Examination of Witnesses (Questions 13560
- 13579)
13560. In terms of Mr Berryman's view, which
I think was his view, the taking of a flat figure for contingencies
straight across all the different options being perhaps questionable,
what do you say about that?
(Mr Chapman) I agree. For instance, option
3B is just basically realigning a gateline and allowing a £1.6
million contingency for just optimising a gateline, that is more
than the cost of actually doing the work almost. A gate costs
roughly £50,000, so 25 gates cost just over £1 million,
so in terms of the physical work on site, there is almost a 100
per cent allowance for the physical work allowed, so I would agree
that option 3B you would expect to be a lot less because the work
is much simpler. All of the other options, options 4C, 5A, 5B
and 7A, all have complexities and issues which have not yet been
fully explored. Option 7A also involves capping over a shaft.
There is a shaft in the middle of the EdF substation which I believe
is not capped yet. Mott MacDonald's report talks about having
to fill in that shaft and again, if you want, I can show you the
bit of the Mott MacDonald report for 7A which shows the shaft
which needs to be filled.
13561. Just for the record, what are you putting
up again?[55]
(Mr Chapman) This is an extract
from Mott MacDonald's report which shows the works that Mott MacDonald
have allowed for under option 7A. Here is a shaft which also needs
to be filled beneath the EdF ticket hall, so, to my mind, the
risk money that should be allowed for both options should be at
least comparable, and I will come on to some of the issues in
7A.
13562. We will come on to 7A in a minute. Right,
5A and 5B?
(Mr Chapman) I think as time is short and as
5A and 5B have not been the subject of controversy, there is probably
no point in raising any issues on them.
13563. Let us move on to 7.
(Mr Chapman) Could I have my exhibit 8 please
which is page 9 in the party pack.[56]
This shows the works and again it is identical to the image that
Mr Berryman showed you this morning. It is the exact same figure
which has been scanned by both of us. We spoke about what this
zone actually is. It is an EdF power transformer room which is
under the forecourt of UBS's offices at number 100 Liverpool Street.
The last time I was before you I explained it was the former ticket
hall for Broad Street Station and I have discovered that it actually
opened on 10 October 1912, just after the extension of the railway
line to Liverpool Street in July 1912, so it was four months or
five months later opening. It was remarked at the time that it
was the first ticket hall in London to have underground escalators.
Escalators had been used in the previous year at Earl's Court,
but this was the first Underground station to actually have tunnels
with escalators in. In fact I believe the Broadgate Estate, which
is part of British Land, have been approached by London Underground
because London Underground wanted to use those escalator tunnels
and the ticket hall as part of their `Cooling the Tube' proposals.
London Underground are considering using similar space to flush
air-conditioning water or air down to the Central Line platform
tunnels at the moment. If I can move to my exhibit 10, we did
a survey about a year ago within the old ticket hall, within the
current EdF power transformer zone.[57]
This is used for providing traction power to the Metropolitan
Line and this is actually where the electrical power for the trains
comes from as well as where the power for Liverpool Street Station
comes from. This just gives you an image and it is some photos
actually of inside the ticket hall. I have a report which has
a lot more information in, but this shows you the magnitude of
the equipment and the headroom available within the space. I have
been interested in costs for option 7A because I am a little bit
concerned that they are an underestimate of the work that might
be required. If we can go to the Promoter's sheet 2 please, it
gives cost estimates.[58]
The second line of figures down is probably the one that I have
concerned myself with. It is the construction costs for the various
options. I was concerned that the cost for option 7A was low because
it shows about an £11.6 million construction cost vis-a"-vis
a £12.4 million construction cost for option 4C when the
sort of work being carried out in both areas is sort of similar.
They are being used for a disused space or a space that exists
with structure alterations, but the 7A area is about 450 square
metres of space compared to about 220 square metres of space for
the space that has been changed on option 4C, so I was surprised
that the cost of doing the work was less for doing more than twice
the area. I asked the Promoter for the breakdown of the figures,
but I was told that they were unable to provide the figures because
they are commercially confidential, so I have not been able to
validate the Promoter's figures. I did my own calculations very
roughly and they do not stand up to very good scrutiny, but they
just give a relative idea of the costs between the different options.
