In message <strghm$qet$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:14:46 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>> "The company building the rail line across London said that the scope of
>>> the project would not change, meaning that all the stations and the
>>> outer-London spurs will still be built."
>>>
>>> In other words, nothing was cut.
>>
>> Apart from the new toilets in all those core stations, and who knows
>> what else?
>
>You've not been able to come up with anything but missing toilets in three
>or four stations, so let's assume nothing else was cut. So, overall,
>Crossrail will deliver a higher spec overall than originally planned.

The vital word above is "scope", so for example they didn't end up
cutting TCR station, which was on the cards at one stage.

The "cuts" are delivered by what they call "value engineering" (ie
taking a bit of the shine off). That's why it has a lower *spec* than
originally intended.

>>> "Efficiencies would be found by making use of existing train designs,
>>> rather than building new carriages from scratch, the company said."
>>>
>>> All the trains were in fact brand new, built to a new design, unique to
>>> Crossrail.
>>>
>>> "The latest cuts are part of Crossrail's ongoing review of costs on the
>>> line, which will run for more than 73 miles from Maidenhead and Heathrow in
>>> the west, through new, twin-bore 13-mile tunnels under central London to
>>> Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east."
>>>
>>> Do you think that's a cut?

The cuts were proposed to the shine (but keeping the original scope).

>>>The line was subsequently extended to Reading.

That's extending the scope.

>> Only by finding separate funding. It's well known that the Crossrail
>> project would never have got approval for an initial plan to go as far
>> west as Reading, including the OHL costs that far west and the
>> consequential rebuilding of Reading station.
>
>It's still an extension, and needed extra station work and more trains.
>That will have cost more than a few station toilets.

Additional scope, additional funding. It was never expected to deliver
the Reading extension by reducing the scope (or the shine) elsewhere.

>>>>>>> The spec changes I can think of were additions, such as the Woolwich
>>>>>>> station and the extension from Maidenhead to Reading.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just like (and I know people think I'm imagining it) Thameslink was
>>>>>>>> going to have a 4-platform station at St Pancras, originally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was that ever part of the official, budgeted spec, or just something
>>>>>>> that would have been desirable, but was never approved?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They left the provision of that station to the last minute, having to
>>>>>> get some special extra funding to fit out the box under the west-side of
>>>>>> the site. The original plan was to have two platforms each way, so that
>>>>>> for example a northbound train which was stalled there because the route
>>>>>> via Finsbury Park was blocked, didn't also block the route towards
>>>>>> Luton. Southbound, it would allow better regulation of the service
>>>>>> because a slightly late-running train on one of the converging branches
>>>>>> could overtake one from the other branch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, four platforms would certainly be better, but was they ever part of
>>>>> the budgeted plan?
>>>>
>>>> Fitting out the station at all was never in the budget. Which is a shame
>>>> because it means the original budget omitted to mention something which
>>>> had inevitably to be funded in one form or other.
>>>
>>> So it wasn't a cut at all? It was something added to the project, just not
>>> in the gold-plated form you'd have preferred.
>>
>> No, as other posters have confirmed, it was a cut from four to two
>> platforms.
>
>Yes, but was that a cut from an actual plan, or just an unfulfilled
>aspiration? I think it was the latter.

It's difficult to tell, because the press reports are too vague, and I
don't have the time or inclination to plough through thousands of pages
of project documentation.

When it was announced that they would, after all, try to get Kings Cross
Thameslink moved to the new site in time for the Olympics (remember -
the Javelin trains departed from "upstairs") they were still talking
about twin platforms (which had genuine operational advantages). But
with the funding having been Balkanised into separate chunks (there was
also discussion about cutting the London Bridge refurbishment) it's easy
to see how it ended up being negotiated down to just a pair of platforms
(and rather a lot of empty space).

ps Want a good laugh: From LCR's submission to the Transport Select
Committee in 2005:

"The success of the Olympic bid has called into question the
timely construction of Crossrail. Some transport commentators
have suggested that Crossrail will need to be delayed until
after the Olympics,"
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <strghm$qet$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:14:46 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>> "The company building the rail line across London said that the scope of
>>>> the project would not change, meaning that all the stations and the
>>>> outer-London spurs will still be built."
>>>>
>>>> In other words, nothing was cut.
>>>
>>> Apart from the new toilets in all those core stations, and who knows
>>> what else?
>>
>> You've not been able to come up with anything but missing toilets in three
>> or four stations, so let's assume nothing else was cut. So, overall,
>> Crossrail will deliver a higher spec overall than originally planned.
>
> The vital word above is "scope", so for example they didn't end up
> cutting TCR station, which was on the cards at one stage.
>
> The "cuts" are delivered by what they call "value engineering" (ie
> taking a bit of the shine off). That's why it has a lower *spec* than
> originally intended.

But it hasn't, apart from a few station toilets. The scope has increased,
not reduced, and the shine hasn't been taken off. I'm sure, when it does
finally open — perhaps as soon as next month — some of the criticism will
be directed at the sheer size and grandeur of the underground cathedral
stations.

