

Setu

p

COM

MUN

ICAT

IONS


hv&

lv

OHL

E

WB

TBM

tunn

eldr

iveHa

nbur

y St.t

oW

hite

chap

el

SIG

NALL

ING

FIT

OUT

Clea

n&

track

bed

conc

. -W

BHa

nto

Whi

tech

apel

Wal

kway

&bui

ld'g

serv

ices

EBHa

nto

Whi

tech

apel

ConstructRetaining

Wall

COM

MUN

ICAT

IONS

HV&

LV

OHL

E

EBTB

MTunn

eldr

iveHa

nbur

y-Liv

erpo

olSt

.

WB

TBM

Tunn

eldr

iveHa

nbur

y-Live

rpoo

lSt.

SIG

NALL

ING

FIT

OUT


Trac

kwor

kW

BHa

n.to

Live

rpoo

lSt

Acc adit & break up


Setup Railhead

Deleiver Erect& commission TBM

E/B Chamber

Site Prep

Enabling Works Form EPBM adit chambers & backshunt

Advanced Services DiversionsW

B&

EBPl

atfo

rmSt

ruct

ure

Prep for

TBM

's

Enabling WorksSecondary concrete

lining to Station

Construct Platforms x3



Site

Setu

p

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

NS

OH

LE

EBTB

Mtu

nnel

driv

eSt

epne

yGr

een

toW

hite

chap

el

ConstructPlatform

Foundations x3

SIG

NA

LLIN

G

FIT

OU

T

Clea

n&

conc

.trac

kbed

WB

Whi

tech

apel

toSG

Trac

kwor

kW

BSG

toW

hite

chap

el

Wal

kway

&bui

ldin

gse

rvic

esEB

SGto

Whi

tech

apel

Wal

kway

&bui

ldin

gse

rvic

esW

BSG

toW

hite

chap

el



EBTB

Mtu

nnel

driv

eIO

Dto

Low

ellS

t

Syst

emwi

dein

stal

latio

nEB

IOD-

SG

WB

Cle

anou

t &Tr

ackb

edIO

D-S

G

Trac

kwor

kW

BIO

D-SG

Wal

kway

&Bui

ld'g

serv

ices

WB

IOD-

SG


New EWS Facility

Ground TreatmentRunning TunnelsMGT





MGT

WB & EBPlatform StructuresPrep for

TBM's

Enabling Works

Enabling Works SecondaryLinings

Sec Lining

Wal

kway

&bu

ildin

gse

rvic

esW

BPA

Dto

Porta

l


Exc & Line Shaft Tunnels & Adits


Launch Chamber

Main Station Structure

Enab

ling

Wor

ks

Station InfillStructure

Site

Set

up

Loca

lSys

tem

sTe

stin

gPU

DD-IO

D--W

hite

chap

el-F

ARR

Loca

l Sys

tem

sTe

stin

gFA

RR-P

o rta

l

MGT

Trac

kwor

kW

BPo

rtal t

oPa

ddin

gton

Enabling Works



Stat

icTe

stin

gW

BW

est P

orta

l-FAR

RSt

atic

Test

ing

EBW

est P

orta

l-FAR

R

Trac

kwor

kEB

Port

alto

Padd

ingt

on

Stat

icTe

stin

gW

BW

hite

chap

el-F

ARR

Stat

icTe

stin

gW

BPU

DD-IO

D-W

hite

chap

el

Syst

ems

Test

&Co

mm

issi

onin

gSy

stem

sTe

st&

Com

mis

sion

ing

Syst

ems

Test

&Co

mm

issi

onin

g

Tria

lRun

ning

Sta

ge2

Tria

lRun

ning

Sta

ge1

Clea

n&

conc

rete

track

bed

-W

BPA

Dto

porta

l

Sin

kS

haft

WB

TBM

tunn

eldr

ive

IOD

toLo

wel

lSt

Sink shaft




Prep

for

TBM

's



Hanover Sq.demo

Construct Goslett Yard Box

Settlement / Ground Monitoring - west end TCR



WB

Tunn

els

Syst

ems

Inst

alla

tion

PUD

D-E

lean

orSt

WB

TBM

driv

eEl

eano

r-M

ileEn

d

WB

Tunn

elcl

ean

out&

Trac

kbed

Elea

nor-M

ileEn

d

WB

Trac

kwor

kin

stal

latio

nEl

eano

r-Mile

End

FIT

OU

T

WB

Wal

kway

&E&M

Serv

ices

Elea

nor-M

ileEn

d

Interface Tunnels


ExcAdit

Fareham St - Demo

Astoria DemoGoslett Yard Demo Sink Shaft

Sink Shaft

Construct Box

Essex Wharf Stage 1

SIG

NA

LLIN

G

Essex WharfStage 2

Essex WharfStage 3


OH

LE

OH

LE

FIT

OU

T

OH

LE

Fito

ut

Advanced Services Diversions Sink ShaftSite Set Up Vent Tunnels adits

Services diversions/Enabling Sink ShaftSite Set Up Vent Tunnel adits


PUDD Cut & Cover

City Mills Bridge


DLR Embankment 2

DLR Puding Mill StationDLR Station

Access culvertDLR Viaduct

PUDD Diaph.Walls

TBM Design, Manufacture & Assembly

Marshgate Lane

Mill Lane CB

Procure TBM

PUDD Retained Cut



OH

LE



Exc.Intervention PassagesPrep forTBM's

Site setup

Ventilation Passage

Air Intake/Stair struct

HV

&LV

Construct boxSite Set up

Construct Box

Retained Cut


Com

bine

dS

yste

mTe

st&

Com

mis

sion

ing

PU

DD

-FA

RR


Station Fit out

Station Fit out

Station Fit out

Station Fit out

Station Fit out

Settlement / Ground Monitoring PAD

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

NS

Settlement / Ground Monitoring - west end BOS

Settlement / Ground Monitoring LIS


Settlement / Ground Monitoring WHI

Settlement / Ground Monitoring IOD

Crossrail Time ChainageTCD17 P3 Revision ICP17


Mile End Park Shaft



Central Shaft

10130

10285

10442

9952West Shaft


9500

9532

Pedley StShaft

4716

4888

5060

3654

3820


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

Cut & Cover

Open Cut

@ Grade

816

520

210

Roy

alO

akPo

rtal

��



��

1578

1245

1410


Pudd

ing

Mill

Lane

7498

7340

7160

6980

14579

14123

7646

8462

8286

8110


Old

Oak

Com

mon

Dep

ot&