I calculated that it is about £6.5 million extra on the £30
million for option 7A. I am not qualified to give cost advice,
so British Land procured Cyril Sweet, a firm of quantity surveyors,
also to carry out an assessment of the various options. Again
they are also without the Promoter's cost breakdown information
because that has not been available to us, but they have made
an estimate and they have confirmed that my estimate of about
£36 million for option 7A was correct, but they actually
calculated less money for the other options, so the relative difference
becomes bigger. They calculated a difference for 7A, and that
is 7A alone, not plus 3B, so this 7A cost is 7A alone because
sometimes 7A, we have been told, also includes 3B, so obviously
you have to add the two figures if you are going to do both bits
of work, so treating 7A alone, and ignoring the 3B part, Cyril
Sweet's figures gave a difference in cost of £21.5 million
between 7A and option 4C, instead of £10.8 million, as the
Promoter has been suggesting.
13564. What about Mr Berryman's point that the
figure of £8 million shown in the right-hand column there
against the footnote might involve a saving if the substation
were to be relocated by LUL as part of their renewal works?
(Mr Chapman) That £8 million, again as
yet I have seen no evidence from anybody or even a piece of paper
showing that the substation is substandard. I know Mr Berryman
well and I trust his words if he tells me that is required, but
as yet I have seen no evidence or even a piece of paper from anybody
saying that that information has expired. The £8 million
to replace it, again I do not know fully what length of the Metropolitan
Line that covers, so I do not know whether the £8 million
is right, too much or too little. Cyril Sweet's estimate, and
again it is only an estimate, they allowed £10 million for
the same amount of work, but, without knowing what the electrical
equipment is, who has to pay to move it and where it goes to,
it is very difficult to be more exact and to know whether it is
the right figure or not.
13565. Mr Chapman, the Committee is not going
to have evidence from a chartered surveyor in relation to the
amount to be paid by way of compensation if option 7 were to be
taken, but have you considered whether there is any doubt whether
some land of British Land would have to be taken if option 7 were
to be pursued?
(Mr Chapman) If I go back to my exhibit 1,
and this is very similar to the figures I showed you last January,
if you can cast your minds back all those months ago, the light
blue line is the actual British Land property boundary.[59]
The actual canopy as proposed by Crossrail, or it is not a canopy
at the moment, but the entrance escalators are in the pavement
here on British Land's land and in an area that is not currently
used for LUL facilities, so there will be a purchase of land.
Also I believe there are concerns about compensation for UBS and
UBS's access which the Promoter acknowledges would be very severely
affected by this, as will the operation of their building because
their front door is here and I think it is acknowledged by all
parties that this area here, the lid would have to be broken out,
so there would be a major worksite right up against it, partially
underneath their building, although I agree with Mr Berryman that
it is unlikely that the building actually bears on the ticket
hall, so I doubt if there is an issue with a need to underpin
the building, but that would need to be discovered later on. The
main issue is that UBS would have a very, very severely degraded
entrance and other facilities at the front of their building for
quite a considerable period of time while the work was being carried
out. I do not know what the £1.3 million is meant to cover,
whether it is meant to cover the purchase of the land from British
Land or it covers the compensation to UBS. I know that British
Land are also very concerned that the works might prompt UBS to
reconsider whether this is the right building for them and things
like that, so there are issues that I am not in a position to
give evidence on.
13566. Mr Chapman, before you conclude your
evidence, is there anything else about option 7 that you want
to say to the Committee?
(Mr Chapman) There are two further things to
consider. Firstly, if we go back to my exhibit 8 please, this
space here is currently occupied by a large amount of electrical
equipment.[60]
I am not an electrical engineer and I get very confused with electrical
engineering, so my wife will not let me do any work at home to
do with it, but there is a lot of equipment here which needs to
be decanted from this space into this space. This space is currently
occupied as a communication equipment room which will be moved
as part of Crossrail. I have seen no reconciliation between the
equipment which needs to be moved and the space here. Mr Berryman
mentioned that some of the equipment, the equipment to power the
station, would be moved to a shaft just off Blomfield Street,
but I do not know if there is enough space here to put the equipment
and I have seen no evidence that it has been considered in any
detail whatsoever yet.
13567. Did you have a second point you wanted
to make about 7?
(Mr Chapman) Yes. At the moment the Promoter
is showing no canopy. They have about a 1.2 metre high fence around
the escalators. I do not know if that is still the case of what
they are promoting. From a safety point of view in terms of actually
people throwing things over the side of the fence or just accidentally
dropping things over the side of the fence on to the escalators,
and especially to do with the weather, I am very surprised they
are not showing a canopy. London Underground's standards require
a canopy for stairs, so if you go down stairs, London Underground's
standards require that you have to have a canopy. They do not
require it for escalators, but I think that is probably an oversight
in the standards because I can see that the risks of slipping
and whatever else are probably a lot more serious with an escalator
than they would be with stairs, but that is quite a small issue
and one that I am sure could be resolved with time, but it does
make the point that at the moment 7A does not allow for the entrance
canopy which I think would be required.
