Examination of Witnesses (Questions 13220
- 13239)
13220. It sounds obvious, but is the railway
at the bottom?
(Mr Berryman) Yes. The Post Office
would require us to provide a connection from this shaft, so that
they can still get out into the open air without going through
the ticket hall. In practice, that means that we have to build
a layer underneath the existing vaults. That is quite a complex
area. Above, there is the McDonald's store and the piazza outside
the station, and we would need to underpin all that whilst we
were doing the work, so it is rather more complicated than we
initially thought. It is quite difficult doing this kind of work
on a small site and constrained by the London Underground operational
area. I feel bound to say that London Underground, as you would
expect, are a very safety conscious organisation—as we all
are. Their particular concern is the safety of passengers. That
means that the way you can work in ticket office halls is naturally
somewhat constrained and this makes life quite difficult for the
people doing the work. Since the 30-year PPP contract has come
into place, that difficulty of access has become even more difficult
than it was before. The point about this lot is that it is a mass
brickwork structure. I would not argue that it is not possible
to do the works set out here—it certainly is possible—but
I would suggest that the risks involved in that are greater than
we would be happy to take on in such a sensitive location.
13221. Shall we go to 5A, slide 12.[15]
(Mr Berryman) This is an option
which takes escalators up from the concourse level directly to
the street. To achieve this, the vaults have to be removed and
the gateline is positioned further forward than it was in the
previous slide. These escalators are currently non-compliant with
this document and we would have to get a derogation from that
in order to install them. It is probably not impossible to get
such a derogation—and I do not think we would be overly
worried about that—but we still have this problem of what
to do with these vaults and how to deal with the additional level
of tunnelling required underneath. There are also significant
issues involved with moving the station facilities, the booking
offices and machines and so on, away from that area.
13222. In terms of disruption, while the work
was going on, how do you feel about having the new escalators
going in on the west side of the ticket hall and the work going
into the Post Office vaults on the east side?
(Mr Berryman) This will make it even more difficult.
As I said a moment ago, London Underground, as you would expect,
have very exacting standards for passenger safety and for allowing
throughput of passengers while work is going on. Complying with
those standards, I think it is common ground amongst all engineers
who have had to do it, is not easy and doing this kind of thing
does not make it any easier.
13223. Then option 5b, which is the one with
escalators out of Network Rail.[16]
(Mr Berryman) This is the same
as option 4 but with additional escalators provided from the British
Rail concourse up to the existing exit from Liverpool Street Station.
This is simpler and much cheaper to do than the previous option
we looked at and provides some additional circulation. We have
not modelled the Network Rail concourse. There would need to be
the removal of one leg of the staircase. Network Rail are not
hugely enthusiastic about this because they suggest this would
attract more passengers to an area of the concourse that they
do not want you to use, but that is the next option. The point
here is that it has all the same risks as option 4 in requiring
the removal of the vaults and so on.
13224. Then option 7A, exhibit 14.[17]
(Mr Berryman) This uses the existing
area, which is currently a sub-station, in the forecourt of Liverpool
Street. I understand that this was previously part of the ticketing
concourse arrangements for Broad Street Station when that existed,
but it has been in use for many years as a sub-station. We think
there is an opportunity here to return some of the structure but
in our cost estimates we have assumed that the roof and basement
slabs and much of the walls would need renewal. Clearly on the
side where the escalators would go, we would need to build a new
wall and a new shape of wall. All the work could be done from
street level. However, it would need to be phased to follow construction
of the passageway underneath, otherwise there would be no room
for pedestrians to walk along the road. There is a building adjacent,
which we can see indicated by the dotted line. As far as we are
able to ascertain there is no physical connection between the
two buildings. 100 Liverpool Street does not rely on the sub-station
for support, so it would not require any underpinning. There is
a canopy, I believe.
13225. Would you put up exhibit 7, which is
the street level, we can see that a bit better.[18]
(Mr Berryman) That shows the escalators
coming up from below and the structure we are talking about is
roughly here. There is a canopy over the top of the entrance to
100 Liverpool Street which would need to be temporarily taken
down. That should not be a particular issue and it would be reinstated
obviously afterwards.
13226. Can we talk about what we would do with
the kit that is in the sub-station.
(Mr Berryman) If we can go back to the previous
slide, 14, in the area at the moment are effectively two sub-stations.[19]
There is a general power station which provides power for the
station and there is a traction sub-station which provides the
DC power for the traction of the underground. I understand that
the lives of both of these are drawing peacefully towards their
close; that is to say they will need renewal in the next few years.
We would propose to put the traction sub-station in what is currently
an equipment room belonging to London Underground which is in
a disused tunnel. We are intending, in any event, irrespective
of this, to provide a new sub-station to provide power for the
station. That would be in the Bloomfield Street shaft which, from
memory, you saw on the visit.
13227. Is the equipment room going anyway?
(Mr Berryman) That goes anyway. The shape of
the equipment room is there.
13228. I think it is called CER.
(Mr Berryman) It is, indeed: the communications
and equipment room. It will be necessary to relocate the plant
and equipment that is in that room in any event. I spoke about
the risks in option 4. Here there are some opportunities. We may
be able to use some of the existing structure; we should be able
to take advantage of the fact that the equipment needs renewal.
That tips the balance really quite strongly in favour of this
option.
13229. To summarise all that, Mr Berryman, what
is your engineering advice to the Secretary of State as to the
preferred options?
