Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1660
- 1679)
1660. Mr Elvin: To put the matter colloquially,
there is more than one way to skin a cat?
(Mr Chapman) Two ways, correct.
1661. Mr Elvin: I have four cats. I will
not go into that. There are a number of options. I am going to
seek to persuade you in a moment that there are more than options
1 and 6 but let us come to that in a second. This issue only becomes
absolutely critical if that was only option 1 because it would
be precluded by the scheme, as you say?
(Mr Chapman) Option 1 would be precluded by
the scheme and option 6 at the moment I think is relatively unproven
and is a bit of a gamble, but I would very much hope that option
6 could be proven to work as well.
1662. Can I suggest to you gently that you have
been in a number of discussions with Crossrail. You have a good
relationship with them. Indeed I think your firm is bidding for
the contract work in due course?
(Mr Chapman) Correct.
1663. In other words you have had many discussions
with them about the scheme?
(Mr Chapman) I have not been involved in discussions
seeking extra work but I have had many discussions with the team
who are designing Liverpool Street Station. We had a two month
period when we raised the issue where we had very good discussions
and went through things honestly and openly on both sides.
1664. Can I explore with you, firstly, before
coming on to look at those other matters, briefly, the implications
of the Eldon Street scheme. Would you agree, as a matter of generality,
that it is a scheme which will add quite a significant amount
of disruption in terms of what it will do in Eldon Street and
Blomfield Street in terms of the area of excavation to pedestrians
and the like, over and above the disruption which will occur in
any event?
(Mr Chapman) You are absolutely correct, there
will be an increased amount of disruption. There will be increased
disruption. If you are having the street dug up to do one scheme,
there is very little difference between the two schemes. If you
are digging one hole, a bigger hole is not necessarily more difficult.
1665. We have got some pictures of the comparative
holes. Could we look at our document 103.[20]20
103 is the extent of—putting it colloquially—the size
of the hole with the Crossrail scheme?
(Mr Chapman) That is correct.
1666. Absolutely. We do not need to go to the
wall over the absolute position but that is what we think it is.
If we go to 104 we have tried to represent the size of the hole
of the Crossrail plus Eldon Street.[21]21
You have a narrowing in the width of the excavation in Liverpool
Street because your tunnel is narrower but you have much more
disruption in Eldon Street and Blomfield Street?
(Mr Chapman) That is Mott MacDonald's
drawing. Our drawing shows less disruption.
1667. It is of that order, is it not?
(Mr Chapman) Can I go through the extra elements
of it, the bits which are agreed and maybe just show the Committee
which are not?
1668. Yes.
(Mr Chapman) Although we have a slightly narrower
hole, again a hole is a hole so a slightly narrower hole is not
that much less disruption. Our scheme is slightly less in this
area but not significantly. This area again is common to both
schemes. This area here is only the subject of Mott's report on
22 December, that is not part of the suggestion that we put forward.
The stretch going from here up to here is agreed but it is probably
done in two stages because, as you rightly point out, Mr Elvin,
if you did this in one go you would almost totally preclude east-west
passenger flow and, therefore, this would be done in two stages.
You would have one hole, deck over it and then do the other hole.
1669. There is an issue both with pedestrians
and, for example, buses, if you take up a hole of this size?
(Mr Chapman) There are not that many. Again,
the more walls I have stood beside over this last month, the bus
flows in this area are not huge. The main bus flow is up this
access here. There is one route which runs around here but not
very frequently.
1670. There will be constraints on pedestrian
flows and the like, and indeed there will be constraints on pedestrian
flows in the final version which will require significant amendments
to the street which will require, as I understand it, land from
private owners, such as British Land?
(Mr Chapman) It does not necessarily require
land from British Land, what it requires is for this area here
to be remodelled, and it involves the street here to be remodelled.
I believe the Corporation and British Land have been discussing
that and have a scheme which could work.
1671. Yes, but it requires both public highway
and private land in order to do the remodelling.
(Mr Chapman) Both of whom are willing to help,
yes.
1672. Can we look please at 105 which is our
cross-section of the two schemes.[22]22
It is in the small bundle of documents we handed out yesterday.
Here we have tried to be more accurate in terms of the relative
position. It is a drawing, I suspect, you are familiar with?
(Mr Chapman) It is, yes.
1673. We have simplified it by taking off some
of the features and increased the font size so you can read it.
What this shows, much more accurately than your diagrammatic representation,
is the profile of the Metropolitan, Hammersmith and Circle Line.
(Mr Chapman) Correct.
1674. It is more a squashed oval than a rectangular
box, is it not?
(Mr Chapman) Yes.
1675. It shows the distance at the narrowest
point between the escalator in your version of the scheme and
the closest part of the lining of the tunnel?
(Mr Chapman) Yes, which is two metres according
to Mott's drawings.
1676. 1.946 I think.
(Mr Chapman) That is the hypotenuse; it is
not the vertical distance. Gravity acts downwards, it is not the
vertical distance.
1677. It is a point at which you have to take
precautions with regard to the Metropolitan, Hammersmith and City
Lines?
(Mr Chapman) Absolutely. As I said earlier
on, two metres and four metres, the number will be arrived at
properly. Whatever the distance is, it is close and therefore
needs to be examined in great detail.
1678. Because you are tunnelling up to two metres
from the Hammersmith and City Line, because of the depth of the
settlement which would be caused by your tunnelling, because it
is coming up much closer to the line, the settlement impacts on
the Hammersmith and City and Circle Line would be much greater
and it is that, and the need to safeguard that line, which requires
the line to be closed and its operation to be modified while the
works are being done?
(Mr Chapman) Not quite correct. You are half
right. Good for engineering! The settlement effects are significant
and they would need to be taken into account. Fortunately that
stretch of line is a ballasted line. You can lift the track and
get rid of the settlement effect on a regular basis.
1679. I am sure somebody understands this.
(Mr Chapman) The settlement effects I do not
think are the reasons why you would close the line. I do not believe
you would need to close the line for settlement effects. Can I
finish the point Mr Elvin?
20 Crossrail Ref: P2, Crossrail design for link to
existing ticket hall-extent of surface works (LONDLB-2604-103). Back
21
Crossrail Ref: P2, British Land proposed ticket hall-extent of
surface works (LONDLB-2604-104). Back
22
Crossrail Ref: P2, Blomfield Street Section HBDR and British
Land proposal compared (LONDLB-2604-105). Back
| 