>
>>>> "Efficiencies would be found by making use of existing train designs,
>>>> rather than building new carriages from scratch, the company said."
>>>>
>>>> All the trains were in fact brand new, built to a new design, unique to
>>>> Crossrail.
>>>>
>>>> "The latest cuts are part of Crossrail's ongoing review of costs on the
>>>> line, which will run for more than 73 miles from Maidenhead and Heathrow in
>>>> the west, through new, twin-bore 13-mile tunnels under central London to
>>>> Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east."
>>>>
>>>> Do you think that's a cut?
>
> The cuts were proposed to the shine (but keeping the original scope).
>
>>>> The line was subsequently extended to Reading.
>
> That's extending the scope.
>
>>> Only by finding separate funding. It's well known that the Crossrail
>>> project would never have got approval for an initial plan to go as far
>>> west as Reading, including the OHL costs that far west and the
>>> consequential rebuilding of Reading station.
>>
>> It's still an extension, and needed extra station work and more trains.
>> That will have cost more than a few station toilets.
>
> Additional scope, additional funding. It was never expected to deliver
> the Reading extension by reducing the scope (or the shine) elsewhere.
>
>>>>>>>> The spec changes I can think of were additions, such as the Woolwich
>>>>>>>> station and the extension from Maidenhead to Reading.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just like (and I know people think I'm imagining it) Thameslink was
>>>>>>>>> going to have a 4-platform station at St Pancras, originally.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was that ever part of the official, budgeted spec, or just something
>>>>>>>> that would have been desirable, but was never approved?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They left the provision of that station to the last minute, having to
>>>>>>> get some special extra funding to fit out the box under the west-side of
>>>>>>> the site. The original plan was to have two platforms each way, so that
>>>>>>> for example a northbound train which was stalled there because the route
>>>>>>> via Finsbury Park was blocked, didn't also block the route towards
>>>>>>> Luton. Southbound, it would allow better regulation of the service
>>>>>>> because a slightly late-running train on one of the converging branches
>>>>>>> could overtake one from the other branch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, four platforms would certainly be better, but was they ever part of
>>>>>> the budgeted plan?
>>>>>
>>>>> Fitting out the station at all was never in the budget. Which is a shame
>>>>> because it means the original budget omitted to mention something which
>>>>> had inevitably to be funded in one form or other.
>>>>
>>>> So it wasn't a cut at all? It was something added to the project, just not
>>>> in the gold-plated form you'd have preferred.
>>>
>>> No, as other posters have confirmed, it was a cut from four to two
>>> platforms.
>>
>> Yes, but was that a cut from an actual plan, or just an unfulfilled
>> aspiration? I think it was the latter.
>
> It's difficult to tell, because the press reports are too vague, and I
> don't have the time or inclination to plough through thousands of pages
> of project documentation.
>
> When it was announced that they would, after all, try to get Kings Cross
> Thameslink moved to the new site in time for the Olympics (remember -
> the Javelin trains departed from "upstairs") they were still talking
> about twin platforms (which had genuine operational advantages). But
> with the funding having been Balkanised into separate chunks (there was
> also discussion about cutting the London Bridge refurbishment) it's easy
> to see how it ended up being negotiated down to just a pair of platforms
> (and rather a lot of empty space).

Yes. I suppose, in theory, if the need proves to be great enough, they
could fairly easily swap the two wide side platforms for a pair of platform
islands. It wouldn't affect the tunnels. But I certainly don't see that
happening.

>
> ps Want a good laugh: From LCR's submission to the Transport Select
> Committee in 2005:
>
> "The success of the Olympic bid has called into question the
> timely construction of Crossrail. Some transport commentators
> have suggested that Crossrail will need to be delayed until
> after the Olympics,"

They were talking about the start of construction, not the end. London
Bridge rebuilding also got delayed. The intention was to avoid having any
large construction projects underway that could interfere with the
Olympics, and also to focus all available construction resources before
2012 on the many Olympics-related projects. So, some projects got
accelerated, and others deferred.

In message <su07fm$3mj$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:10:46 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <strghm$qet$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:14:46 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>> "The company building the rail line across London said that the scope of
>>>>> the project would not change, meaning that all the stations and the
>>>>> outer-London spurs will still be built."
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, nothing was cut.
>>>>
>>>> Apart from the new toilets in all those core stations, and who knows
>>>> what else?
>>>
>>> You've not been able to come up with anything but missing toilets in three
>>> or four stations, so let's assume nothing else was cut. So, overall,
>>> Crossrail will deliver a higher spec overall than originally planned.
>>
>> The vital word above is "scope", so for example they didn't end up
>> cutting TCR station, which was on the cards at one stage.
>>
>> The "cuts" are delivered by what they call "value engineering" (ie
>> taking a bit of the shine off). That's why it has a lower *spec* than
>> originally intended.
>
>But it hasn't, apart from a few station toilets. The scope has increased,

In the core? What increased scope is that?

>not reduced, and the shine hasn't been taken off.

There's plenty of indications that quite a bit of shine has been taken
off.

>I'm sure, when it does finally open — perhaps as soon as next month —
>some of the criticism will be directed at the sheer size and grandeur
>of the underground cathedral stations.

You can't change the scope (size) of those Cathedrals, but perhaps you
can tone down the glory of their stained glass windows.

....

