Examination of Witnesses (Questions 13580
- 13599)
13580. No, no, Mr Chapman, it is more than that.
They will be in a fantastic position for access to public transport
and that will be a genuine benefit to their staff.
(Mr Chapman) I cannot give expert evidence
on that, but I take your point.
13581. Sir, as far as cost is concerned, I am
going to deal with that in closing, if I may. I think you are
probably grateful we have not got a quantity surveyor, but we
could call one if you wanted one. I will leave it there, Mr Chapman.
Thank you very much.
Examined by the Committee
13582. Sir Peter Soulsby: I wonder if
I can take you to your exhibit 09.[64]
As I understand it, we have here a comparison between 3B, or you
are showing here an improved option 3 as well as option 3B itself.
(Mr Chapman) It is 4C and, as
the Promoter suggested, it is just a way of resolving some of
the issues that we felt were inherent in it.
13583. Am I right in understanding that the
distinct difference between 3B and 4C is that with 4C we would
get a considerably better circulation space running up to the
barriers and we get three extra barriers, and that is the argument
you are putting forward to the Committee?
(Mr Chapman) The argument I am putting forward
is also that the number of barriers can be considerably increased
as well. At the moment we have had a comparison of 21 with a very
squeezed gateline for option 3B and a less efficient gateline
layout for option 4C which gives 24. Mott MacDonald showed 29
with option 4C and we have tried to marry what Mott MacDonald
have done earlier with what the Promoter has done to give a better
gateline.
13584. That is precisely the point I am coming
to. Are you telling the Committee that it is only by adopting
4C as opposed to 3B that those additional five gates can be provided?
(Mr Chapman) Yes.
13585. What is it about 4C that enables the
provision of those extra five gates on the left-hand side, as
we look at it, which is not possible under 3B?
(Mr Chapman) I am sorry, I take your point.
The issue, if I can go back to 3B—
13586. My point is that you appear to be getting
those additional five gates by moving the retail units. Those
retail units are common to 4C and 3B, so if you are getting an
additional five gates, surely that appears—
13587. Mr Laurence: Sir, it is not 3B
on the left, in case that is what you thought.
13588. Sir Peter Soulsby: No, I am right,
Mr Laurence. I can assure you, I am right. The retail units are
common to 3B and 4C and the significant increase in gate numbers
achieved by the so-called `improved' option 4C is by moving those
retail units, not by the considerably more extensive works which
would be necessary with the capping of the vent.
(Mr Chapman) Your question is exactly right
and a similar situation could happen on the left-hand side of
3B. The difference in length is about six metres between the usable
space that is actually created on the gateline point, as that
shows, between the two options.
13589. So coming back to my initial point, actually
the benefits of 4C are such as to give some better circulation
space running up to the gateline and to give three additional
gates, and the five, which take you from 24 to 29, the ones which
are possible, if indeed they are possible at all, are possible
under 3B and 4C.
(Mr Chapman) On a comparable basis, it is about
six metres longer with 4C over 3B. That is six or seven gates,
so whatever comparison you do, we are showing apples and pears
on various drawings and I agree it is confusing, but your point
is absolutely correct and you could do something similar with
3B, but each of them needs the same level of gates and that is
provided on two comparable drawings. If you think that 4C provides
six metres more, on a comparable basis, it is about six gates
more than 3B.
13590. I think I have probably made my point,
Chairman, but it might be summed up by saying that the improved
option 4C which shows 29 gates could also be drawn as improved
option 3B which shows, what, 26 gates?
(Mr Chapman) It would be 19 plus four or five,
yes.
13591. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you.
13592. Mr Laurence: I have no further
questions for Mr Chapman, sir.
The witness withdrew
13593. Mr Laurence: I am going to call
Mr Spencer now. Could I just say that we have been pushed into
a position where we are very much under pressure to finish, so
what I would like to suggest is that we circulate to the Committee
the evidence that Mr Spencer would have given if we had had more
time and he will simply summarise it orally. I have given a copy
already to my learned friend.
13594. Ms Lieven: Sir, we have had Mr
Spencer's proof just since 2.30 and Mr Mould has had a quick look
at it. I am happy for the Committee to have it as a written document,
but I would like please to put in only a very short note, and
I promise it will be short, in fact I give a guarantee of no more
than two pages, of the absolutely key points we do not agree with
because there are parts in it which we do not agree with. If the
Committee is going to see it, then—
13595. Chairman: Ms Lieven, please accept
that we will allow you to put a note in on it.
13596. Ms Lieven: I am very grateful.
Mr Timothy Spencer, recalled
Examined by Mr Laurence
13597. Mr Laurence: Mr Spencer, you have
been here before.
(Mr Spencer) I am the same Tim Spencer.
13598. You have told me that you thought you
could do this in 20 minutes, but I reckon you have 22.
(Mr Spencer) I think I have probably got 16
with the summing up.
13599. Even better!
(Mr Spencer) I will try and do it in 16 minutes
and finish by quarter past.
64 Crossrail Ref: P104, Liverpool Street Station-Option
3B-Test 4, LUL MIP Addition-(21 Gate lines)-Ticket Hall Level
(LONDLB-20504A-009). Back
| 