sidi

ngs

Start Bored Tunnel

13575

Isle

ofD

ogs

Stat

ion

Live

rpoo

lSt

reet

Stat

ion

Farri

ngdo

nSt

atio

nPa

ddin

gton

Stat

ion

Start Bored Tunnel


Wes

tbou

rne

Park

Stat

ion

Bond

Stre

etSt

atio

n

Totte

nham

Cou

rtR

oad

Stat

ion

Whi

tech

apel

Stat

ion

11405

12276

12340




B-1P:\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

Appendix B Review of Intermediate Tunnelling Sites

B.1 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 handleconsistently the removal of up to 2,800m3 of excavated material per day (equivalent to 200 lorry loadseach way) and the supply of the tunnel linings and other necessary materials, about 30 lorry loads perday. Ideally the site should be of such a size that would allow the stock-piling of up to 48 hoursproduction of both excavated material and tunnel linings to cater for disruptions in the supply chainsupporting the operation.

Given the volumes of excavated materials involved ideally the TBM launch site should be relativelyclose 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 locatedat 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. Thecurrent 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 thecurrent 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 adedicated 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 forloading on to the railway at Mile End (Devonshire Street) sidings. The site is a considerable distancefrom the stockpile area. The excavated materials could be transported to the stockpiling site by eithera conveyor through the park, a tunnelled adit connecting the tunnelling shaft with a temporary shaft atthe 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.





Environmental Implications

Locating the tunnelling worksite within Mile End Park would place a significant demand on the parkand in particular the Mile End Park Sports Facility as construction sites would be required at bothends, 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 whentransporting TBMs from the tunnelling worksite, where they will be erected, to the shaft for launch ofthe TBMs. Transporting TBM generated excavated materials between the tunnelling worksite (at thesouthern end of the park) and the area for stockpiling (to the north) would be disruptive eitherenvironmentally from a surface mounted conveyor or from an increase in construction duration for atunnelled adit or from the significant burden on the local road network from the addition of 230 lorriesper 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 locatedwithin Stepney Green, adjacent to the road junction of Garden Street and Stepney Green.


The tunnel drive is constrained by the construction of the turnouts at Stepney Green Shaft to launchthe TBMs. Launch of the TBMs prior to completion of the primary lining for the turnouts may allowthe tunnelling machines to commence at an earlier stage, but the launch date would be constrained bythe 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 theturnouts at Stepney Green with both shaft construction and tunnelling operations being carried outsimultaneously. The construction methods of the turnouts are already constrained by the westboundcavern being located within poor ground.

Worksite

The worksite required for Stepney Green Shaft will occupy an area of open space that includes a sportsfacility and the western paddocks of Stepping Stones Farm. To facilitate a tunnelling worksite, theworking site will require expansion into the grassed playing field (Stepney Green), immediately westof the current sports facility, to facilitate mixed excavated material stockpile areas, sufficient tolocated and hold 48 hours capacity.

Excavated materials would be transported by lorry either directly to the disposal site or to the MileEnd Park stockpile for onward loading to the railhead at Mile End (Devonshire Street) sidings. Theuse of a surface mounted conveyor is considered unfeasible with no unobstructed direct corridorbetween Stepney Green and Mile End Park available, thereby limiting the conveyor route to followthat of the road network requiring the conveyor to change direction numerous times over shortdistances. A long tunnelled adit connecting Stepney Green Shaft with a temporary shaft at thenorthern end of Mile End Park is considered undesirable due to its long length and connectionarrangement with the turnout caverns, which are at different levels. An obstruction free route for atemporary adit has not been developed, but will need to account for piled foundations (Royal London





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.


