Examination of Witnesses (Questions 12600
- 12619)
12600. MR MOULD: Mr Berryman, I think
those are the points I wanted to ask you about in relation to
the depth of the tunnel and its dimensions. If we turn to the
Hyde Park shaft, Mr Payne and Mr Winbourne raised the spectre
of substantial traffic delays in the vicinity of Victoria Gate.
Can you please comment on that as a prospect?
(Mr Berryman)
Yes. Victoria Gate is just off this plan—it is about there,
where I am indicating with the pointer. We do not intend to use
Victoria Gate at all for lorry access to this site; that will,
instead, come from Marble Arch, which is up here, and we will
use the North Carriage Drive as a two-way road to provide that
access.
12601. There was a suggestion that it would
be necessary to provide some sort of ghost platform for emergency
access purposes at this location. Can you help the Committee:
is a walkway part of the standard design for the Crossrail running
tunnels?
(Mr Berryman) That is right. On all the
running tunnels there is a walkway provided at, roughly, floor
height of the carriages, so that when the trains are being evacuated,
in the event of a breakdown or some other emergency, people can
just walk out of the door and along the walkway. There are management
issues around that, of course, but that is the principle of it.
Those walkways are always on the inside of the tunnels. In other
words, where two tunnels are running parallel to each other the
walkways are on the side which is closer to the other tunnel.
What we will have at this shaft is a vertical shaft down here
with a passageway going across that walkway on this side and a
passageway going across the walkway on the other side. That is
the sum total of the works at this shaft.
12602. The final question I want to ask you
about is this: there was reference to a site in relation to the
Jubilee Line Extension. I think it was at Warlands Grove. Do you
recall that?
(Mr Berryman) I do recall that.
12603. Can you just shed any light on that for
the Committee, from the information you have?
(Mr Berryman) I have not been able to.
I contacted one of my staff who actually worked on that project
and was responsible for ground movement measurement. The only
movement that he was aware of was at a location close to Waterloo
Station where they had difficulty with compensation grouting,
but that was in an area which was not machine-driven tunnel—it
was sprayed concrete lining—and they had some problems with
the compensation grouting there. That was the only instance that
he was aware of—and he is a senior geologist—where
any significant settlement occurred on the Jubilee Line.
12604. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: I
have a question again. I have a bee in my bonnet, as you are aware,
from the questioning yesterday and now that the Petitioner has
raised this issue again, about the Hyde Park shaft and the need
for the underground passage running from the road from Bayswater
through to it. I would like to know the cost of putting that in,
if it is readily available.
(Mr Berryman)
Half-a-million-ish.
12605. I am just wondering, in the light of
what was said yesterday and the further representations which
have been made today, whether there is not any possibility whatsoever
of reflecting on whether or not the administrative machine could
not be moved to avoid having to put that additional passageway
in.
(Mr Berryman) My Lord, the difficulty
is that you have to have some kind of entrance structure to get
into the shaft, wherever you put it, and it is extremely difficult
to agree with the Royal Parks any kind of structure at all which
is in the middle of the park, so to speak. The reason that we
have gone for this location here is because we can landscape it
by moving the existing, I think they are, wrought iron fences
around there in a manner which makes it look as if it is part
of the park, if you see what I mean. To have a structure just
in the middle of an open area would be very difficult, but I am
quite happy to go back to Royal Parks and talk to them about it
and see if we can come up with some kind of arrangement which
is cheaper.
12606. CHAIRMAN: This one is in this
Bill, it is 1.13.
(Mr Berryman)
It is, my Lord.
12607. MR MOULD: Those are all my questions.
12608. CHAIRMAN: Now, Mr Payne, it is
your chance to ask Mr Berryman some questions.
Cross-examined by MR
PAYNE
12609. MR PAYNE: I really stick by my
expert witness's measurements as per his unchallenged evidence
in the House of Commons and my superimposed diagram, and obviously
this is where we beg to differ.
(Mr Berryman)
We do not beg to differ, Mr Payne. The fact of the matter is the
Bill allows us to build the line at a certain level and that line
will give a clearance of 23 and a bit metres below your house.
There is no begging to differ involved. I am telling you where
the alignment goes and that is the end of the story.
12610. CHAIRMAN: Are you challenging
the fact that the Mott MacDonald drawings that you showed us come
from a different scheme?
12611. MR PAYNE: I am saying that putting
in the other factors like the composition grouting and their measurements—
12612. CHAIRMAN: Mott MacDonald drawings
with measurements.
12613. MR PAYNE: Where they put their
base level and their ground level are all very different.
12614. CHAIRMAN: Are they from a different
scheme?
12615. MR PAYNE: They are very similar,
are they not?
12616. CHAIRMAN: Are they from a different
scheme?
12617. MR PAYNE: They are from the Crossrail
scheme.
12618. CHAIRMAN: In that case, you had
better put it to Mr Berryman that these come from the Crossrail
scheme.
12619. MR MOULD: The document that Mr
Winbourne had coloured in which you have shown on the screen is
I think an extract from one of our assessment reports but the
dimensions shown on that are in terms of vertical depth of the
running tunnels from the surface.[32]
32 Committee Ref: A67, 25-28 Hyde Park Gardens (including
22 Stanhope Terrace), Section A-A Details (SCN-20080507-022) Back
| 