>> When it was announced that they would, after all, try to get Kings Cross
>> Thameslink moved to the new site in time for the Olympics (remember -
>> the Javelin trains departed from "upstairs") they were still talking
>> about twin platforms (which had genuine operational advantages). But
>> with the funding having been Balkanised into separate chunks (there was
>> also discussion about cutting the London Bridge refurbishment) it's easy
>> to see how it ended up being negotiated down to just a pair of platforms
>> (and rather a lot of empty space).
>
>Yes. I suppose, in theory, if the need proves to be great enough, they
>could fairly easily swap the two wide side platforms for a pair of platform
>islands. It wouldn't affect the tunnels. But I certainly don't see that
>happening.

It'd be a major exercise, not least in things like the signalling
(moving the junctions from north of the station to south). I suspect all
the lower level lifts/escalators etc would be in the wrong places too,
having built them for the two-platform version. The design as it does
implementing a mezzanine level, is further evidence that they made the
two/four platform decision at the last minute.

>> ps Want a good laugh: From LCR's submission to the Transport Select
>> Committee in 2005:
>>
>> "The success of the Olympic bid has called into question the
>> timely construction of Crossrail. Some transport commentators
>> have suggested that Crossrail will need to be delayed until
>> after the Olympics,"
>
>They were talking about the start of construction, not the end. London
>Bridge rebuilding also got delayed. The intention was to avoid having any
>large construction projects underway that could interfere with the
>Olympics, and also to focus all available construction resources before
>2012 on the many Olympics-related projects. So, some projects got
>accelerated, and others deferred.

They were worried about tunnelling/station-building engineers not being
able to be rolled over from HS1 to Crossrail (rather than being laid
off). You don't need many tunnelling engineers to build the Olympic
Park.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <su07fm$3mj$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:10:46 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <strghm$qet$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:14:46 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> "The company building the rail line across London said that the scope of
>>>>>> the project would not change, meaning that all the stations and the
>>>>>> outer-London spurs will still be built."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, nothing was cut.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from the new toilets in all those core stations, and who knows
>>>>> what else?
>>>>
>>>> You've not been able to come up with anything but missing toilets in three
>>>> or four stations, so let's assume nothing else was cut. So, overall,
>>>> Crossrail will deliver a higher spec overall than originally planned.
>>>
>>> The vital word above is "scope", so for example they didn't end up
>>> cutting TCR station, which was on the cards at one stage.
>>>
>>> The "cuts" are delivered by what they call "value engineering" (ie
>>> taking a bit of the shine off). That's why it has a lower *spec* than
>>> originally intended.
>>
>> But it hasn't, apart from a few station toilets. The scope has increased,
>
> In the core? What increased scope is that?

Where did I say in the core?

>
>> not reduced, and the shine hasn't been taken off.
>
> There's plenty of indications that quite a bit of shine has been taken
> off.

You keep trotting out that theory, but with zero evidence.

>
>> I'm sure, when it does finally open — perhaps as soon as next month —
>> some of the criticism will be directed at the sheer size and grandeur
>> of the underground cathedral stations.
>
> You can't change the scope (size) of those Cathedrals, but perhaps you
> can tone down the glory of their stained glass windows.
>
> ...
>
>>> When it was announced that they would, after all, try to get Kings Cross
>>> Thameslink moved to the new site in time for the Olympics (remember -
>>> the Javelin trains departed from "upstairs") they were still talking
>>> about twin platforms (which had genuine operational advantages). But
>>> with the funding having been Balkanised into separate chunks (there was
>>> also discussion about cutting the London Bridge refurbishment) it's easy
>>> to see how it ended up being negotiated down to just a pair of platforms
>>> (and rather a lot of empty space).
>>
>> Yes. I suppose, in theory, if the need proves to be great enough, they
>> could fairly easily swap the two wide side platforms for a pair of platform
>> islands. It wouldn't affect the tunnels. But I certainly don't see that
>> happening.
>
> It'd be a major exercise, not least in things like the signalling
> (moving the junctions from north of the station to south). I suspect all
> the lower level lifts/escalators etc would be in the wrong places too,
> having built them for the two-platform version.

Yes, that's all true.

> The design as it does
> implementing a mezzanine level, is further evidence that they made the
> two/four platform decision at the last minute.

Why so?

>
>>> ps Want a good laugh: From LCR's submission to the Transport Select
>>> Committee in 2005:
>>>
>>> "The success of the Olympic bid has called into question the
>>> timely construction of Crossrail. Some transport commentators
>>> have suggested that Crossrail will need to be delayed until
>>> after the Olympics,"
>>
>> They were talking about the start of construction, not the end. London
>> Bridge rebuilding also got delayed. The intention was to avoid having any
>> large construction projects underway that could interfere with the
>> Olympics, and also to focus all available construction resources before
>> 2012 on the many Olympics-related projects. So, some projects got
>> accelerated, and others deferred.
>
> They were worried about tunnelling/station-building engineers not being
> able to be rolled over from HS1 to Crossrail (rather than being laid
> off). You don't need many tunnelling engineers to build the Olympic
> Park.

The HS1 tunnels were finished about eight years before the XR tunneling
started. I think a long gap was always going to be the case, with or
without the Olympics.

There's been another gap of about six years between the XR tunnelling being
completed and HS2 tunnelling starting. However, there was the short
Battersea extension in between.