(Mr Berryman) My advice is that, if we have
to build an additional substantially increased ticket hall, this
is a better option than going for option 4. As Mr Anderson will
give evidence shortly, I still require some convincing that additional
capacity is needed in any event, but, if it is, this would be
a much better option than option 4. The other advantage of this
of course—and to be fair this applies to option 4 as well—is
that this can be done at any time. If at a later period, say in
20 or 30 years time, it is realised that the traffic numbers are
getting out of control, this can be added at that stage without
undue difficulty. It does not interrupt the flow of passengers
into the Crossrail station or anything of that sort.
13230. Finally, may I point out that this is
not a cost-driven decision but we have done some cost work. I
do not think we need to go into it in any detail at all, but,
from the engineering point of view, can you explain your assessment
of the relationship between risk and cost on these options.
(Mr Berryman) I would like to make a point
generally about design, because it does not just apply to the
risk and cost, it applies to the interface between the physical
design and the modelling of what is going on. You will notice
that some of the drawings which have been used for modelling are
marginally and slightly different from the layout drawings you
have here. That is because the modelling process is iterative
and we are at one stage of the iteration. The result of the modelling
would probably be to change marginally some of these layouts.
The same thing applies with the costs and risks. At the moment,
we have estimated the costs—that is the concrete and the
digging of piles and so on—and we have added flat percentages
to all of the options to arrive at cost figures. Clearly that
is not good practice. Normally we would do what is called a quantified
risk assessment, where we make a full assessment of the additional
costs that might arise and what the chances are of those arising.
We have not been able to do that in the time. Indeed, we would
not want to do it just yet because we would need to do a bit more
design work before we could do that sensibly. By inspection or
by experience, one knows that some things will turn out to be
inherently more risky than others. Putting in an additional level,
a basement, underneath a set of Victorian brick walls, immediately
falls into that category.
13231. Could I point out that 002 is a cost
summary: across the top are the options and right at the bottom
are the figures.[20]
At line 5, the contingency, despite what you have just said, you
have applied the same contingency to each option.
(Mr Berryman) We have applied
a percentage, yes.
13232. It is right, is it not, that if one did
option 3B and option 7 together, cumulatively—so you did
increase the gateline—and, whether now or in the future,
built option 7A, the £30 million would go up, would it not?
(Mr Berryman) Indeed, it would. I would like
to draw attention to two points on this chart. First of all, the
raw construction costs for doing option 4, the things which tip
the balance are £8 million for re-provision of the sub-stations
which are in the existing space. As I said a moment ago, there
is an opportunity there that may not arise and those costs may
go away. If you did that, the cots for this one would go down
significantly because the contingency and risk is a percentage
which is added to everything. Reducing the figure by £8 million
has a much bigger effect on this one and perhaps brings it down
by closer to £10 million.
13233. Ms Lieven: Thank you very much,
Mr Berryman.
Cross-examined by Mr Laurence
13234. Mr Laurence: Good morning, Mr
Berryman. I do not believe we have met each other, although you
are obviously very well familiar to everybody else in this room.
I have a few questions for you, because what is happening today
might not necessarily have been foreseen six months ago, at a
time when the evidence that was being put forward on behalf of
the Promoter suggested that there was nothing that needed to be
done. We need to go through a little carefully to see how we have
got to a position where we are now having round two of what is
turning into an epic exchange of views between the respective
parties. With respect to Mr Lieven, it is not only British Land
for whom I appear, as you will appreciate, but also the Corporation
of London. Are you an engineer by training, Mr Berryman?
(Mr Berryman) I am.
13235. You are here to tell us, as you have
just done, that about the options for enhancing ticket hall capacity
at Liverpool Street as a result of Crossrail.
(Mr Berryman) That is correct.
13236. Mr Anderson's function will be to tell
the Committee about predicted passenger flows and matters related
to that.
(Mr Berryman) That is correct.
13237. Yours is to tell the Committee which
option caters best for those predicted passenger flows, is it
not?
(Mr Berryman) That is part of my function.
It is also to inform the Secretary of State which is the optimum,
in terms of risk and general impact, on the rest of the scheme.
13238. I accept that. With that qualification,
this has led you to explain why option 3B is in your view sufficient,
on one view of those flows, whereas if another view were to be
taken, a view the Committee might take, a more extensive option
is going to be needed.
(Mr Berryman) If the Committee took that view,
that would be the case. Mr Anderson, of course, will be giving
evidence on that point shortly.
13239. You recognise, do you not, that the Committee
needs to make its mind up about these matters now in case anything
needs to be done which requires an amendment to the Bill.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct.
15 Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station-Option
5A-Test 2, Ticket Hall Level-Additional Escalators (24 Gate lines)
(LONDLB-20504A-012). Back
16
Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station-Option 5B-National
Rail Concourse-Photomontage of Additional 2 Escalators added to
Existing 2-way bank (LONDLB-20504A-013). Back
17
Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station-Option 7A-Test
2, Substation Ticket Hall Options-Western Escalators (24 Gate
lines) Ticket Hall Level (LONDLB-20504A-014). Back
18
Crossrail Ref P104, Liverpool Street Station-Option 7A Substation
Ticket Hall Options-Western Escalators Street Level Plan (LONDLB-20504A-007). Back
19
Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station-Option 7A-Test
2, Substation Ticket Hall Options-Western Escalators (24 Gate
lines) Ticket Hall Level (LONDLB-20504A-014). Back
20
Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station: Cost Summary Comparison
of Ticket Hall options (LONDLB-20504A-002). Back
| 
