Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4240
- 4259)
4240. Their central location in Covent Garden
is essential because actors, translators, editors and directors
travel from all over the world to Covent Garden to record voiceovers
and dialogue in many languages to add to or to localise films
and TV programmes for worldwide distribution. It is a 24/7 operation
which includes things like lip synchronisation to newly recorded
dialogue. Not surprisingly, the equipment used for this technology
is sophisticated and the slightest vibrations could spoil the
film. Many of the documentaries you see on your TV screen or films
on general release have probably passed through the post-production
facilities at Monmouth Street.
4241. If Mercury Theatres cannot continue at
Monmouth Street due to continuous underground noise from the operation
of the Crossrail line they will either have to improve the sound-proofing
or relocate to other premises. Either option is going to cost
money and disrupt their business.
4242. Fortunately there is a very simple solution
to this problem. Sound engineers can place sound and vibration
sensors and record their findings over, say, a couple of weekdays
and a weekend to get a good picture of the existing noise levels.
If these results can be agreed by surveyors for Crossrail and
Mercury Theatres, this would form a true and fair record for comparison
at a later date. The point I am trying to make is that the recording
studio was installed bearing in mind the ambient noise levels
at that time, about ten years ago. We are charging the ambient
noise levels with the introduction of the Crossrail line and it
may have a significant effect on the recording studio, it may
not. What we really want to say is can we take some measures so
that we have a record.
4243. Unfortunately, the Promoters of Crossrail
have rejected this solution. In their pack of "goodies"
they have offered a settlement deed which does not include sound
and vibration monitoring, plus the fact that all claims have to
be made within two years. They state in their Environmental Statement:
"they did not identify any significant groundborne noise
or vibration impacts arising from either construction or operation".
They further state that their nominated undertaker must "put
in place measures that will ensure the new underground sections
and wheels of vehicles operating the Crossrail passenger service
are maintained in a state which will ....lead to adequate control
of groundborne noise and vibration arising from the railway".
4244. In short, it seems that legally the undertakers
only have to use their best endeavours but there is no come-back
if they do not. We have a history of poor standards of train and
track maintenance in this country, I am afraid to say: worn tracks,
cracked rails, poorly maintained signalling equipment and so on.
The King's Cross escalator was subject to routine maintenance
from experts and inspected, no doubt, by experts from the company's
insurers: it caught fire. When faced with this history of "best
endeavours", I think most people will agree with me that
Crossrail's claim that "...future maintenance of wheels and
tracks will control the level of groundborne noise and vibration"
should be taken with a large pinch of salt.
4245. Tracks and wheels do become worn. Rubber
vibration isolators do become hardened over time or may possible
perish from oil and grease contamination. These are facts of life.
The replacement of worn parts can be postponed indefinitely by
the nominated undertaker for "operational reasons" or
budgetary considerations". Anyone affected has no legal recourse.
It is not possible, for example, to pick the phone up and ring
your local undertaker and say, "Hey, these trains are taking
a lot of noise this morning" because they are not allowed
to record the noise before so we cannot compare it with something
which can be recorded later.
4246. Only by agreeing a pre-existing set of
conditions can any meaningful comparisons be drawn for the future.
This is as much in Crossrail's best interest (to avoid spurious
claims) as it is in Mercury Theatres' best interests. You are
no doubt aware of the London Party Wall Act, where affected parties
have the right to appoint experts at the undertaker's cost to
look after their interests. We feel if something similar could
be combined within the legal framework of the Crossrail Bill this
could be in the best interests of everyone.
4247. Nobody wants to frustrate Crossrail's
plans, nor do they wish to delay the project for any reason but,
conversely, nobody wants to be disadvantaged by the scheme and
left "whistling in the wind" for compensation if sound
and vibration levels rise as a result of poor maintenance.
4248. I am hoping today that you will remember
Mercury Theatres the next time you go to see a movie or switch
on the television and support our concerns. I believe they have
got a reasonable case here and I hope that you will support us.
4249. May I just summarise briefly. Can we suggest
the following prior to commencement of works. One, that 15 Monmouth
Street is listed as Stage 3 protected status. This places the
building in the sector reserved for special monitoring and would
normally apply to listed buildings and the like. Two, that a schedule
of condition is agreed between the undertaker's and freeholder's
surveyors including noise and vibration monitoring records which
could form a sort of contract, if you like. Three, that all reasonable
costs are covered by the nominated undertakers. We are your humble
Petitioners, Mercury Theatres and the Stafford Partnership. That
concludes my address, thank you.
4250. Chairman: Do you wish to call any
witnesses, Mr Stafford?
4251. Mr Stafford: No, not at all.
4252. Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr Mould?
4253. Mr Mould: Sir, what I would like
to do, if I may, is just to call Mr Thornley-Taylor to explain
our response to the Petition.