In message <su0cks$hbl$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:38:52 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <su07fm$3mj$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:10:46 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <strghm$qet$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:14:46 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>> "The company building the rail line across London said that the scope of
>>>>>>> the project would not change, meaning that all the stations and the
>>>>>>> outer-London spurs will still be built."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, nothing was cut.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apart from the new toilets in all those core stations, and who knows
>>>>>> what else?
>>>>>
>>>>> You've not been able to come up with anything but missing toilets in three
>>>>> or four stations, so let's assume nothing else was cut. So, overall,
>>>>> Crossrail will deliver a higher spec overall than originally planned.
>>>>
>>>> The vital word above is "scope", so for example they didn't end up
>>>> cutting TCR station, which was on the cards at one stage.
>>>>
>>>> The "cuts" are delivered by what they call "value engineering" (ie
>>>> taking a bit of the shine off). That's why it has a lower *spec* than
>>>> originally intended.
>>>
>>> But it hasn't, apart from a few station toilets. The scope has increased,
>>
>> In the core? What increased scope is that?
>
>Where did I say in the core?

The increased scope is the extension to Reading. I thought that was
pretty obvious.

>>> not reduced, and the shine hasn't been taken off.
>>
>> There's plenty of indications that quite a bit of shine has been taken
>> off.
>
>You keep trotting out that theory, but with zero evidence.

Try searching for "value engineering", there are plenty of quotes.

Or is this now your turn to not be able to admit you are wrong?

>>> I'm sure, when it does finally open — perhaps as soon as next month —
>>> some of the criticism will be directed at the sheer size and grandeur
>>> of the underground cathedral stations.
>>
>> You can't change the scope (size) of those Cathedrals, but perhaps you
>> can tone down the glory of their stained glass windows.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> When it was announced that they would, after all, try to get Kings Cross
>>>> Thameslink moved to the new site in time for the Olympics (remember -
>>>> the Javelin trains departed from "upstairs") they were still talking
>>>> about twin platforms (which had genuine operational advantages). But
>>>> with the funding having been Balkanised into separate chunks (there was
>>>> also discussion about cutting the London Bridge refurbishment) it's easy
>>>> to see how it ended up being negotiated down to just a pair of platforms
>>>> (and rather a lot of empty space).
>>>
>>> Yes. I suppose, in theory, if the need proves to be great enough, they
>>> could fairly easily swap the two wide side platforms for a pair of platform
>>> islands. It wouldn't affect the tunnels. But I certainly don't see that
>>> happening.
>>
>> It'd be a major exercise, not least in things like the signalling
>> (moving the junctions from north of the station to south). I suspect all
>> the lower level lifts/escalators etc would be in the wrong places too,
>> having built them for the two-platform version.
>
>Yes, that's all true.
>
>> The design as it does implementing a mezzanine level, is further
>>evidence that they made the two/four platform decision at the last
>>minute.
>
>Why so?

Because the escalators/lifts down to the mezzanine are independent of
those from the mezzanine down to platform level.

So you can get on with much of that, before deciding on the exact
arrangement lower down.

>>>> ps Want a good laugh: From LCR's submission to the Transport Select
>>>> Committee in 2005:
>>>>
>>>> "The success of the Olympic bid has called into question the
>>>> timely construction of Crossrail. Some transport commentators
>>>> have suggested that Crossrail will need to be delayed until
>>>> after the Olympics,"
>>>
>>> They were talking about the start of construction, not the end. London
>>> Bridge rebuilding also got delayed. The intention was to avoid having any
>>> large construction projects underway that could interfere with the
>>> Olympics, and also to focus all available construction resources before
>>> 2012 on the many Olympics-related projects. So, some projects got
>>> accelerated, and others deferred.
>>
>> They were worried about tunnelling/station-building engineers not being
>> able to be rolled over from HS1 to Crossrail (rather than being laid
>> off). You don't need many tunnelling engineers to build the Olympic
>> Park.
>
>The HS1 tunnels were finished about eight years before the XR tunneling
>started. I think a long gap was always going to be the case, with or
>without the Olympics.

LCR was worried that a gap of that length would cause tunnelling
expertise to disperse, so thought it might be better not to delay
starting Crossrail, but roll the expertise over.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <su0cks$hbl$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:38:52 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <su07fm$3mj$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:10:46 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <strghm$qet$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:14:46 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The company building the rail line across London said that the scope of
>>>>>>>> the project would not change, meaning that all the stations and the
>>>>>>>> outer-London spurs will still be built."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, nothing was cut.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apart from the new toilets in all those core stations, and who knows
>>>>>>> what else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've not been able to come up with anything but missing toilets in three
>>>>>> or four stations, so let's assume nothing else was cut. So, overall,
>>>>>> Crossrail will deliver a higher spec overall than originally planned.
>>>>>
>>>>> The vital word above is "scope", so for example they didn't end up
>>>>> cutting TCR station, which was on the cards at one stage.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "cuts" are delivered by what they call "value engineering" (ie
>>>>> taking a bit of the shine off). That's why it has a lower *spec* than
>>>>> originally intended.
>>>>
>>>> But it hasn't, apart from a few station toilets. The scope has increased,
>>>
>>> In the core? What increased scope is that?
>>
>> Where did I say in the core?
>
> The increased scope is the extension to Reading. I thought that was
> pretty obvious.
>
>>>> not reduced, and the shine hasn't been taken off.
>>>
>>> There's plenty of indications that quite a bit of shine has been taken
>>> off.
>>
>> You keep trotting out that theory, but with zero evidence.
>
> Try searching for "value engineering", there are plenty of quotes.