13568. Before you come to your conclusions,
can I just ask you about two other matters. So far as 4C is concerned,
what degree of confidence could the Committee have that 4C is
feasible, buildable and could probably be made the subject of
an additional provision with a decision being taken in a relatively
few weeks from now?
(Mr Chapman) I agree with Mr Berryman that
a lot of work would need to be done on all of these options to
firm up the costs, but it appears to me, and again I have not
seen the cost allowance, but the cost allowance appears to us
to be generous, from a quantum point of view because we have not
seen a breakdown of the figures. Mott MacDonald are an excellent
firm of consulting engineers and I assume they have done the engineering
properly, and Corduroy are a respectable firm of quantity surveyors
and I am sure they have measured it correctly. Then there is a
28 per cent figure on the total that is allowed or roughly one
third of the amount of money allowed as risk money, so I would
be surprised if there was not enough money to do the work given
the calibre of the people doing the work for the Promoter. A 28
per cent allowance is what is normally allowed by the Promoter
for this level of design complexity, and the aim is that as certainty
increases as the design process continues, that 28 per cent figure
reduces, but it is an allowance at this stage for the level of
uncertainty and I believe it is what Crossrail are using across
the board for this level of uncertainty.
13569. What about option 7?
(Mr Chapman) Again I have to be careful with
what I say because I have not seen a breakdown of the figures,
but option 7, in my opinion, is largely as complex as 4C. There
is also an old shaft from a 1913 ticket hall to be filled in and
this exhibit shows the two escalator tunnels coming up the side
which again Mott MacDonald have shown as partially filled in,
although that might not happen with the Cooling the Tube project
and they may need to use those to provide fresh air for Central
Line commuters. Again it seems to me that 7A is less well formed
at this stage than option 4C, but I think that is to be expected
because 7A has only been considered since 8 May, whereas 4C has
been worked on since January when we last met.
13570. Mr Chapman, what concluding remarks do
you offer to the Committee?
(Mr Chapman) In a way, we are in a very different
situation from that which we were last January. Last January there
was a dispute over what was needed to be done and there was no
real option on the table of what would be done if something did
need to be done. We are now in a different situation and there
is agreement that something needs to be done and there are a number
of options to achieve it. There are options 3B, 4C and 7A which
are being promoted by various parties. All are feasible from an
engineering point of view, all have been costed on a more or less
similar basis by the Promoter, and sheet 2 gives a comparison
of the costs. There are benefits and disbenefits with each and
to some extent I think it depends on what criteria are going to
be used for choosing the solution. As a taxpayer, I favour something
that is reasonably cheap as long as it works. I do not favour
something that is cheap that does not work. Mr Spencer, whom I
have a lot of respect for, has shown me that option 3B has severe
flaws, so, to me, paying to do something that does not work is
a false economy. Option 4C is the cheapest one which, I think
everybody agrees, does work and 7A has some additional benefits
at additional cost, so those are the three options in consideration.
Options 5A and 5B also work, I think, but they do not necessarily
have people who are pushing them, but all five options, to my
mind, work and have been costed on a similar basis.
13571. Mr Laurence: Thank you, Mr Chapman.
Cross-examined by Ms Lieven
13572. Ms Lieven: Sir, I am going to
try and keep this as brief as I possibly can. Mr Chapman, option
3, and can we put up exhibit 9 please, you raised a point about
the excess fare window clashing with queues going through the
gates.[61]
The obvious solution to that is to move the manual gate to the
other side and then you do not have a problem with the queue coming
up against the excess fare window. That is the kind of thing that
is done at detailed design. You yourself have referred to an iterative
design process.
(Mr Chapman) Yes. I believe the
Promoter has talked about having two gates in there because having
a barrage of gates here at this side with an excess fare window,
you need a gate here, which I agree with, but there is also concern
that people coming out are having to cross over the flow, so I
believe that probably by putting two gates in the line, one here
as well at the westernmost end, would allow disabled access and
children to cross over the flows in. I think the 3B gateline has
been more optimised than the 4C gateline which has been presented.