Mr Rupert Thornley-Taylor, Recalled
Further examination by Mr
Mould
4254. Mr Thornley-Taylor, the Committee has
already heard from you in relation to matters relating to groundborne
noise. You will recall that first of all you gave a presentation
on Day 7 which touched upon this issue and the design approach
that has been adopted for the purposes of Crossrail, I think both
during the construction phase and, indeed, for the purposes of
the operational railway. We then had a more prolonged debate about
the issue and about the appropriateness of the design criteria
that Crossrail have adopted for these purposes in the context
of the petition made by the London Borough of Camden. Members
will remember what was said in relation to the design criterion
of 40 db LAmaxS which Crossrail are proposing in relation to groundborne
noise. It may be helpful if you would shortly summarise the design
approach that Crossrail is taking in order to control groundborne
noise both during the construction and operational phase and then
we will turn, equally briefly I hope, just to explain what we
are going to do in relation to Mercury Theatres. Is that convenient?
Just tell us briefly, if you will, what the design approach is.
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) The design
approach, which is set out in information paper D10 is that the
nominated undertaker and his contractor will select as a basic
portal-to-portal track form a resilient rail support system which
will, so far as is possible, achieve the general aim of 40 dB(A)
maximum noise level that I talked about the last time I was here.
There will be a few locations where a standard track form is not
quite good enough for that and in particular there are a considerable
number of locations for which a more onerous noise target exists
and these are set out in table one of D10 according to the use
of the building including, for present purposes, sound recording
studios.[21]
The nominated undertaker will be required to predict the levels
of noise that will result from the standard track form and in
any case where either the system-wide objective of 40 is not likely
to be met, or in particular where the much more onerous requirements
for special buildings are not likely to be met, he is required
to install an enhanced form of track support which is commonly
a form of track support called floating slab track where the concrete
on which the track is supported is itself supported on rubber
bearings. It is explained in the Environmental Statement that
it is likely there will be a significant length of such track
through the area we are concerned about today. That produces a
considerable reduction in groundborne noise as a result and is
what will be used to meet the more onerous requirements that are
set out in table one. It is accompanied by a commitment to maintenance
because, as Mr Stafford rightly observes, it is not sufficient
merely to design the system right in the first place, it is important
to maintain the condition of the track, the wheels of the vehicles
and over a long period of time the condition of the resilient
components that support the rails and the floating slab track
if that applies.
4255. The relevant criterion in relation to
the current case of sound recording studios is 30dB LAmaxS, that
is correct, is it not?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) That is right.
4256. These thresholds that are the basis for
the design approach to control construction and operational groundborne
noise are based on experience in relation to previous schemes,
are they not?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) They are very similar
to the corresponding table that was used for the design of the
Jubilee Line Extension, for example, and although it did not run
under studio land, if I can call it that, it did run under some
sensitive locations—lecture theatres in basements at both
the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors, for example—and floating slab track
was triggered as a result. I think I mentioned when I was last
here that the accompanying revision to Westminster Station District
and Circle Line triggered these floating slab tracks because it
runs through the lower parts of Portcullis House. The general
approach has produced the desired effect, a very well designed
system of vibration isolation that gives extremely low noise levels
in these sensitive spaces.
4257. There were two particular concerns raised
by Mr Stafford in his presentation. One was the effect of not
merely noise but of vibration. If the design proceeds as you have
just described it, can you say anything about that in the case
of this particular Petitioner?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) What I would say in respect
of this Petitioner, as with all of them, is that a fortunate effect
of the change to modern designs for track installation is a very
large reduction in the level of what I call "feelable"
vibration, that is vibration that is received through the sense
of touch, either through the soles of the feet, the fingers or
when you are sitting or lying down. There is an enormous drop
in the level of vibration whether or not the railway is running
under a sensitive location simply by virtue of the use of continuous
welded rail and very precisely aligned track using modern methods
of construction and maintenance. In no case is any perceptible
vibration, feelable vibration, predicted from tunnel portal to
tunnel portal.
4258. Mr Stafford very helpfully told the Committee
that the recording studio at 15 Monmouth Street was installed
about ten years ago and it was installed, if I can put it this
way, to be fit for purpose in relation to ambient noise levels
that prevailed at that time. Do you recall that?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) Yes, I do.
4259. Insofar as audibility is concerned, with
that in mind and having regard to the design approach that you
have just outlined that is proposed for Crossrail, do you want
to say anything about the likelihood of problems arising in relation
to the operation of the studio simply through noise being audible
in that respect?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) This particular studio
is not one of the ones for which I have done what I call a level
two assessment because I do not think it was there when Crossrail
was last in Parliament when the first Crossrail Bill was here
and we did have Committee proceedings then. Therefore, it is not
one of the buildings for which we have detailed predictions. However,
neighbouring buildings, which one can take as comparable, with
deep foundations, as I understand this building has, do have predictions
which indicate that in this case, as in many other cases, an enhanced
form of track support is likely to be needed to meet the 30 dB
LAmax slow. In fact, through this area of London there are so
many buildings which fall in the more onerous categories of table
one that it is likely there will be enhanced vibration isolation
all the way along.
21 Crossrail Information Paper D10, Groundborne Noise
& Vibration; p 2, Table 1 Construction & Operational Groundborne
Noise Criteria (LINEWD-IPD10-002). Back
| 