If you'd actually read the article, you'd know that was to improve the
efficiency of the construction, as should happen with any large engineering
project. No user visible deliverables were cut. So, your statement,
"There's plenty of indications that quite a bit of shine has been taken
off," is simply wrong.

>
> Or is this now your turn to not be able to admit you are wrong?

You've failed to provide any evidence to support your unfounded
allegations. So we already know who was wrong.

>
>>>> I'm sure, when it does finally open — perhaps as soon as next month —
>>>> some of the criticism will be directed at the sheer size and grandeur
>>>> of the underground cathedral stations.
>>>
>>> You can't change the scope (size) of those Cathedrals, but perhaps you
>>> can tone down the glory of their stained glass windows.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> When it was announced that they would, after all, try to get Kings Cross
>>>>> Thameslink moved to the new site in time for the Olympics (remember -
>>>>> the Javelin trains departed from "upstairs") they were still talking
>>>>> about twin platforms (which had genuine operational advantages). But
>>>>> with the funding having been Balkanised into separate chunks (there was
>>>>> also discussion about cutting the London Bridge refurbishment) it's easy
>>>>> to see how it ended up being negotiated down to just a pair of platforms
>>>>> (and rather a lot of empty space).
>>>>
>>>> Yes. I suppose, in theory, if the need proves to be great enough, they
>>>> could fairly easily swap the two wide side platforms for a pair of platform
>>>> islands. It wouldn't affect the tunnels. But I certainly don't see that
>>>> happening.
>>>
>>> It'd be a major exercise, not least in things like the signalling
>>> (moving the junctions from north of the station to south). I suspect all
>>> the lower level lifts/escalators etc would be in the wrong places too,
>>> having built them for the two-platform version.
>>
>> Yes, that's all true.
>>
>>> The design as it does implementing a mezzanine level, is further
>>> evidence that they made the two/four platform decision at the last
>>> minute.
>>
>> Why so?
>
> Because the escalators/lifts down to the mezzanine are independent of
> those from the mezzanine down to platform level.
>
> So you can get on with much of that, before deciding on the exact
> arrangement lower down.

It sounds like the two-platform decision had already been made well before
then.

>
>>>>> ps Want a good laugh: From LCR's submission to the Transport Select
>>>>> Committee in 2005:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The success of the Olympic bid has called into question the
>>>>> timely construction of Crossrail. Some transport commentators
>>>>> have suggested that Crossrail will need to be delayed until
>>>>> after the Olympics,"
>>>>
>>>> They were talking about the start of construction, not the end. London
>>>> Bridge rebuilding also got delayed. The intention was to avoid having any
>>>> large construction projects underway that could interfere with the
>>>> Olympics, and also to focus all available construction resources before
>>>> 2012 on the many Olympics-related projects. So, some projects got
>>>> accelerated, and others deferred.
>>>
>>> They were worried about tunnelling/station-building engineers not being
>>> able to be rolled over from HS1 to Crossrail (rather than being laid
>>> off). You don't need many tunnelling engineers to build the Olympic
>>> Park.
>>
>> The HS1 tunnels were finished about eight years before the XR tunneling
>> started. I think a long gap was always going to be the case, with or
>> without the Olympics.
>
> LCR was worried that a gap of that length would cause tunnelling
> expertise to disperse, so thought it might be better not to delay
> starting Crossrail, but roll the expertise over.

I suspect there still would have been a multi-year gap with or without the
Olympics.

In message <su0tnb$atl$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:30:19 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> There's plenty of indications that quite a bit of shine has been taken
>>>> off.
>>>
>>> You keep trotting out that theory, but with zero evidence.
>>
>> Try searching for "value engineering", there are plenty of quotes.
>
>If you'd actually read the article, you'd know that was to improve the
>efficiency of the construction, as should happen with any large engineering
>project. No user visible deliverables were cut. So, your statement,
>"There's plenty of indications that quite a bit of shine has been taken
>off," is simply wrong.

The same lighting and signage in the stations, rather than customised,
is one example that leaps out from the reporting.

I'm not surprised they didn't provide a detailed list in the overviews,
because then people might have started to quibble (like they did with
the scrapping of the toilets). There's probably lots of it in the
thousands of pages of project documentation, but as you've clearly
decided this is another of your "la la I can't hear you" threads, what's
the point?

>> Or is this now your turn to not be able to admit you are wrong?
>
>You've failed to provide any evidence to support your unfounded
>allegations. So we already know who was wrong.

You've decided to ignore the evidence, so it's not as clear-cut as that.

>>>> The design as it does implementing a mezzanine level, is further
>>>> evidence that they made the two/four platform decision at the last
>>>> minute.
>>>
>>> Why so?
>>
>> Because the escalators/lifts down to the mezzanine are independent of
>> those from the mezzanine down to platform level.
>>
>> So you can get on with much of that, before deciding on the exact
>> arrangement lower down.
>
>It sounds like the two-platform decision had already been made well before
>then.