13573. Can we move on to engineering and 4C
and 7. You sought to compare the work that would be needed on
4C with the work on 7 in terms of capping the shaft. Now, if we
can put up our exhibit 5 rapidly followed by our exhibit 8, 5
is the cross-section of the post office vaults and 8 is what we
need to do.[62]
The crucial point here is that we are not simply capping the shaft.
That is what we thought we were going to be doing in January,
but in fact we have to insert a new transfer level in there, do
we not?
(Mr Chapman) Yes, and that has
been fully allowed for by Mott MacDonald and fully costed by Corduroy.
13574. But in comparison with option 7 where
you referred to the shafts of the old escalators, all that has
to be done to those option 7 shafts is literally to put a concrete
cap on them with a manhole cover to let somebody down if necessary.
There is no transfer level being put in there, is there, for option
7?
(Mr Chapman) Mott MacDonald's drawings show
that they are to be filled, but if you are saying something different
now, I will take your word for it.
13575. It is just that there is nothing comparable
to the transfer level that we need to put in with option 4, is
there?
(Mr Chapman) That option is very simple, but
what you are not showing is the fact that at the surface here,
that is actually roadway. You can break a hole here and this work
is being done basically to ground level, so putting a cantilever
of four metres in here which Mott MacDonald have said is very
feasible, and I agree with them.
13576. I am going to work on the basis that
the Committee has the point and I will move straight on. As far
as option 7 is concerned, if we can put up our exhibit 7 please,
this shows option 7 at street level.[63]
UBS's building is here, the one of which British Land own the
freehold and UBS are the tenants.
(Mr Chapman) Yes.
13577. There are two concerns of UBS. Construction
phase—we have not got to the stage of working out how the
construction phase access would be provided, but I do not know
if you are familiar with what we are doing at Tottenham Court
Road with Centrepoint where we are working on three sides of a
building, I think, but it is perfectly possible to provide access
to that building throughout the work period, is it not? It is
a matter for detailed design.
(Mr Chapman) I know the letter has not reached
Mr Berryman yet, but UBS is a bank, I believe, with 2,000 traders
and I know they are very, very concerned about security, but that
is a matter that would be addressed later.
13578. Mr Chapman, just try and answer the question
to speed things along. The fact is that access to that building
could be provided throughout the construction works, yes? It is
a perfectly standard thing to do on that type of site.
(Mr Chapman) Access to the front door and the
issue that I mentioned earlier on, access is one of many, many
issues and there is the security and there is fuelling of the
building. They have got back-up generators which I believe are
fuelled from this side of the building and there need to be large
petrol tankers which come here which might not be that near the
construction site. There are a number of issues which need to
be addressed, but I agree with you, that it is possible to do
it, but there is a lot of disruption to people in the building.
13579. As far as once Crossrail opens is concerned,
if option 7 is built and there is an access here, then for UBS
staff who use public transport, they will have absolutely brilliant
access to Crossrail, will they not?
(Mr Chapman) Everyone will have absolutely
brilliant access in the area. That is why Crossrail is being built.
55 Committee Ref: A152, Crossrail at Liverpool Street
Station-Liverpool Street Ticket Hall Option 7A using existing
Sub-station (SCN-20060629-014). Back
56
Committee Ref: A152, Crossrail at Liverpool Street Station-Option
7A Mott MacDonald/CLRL (LONLB-20505-009). Back
57
Committee Ref: A152, Crossrail at Liverpool Street Station-EdF
Equipment Room (LONLB-20505-011). Back
58
Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station: Cost Summary Comparison
of Ticket Hall options (LONDLB-20504A-002). Back
59
Committee Ref: A152, Crossrail at Liverpool Street Station-Original
Options 1 and 6 (LONLB-20505-002). Back
60
Committee Ref: A152, Crossrail at Liverpool Street Station-Option
7A Mott MacDonald/CLRL (LONLB-20505-009). Back
61
Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station-Option 3B-Test
4, LUL MIP Addition-(21 Gate lines)-Ticket Hall Level (LONDLB-20504A-009). Back
62
Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station: Ticket Hall B
Post Office Vaults-Existing Condition Section AA through vaults
(LONDLB-20504A-005); and Ticket Hall B Post Office Vaults-Proposed
Extension of Ticket Hall Concourse Section AA through vaults (LONDLB-20504A-008). Back
63
Crossrail Ref P104, Liverpool Street Station-Option 7A Substation
Ticket Hall Options-Western Escalators Street Level Plan (LONDLB-20504A-007). Back
|