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 tunnellingsite would significantly increase traffic congestion with up to 230 lorry loads being required to supporttunnelling operations in each direction. This is in addition to the numbers of lorries required forconstruction of the shaft itself.

B.4 Whitechapel

Site Location

The tunnelling site would coincide with the proposed new Crossrail station at Whitechapel.


Tunnelling operations would be constrained by the availability of the station platform tunnels. TheTBMs would not be launched until the primary lining of the platform tunnels is complete. The stationprogramme is likely to be extended as a result of tunnelling with station fit out being constrained byremoval of excavated materials from the railway tunnels and the delivery of tunnel segments andsupplies by the surrounding road network. The arrangement of the station will need to change to allowthe 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 commercialand 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 newstation. The principal station worksites for Crossrail are the District Line worksite (bus stand andturning 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 atthe 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 initialassessment would be to use the Pedley Street tunnelling site and transport materials via VallanceRoad.

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 eitherlorry, conveyor or tunnelled adit. From the Pedley Street worksite, excavated materials would betransported by conveyor to Mile End Park for stockpiling and onward loading to the railhead at MileEnd (Devonshire Street) sidings.

Tunnelling supplies, including segments, will be transported to site by lorry.






Combining the tunnelling operations with the station works will increase disruption to the surroundingenvironment through an increase in construction programme, additional lorries accessing the site andadditional 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 102Hanbury Street, Spitalfields and known as Hanbury Street Shaft. The principal tunnelling work site islocated within Network Rail owned lands between the Great Eastern railway and Pedley Street.Access to the site is from Vallance Road.


Spitalfields has the advantage of being located at approximately the third point of the total tunnellength from Royal Oak to Pudding Mill Lane, offering the potential for balancing the TBM drivelengths and thus achieving the optimum programme reduction.

Worksite

The TBMs will be launched from Hanbury Street Shaft, with the principal tunnelling work site beinglocated at the Pedley Street worksite. A temporary tunnel and shaft (located within the Pedley Streetworksite) will connect the two work sites.

Excavated materials will be removed from the railway tunnels and brought to the surface at the PedleyStreet site, and then conveyed to Mile End Park for stockpiling and onward loading to the railhead atMile 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 excavatedmaterials, will be transported by lorry.


A shaft at Hanbury Street is required to satisfy fire, life and safety standards for the railway betweenthe proposed new Liverpool Street and Whitechapel Stations. The construction of the shaft willimpact on the environment through visual intrusion, demolition works, increased traffic, alternativepedestrian routes, dust generation, noise and vibration.

The need for Hanbury Street Shaft to launch TBMs requires facilities for transporting the TBMs tosite; TBM erection; craning TBM and back up modules into position; and TBM testing andcommissioning. The environmental impacts normally associated with a tunnelling site are mitigatedby the use of a working site at Pedley Street with all TBM generated excavated material beingtransported to the Pedley Street work site through a temporary tunnel where it will be conveyed to therailhead at Mile End (Devonshire Street) sidings. All tunnelling supplies and segments will be





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

B.6 Farringdon

Site Location

The tunnelling site would coincide with the proposed new Crossrail station at Farringdon.


The use of Farringdon Station as a tunnelling site would require a significant change in the tunneldrive strategy for the central tunnels. As Farringdon Station and Fisher Street Shaft are close to eachother, 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 StreetShaft. The other tunnel drives would be from Royal Oak to Fisher Street and from Pudding Mill Laneto Whitechapel, as per the base case. There are a number of constraints including the interface ofconstructing Farringdon Station whilst tunnelling is carried out, the interface with constructing thecrossover located between Farringdon and Liverpool Street Stations and the availability of the stationplatform 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 sitewithin this area is considered to be unfeasible with all available space being used as working sites forconstructing the station. All materials into and out of the site would be by road. It is considered thatthe use of rail is unfeasible as the existing sidings lie in a cutting with difficult access and connect onlyto London Underground Ltd. lines. Their use would be limited to engineering hours between 12:30amand 4am, and would be dependant upon the availability of LUL works trains in the numbers required.


The principal environmental implications are the increased working site area required to supporttunnelling operations which is likely to require demolition to create this space, increased lorrymovements with excavated materials and incoming materials for both station and tunnel constructionbeing 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 PuddingMill Lane (B.5), an intermediate tunnelling site located at Hanbury Street offers the potential tobalance the TBM drive lengths and reduce periods of inactivity between station and railway tunnelconstruction to provide a six year programme that achieves the revenue service dates required by theProject.

Documents

Woodseer Street Track Option Alignment…- 3 - 4 Track Alignment Options 4.1 Introduction When a train follows a curved path a centrifugal force is exerted outwards. The magnitude