To coin a phrase "you have no evidence for that". Whereas I've provided
evidence that the four-platform (actually four *lines*, two island
platforms) decision was only a last minute compromise to get the
funding. The fit-out was done really quickly after that decision, so by
any measure the decision was quite late in the process.

Unless I'm mistaken, what they probably did was just build the platforms
either side of the existing though-running lines, so not even any extra
signalling let alone pointwork.

If they'd planned for just two tracks it would have been easier to
design it around a single island platform, but luckily (if that's the
right word) the mezzanine scheme would have allowed for any of the three
possible layouts (two tracks with side platforms, one island, or two
islands).

But they'd have to have planned that ahead of the 2004 closure to build
the station box and through-line it. (For the duration, trains from the
north terminated in what's now the domestic HS1 platforms, although very
much themselves a work in progress (the buffet was a portacabin on the
track level concourse).

>>>>>> ps Want a good laugh: From LCR's submission to the Transport Select
>>>>>> Committee in 2005:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The success of the Olympic bid has called into question the
>>>>>> timely construction of Crossrail. Some transport commentators
>>>>>> have suggested that Crossrail will need to be delayed until
>>>>>> after the Olympics,"
>>>>>
>>>>> They were talking about the start of construction, not the end. London
>>>>> Bridge rebuilding also got delayed. The intention was to avoid having any
>>>>> large construction projects underway that could interfere with the
>>>>> Olympics, and also to focus all available construction resources before
>>>>> 2012 on the many Olympics-related projects. So, some projects got
>>>>> accelerated, and others deferred.
>>>>
>>>> They were worried about tunnelling/station-building engineers not being
>>>> able to be rolled over from HS1 to Crossrail (rather than being laid
>>>> off). You don't need many tunnelling engineers to build the Olympic
>>>> Park.
>>>
>>> The HS1 tunnels were finished about eight years before the XR tunneling
>>> started. I think a long gap was always going to be the case, with or
>>> without the Olympics.
>>
>> LCR was worried that a gap of that length would cause tunnelling
>> expertise to disperse, so thought it might be better not to delay
>> starting Crossrail, but roll the expertise over.
>
>I suspect there still would have been a multi-year gap with or without the
>Olympics.

LCR were suggesting it should be a gap until after the Olympics. That's
all. The laugh, of course, was the casual assumption that it would even
be possible to delay the start that long (let alone the completion to
2022)
--
Roland Perry

On 2022-02-09 12:14:47 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <su07fm$3mj$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:10:46 on Wed, 9 Feb
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <strghm$qet$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:14:46 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> "The company building the rail line across London said that the scope of
>>>>>> the project would not change, meaning that all the stations and the
>>>>>> outer-London spurs will still be built."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, nothing was cut.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from the new toilets in all those core stations, and who knows
>>>>> what else?
>>>>
>>>> You've not been able to come up with anything but missing toilets in three
>>>> or four stations, so let's assume nothing else was cut. So, overall,
>>>> Crossrail will deliver a higher spec overall than originally planned.
>>>
>>> The vital word above is "scope", so for example they didn't end up
>>> cutting TCR station, which was on the cards at one stage.
>>>
>>> The "cuts" are delivered by what they call "value engineering" (ie
>>> taking a bit of the shine off). That's why it has a lower *spec* than
>>> originally intended.
>>
>> But it hasn't, apart from a few station toilets. The scope has increased,
>
> In the core? What increased scope is that?
>
>> not reduced, and the shine hasn't been taken off.
>
> There's plenty of indications that quite a bit of shine has been taken off.
>
>> I'm sure, when it does finally open — perhaps as soon as next month —
>> some of the criticism will be directed at the sheer size and grandeur
>> of the underground cathedral stations.
>
> You can't change the scope (size) of those Cathedrals, but perhaps you
> can tone down the glory of their stained glass windows.
>
> ...
>
>>> When it was announced that they would, after all, try to get Kings Cross
>>> Thameslink moved to the new site in time for the Olympics (remember -
>>> the Javelin trains departed from "upstairs") they were still talking
>>> about twin platforms (which had genuine operational advantages). But
>>> with the funding having been Balkanised into separate chunks (there was
>>> also discussion about cutting the London Bridge refurbishment) it's easy
>>> to see how it ended up being negotiated down to just a pair of platforms
>>> (and rather a lot of empty space).
>>
>> Yes. I suppose, in theory, if the need proves to be great enough, they
>> could fairly easily swap the two wide side platforms for a pair of platform
>> islands. It wouldn't affect the tunnels. But I certainly don't see that
>> happening.
>
> It'd be a major exercise, not least in things like the signalling
> (moving the junctions from north of the station to south). I suspect
> all the lower level lifts/escalators etc would be in the wrong places
> too, having built them for the two-platform version. The design as it
> does implementing a mezzanine level, is further evidence that they made
> the two/four platform decision at the last minute.
>
>>> ps Want a good laugh: From LCR's submission to the Transport Select
>>> Committee in 2005:
>>>
>>> "The success of the Olympic bid has called into question the
>>> timely construction of Crossrail. Some transport commentators
>>> have suggested that Crossrail will need to be delayed until
>>> after the Olympics,"
>>
>> They were talking about the start of construction, not the end. London
>> Bridge rebuilding also got delayed. The intention was to avoid having any
>> large construction projects underway that could interfere with the
>> Olympics, and also to focus all available construction resources before
>> 2012 on the many Olympics-related projects. So, some projects got
>> accelerated, and others deferred.
>
> They were worried about tunnelling/station-building engineers not being
> able to be rolled over from HS1 to Crossrail (rather than being laid
> off). You don't need many tunnelling engineers to build the Olympic
> Park.

The actual tunnelling (as in driving the TBMs through the rock/dirt) is
almost certainly done by specialist companies that operate on an
international basis, and it is likely that part of the challenge of a
project like Crossrail is actually getting a slot in the schedule of
the available expertise when the people aren't busy on things like the
Gotthard Base Tunnel or Stuttgart 21.

Robin

Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2022-02-09 12:14:47 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <su07fm$3mj$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:10:46 on Wed, 9 Feb
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <strghm$qet$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:14:46 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>> "The company building the rail line across London said that the scope of
>>>>>>> the project would not change, meaning that all the stations and the
>>>>>>> outer-London spurs will still be built."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, nothing was cut.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apart from the new toilets in all those core stations, and who knows
>>>>>> what else?
>>>>>
>>>>> You've not been able to come up with anything but missing toilets in three
>>>>> or four stations, so let's assume nothing else was cut. So, overall,
>>>>> Crossrail will deliver a higher spec overall than originally planned.
>>>>
>>>> The vital word above is "scope", so for example they didn't end up
>>>> cutting TCR station, which was on the cards at one stage.
>>>>
>>>> The "cuts" are delivered by what they call "value engineering" (ie
>>>> taking a bit of the shine off). That's why it has a lower *spec* than
>>>> originally intended.
>>>
>>> But it hasn't, apart from a few station toilets. The scope has increased,
>>
>> In the core? What increased scope is that?
>>
>>> not reduced, and the shine hasn't been taken off.
>>
>> There's plenty of indications that quite a bit of shine has been taken off.
>>
>>> I'm sure, when it does finally open — perhaps as soon as next month —
>>> some of the criticism will be directed at the sheer size and grandeur
>>> of the underground cathedral stations.
>>
>> You can't change the scope (size) of those Cathedrals, but perhaps you
>> can tone down the glory of their stained glass windows.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> When it was announced that they would, after all, try to get Kings Cross
>>>> Thameslink moved to the new site in time for the Olympics (remember -
>>>> the Javelin trains departed from "upstairs") they were still talking
>>>> about twin platforms (which had genuine operational advantages). But
>>>> with the funding having been Balkanised into separate chunks (there was
>>>> also discussion about cutting the London Bridge refurbishment) it's easy
>>>> to see how it ended up being negotiated down to just a pair of platforms
>>>> (and rather a lot of empty space).
>>>
>>> Yes. I suppose, in theory, if the need proves to be great enough, they
>>> could fairly easily swap the two wide side platforms for a pair of platform
>>> islands. It wouldn't affect the tunnels. But I certainly don't see that
>>> happening.
>>
>> It'd be a major exercise, not least in things like the signalling
>> (moving the junctions from north of the station to south). I suspect
>> all the lower level lifts/escalators etc would be in the wrong places
>> too, having built them for the two-platform version. The design as it
>> does implementing a mezzanine level, is further evidence that they made
>> the two/four platform decision at the last minute.
>>
>>>> ps Want a good laugh: From LCR's submission to the Transport Select
>>>> Committee in 2005:
>>>>
>>>> "The success of the Olympic bid has called into question the
>>>> timely construction of Crossrail. Some transport commentators
>>>> have suggested that Crossrail will need to be delayed until
>>>> after the Olympics,"
>>>
>>> They were talking about the start of construction, not the end. London
>>> Bridge rebuilding also got delayed. The intention was to avoid having any
>>> large construction projects underway that could interfere with the
>>> Olympics, and also to focus all available construction resources before
>>> 2012 on the many Olympics-related projects. So, some projects got
>>> accelerated, and others deferred.
>>
>> They were worried about tunnelling/station-building engineers not being
>> able to be rolled over from HS1 to Crossrail (rather than being laid
>> off). You don't need many tunnelling engineers to build the Olympic
>> Park.
>
> The actual tunnelling (as in driving the TBMs through the rock/dirt) is
> almost certainly done by specialist companies that operate on an
> international basis, and it is likely that part of the challenge of a
> project like Crossrail is actually getting a slot in the schedule of
> the available expertise when the people aren't busy on things like the
> Gotthard Base Tunnel or Stuttgart 21.
>

The much trickier job with Crossrail was hand-excavating the large stations
under central London (I think they used NATM). That needs a much larger,
highly skilled workforce than the small teams operating TBMs. HS1, HS2, and
TL did not need such skills. One previous project that did, and which came
a cropper, was the HEx station adjacent to Terminal 3.

On 09/02/2022 16:07, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <su0cks$hbl$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:38:52 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <su07fm$3mj$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:10:46 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <strghm$qet$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:14:46 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The company building the rail line across London said that the scope of
>>>>>>>> the project would not change, meaning that all the stations and the
>>>>>>>> outer-London spurs will still be built."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, nothing was cut.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apart from the new toilets in all those core stations, and who knows
>>>>>>> what else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've not been able to come up with anything but missing toilets in three
>>>>>> or four stations, so let's assume nothing else was cut. So, overall,
>>>>>> Crossrail will deliver a higher spec overall than originally planned.
>>>>>
>>>>> The vital word above is "scope", so for example they didn't end up
>>>>> cutting TCR station, which was on the cards at one stage.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "cuts" are delivered by what they call "value engineering" (ie
>>>>> taking a bit of the shine off). That's why it has a lower *spec* than
>>>>> originally intended.
>>>>
>>>> But it hasn't, apart from a few station toilets. The scope has increased,
>>>
>>> In the core? What increased scope is that?
>>
>> Where did I say in the core?
>
> The increased scope is the extension to Reading. I thought that was pretty obvious.
>
>>>> not reduced, and the shine hasn't been taken off.
>>>
>>> There's plenty of indications that quite a bit of shine has been taken
>>> off.
>>
>> You keep trotting out that theory, but with zero evidence.
>
> Try searching for "value engineering", there are plenty of quotes.
>
> Or is this now your turn to not be able to admit you are wrong?
>
>>>> I'm sure, when it does finally open — perhaps as soon as next month —
>>>> some of the criticism will be directed at the sheer size and grandeur
>>>> of the underground cathedral stations.
>>>
>>> You can't change the scope (size) of those Cathedrals, but perhaps you
>>> can tone down the glory of their stained glass windows.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> When it was announced that they would, after all, try to get Kings Cross
>>>>> Thameslink moved to the new site in time for the Olympics (remember -
>>>>> the Javelin trains departed from "upstairs") they were still talking
>>>>> about twin platforms (which had genuine operational advantages). But
>>>>> with the funding having been Balkanised into separate chunks (there was
>>>>> also discussion about cutting the London Bridge refurbishment) it's easy
>>>>> to see how it ended up being negotiated down to just a pair of platforms
>>>>> (and rather a lot of empty space).
>>>>
>>>> Yes. I suppose, in theory, if the need proves to be great enough, they
>>>> could fairly easily swap the two wide side platforms for a pair of platform
>>>> islands. It wouldn't affect the tunnels. But I certainly don't see that
>>>> happening.
>>>
>>> It'd be a major exercise, not least in things like the signalling
>>> (moving the junctions from north of the station to south). I suspect all
>>> the lower level lifts/escalators etc would be in the wrong places too,
>>> having built them for the two-platform version.
>>
>> Yes, that's all true.
>>
>>> The design as it does  implementing a mezzanine level, is further evidence that they made the  two/four platform decision at the last minute.
>>
>> Why so?
>
> Because the escalators/lifts down to the mezzanine are independent of those from the mezzanine down to platform level.
>
> So you can get on with much of that, before deciding on the exact arrangement lower down.
>
>>>>> ps Want a good laugh: From LCR's submission to the Transport Select
>>>>> Committee in 2005:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The success of the Olympic bid has called into question the
>>>>> timely construction of Crossrail. Some transport commentators
>>>>> have suggested that Crossrail will need to be delayed until
>>>>> after the Olympics,"
>>>>
>>>> They were talking about the start of construction, not the end. London
>>>> Bridge rebuilding also got delayed. The intention was to avoid having any
>>>> large construction projects underway that could interfere with the
>>>> Olympics, and also to focus all available construction resources before
>>>> 2012 on the many Olympics-related projects. So, some projects got
>>>> accelerated, and others deferred.
>>>
>>> They were worried about tunnelling/station-building engineers not being
>>> able to be rolled over from HS1 to Crossrail (rather than being laid
>>> off). You don't need many tunnelling engineers to build the Olympic
>>> Park.
>>
>> The HS1 tunnels were finished about eight years before the XR tunneling
>> started. I think a long gap was always going to be the case, with or
>> without the Olympics.
>
> LCR was worried that a gap of that length would cause tunnelling expertise to disperse, so thought it might be better not to delay starting Crossrail, but roll the expertise over.
>

At King's Cross - St.Pancras the greatest improvement, in my opinion, would be a passenger tunnel from the lower-level Thameslink platforms direct to the tube system. They aren't very far apart but at present you have to go up two levels, along a walkway crowded with Eurostar passengers and then down about the same distance. With a new tunnel the connection time for passengers might be reduced from about 8 minutes to 2 or 3.

I gather that there is a small river in the way, but diverting that shouldn't be beyond the reach of modern civil engineering.

--
Clive Page

In message <su30bh$jc9$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:27:29 on Thu, 10 Feb
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:

>>>> ps Want a good laugh: From LCR's submission to the Transport Select
>>>> Committee in 2005:

>>>> "The success of the Olympic bid has called into question the
>>>> timely construction of Crossrail. Some transport commentators
>>>> have suggested that Crossrail will need to be delayed until
>>>> after the Olympics,"

>>> They were talking about the start of construction, not the end.
>>>London Bridge rebuilding also got delayed. The intention was to
>>>avoid having any large construction projects underway that could
>>>interfere with the Olympics, and also to focus all available
>>>construction resources before 2012 on the many Olympics-related
>>>projects. So, some projects got accelerated, and others deferred.

>> They were worried about tunnelling/station-building engineers not
>>being able to be rolled over from HS1 to Crossrail (rather than being
>>laid off). You don't need many tunnelling engineers to build the
>>Olympic Park.
>
>The actual tunnelling (as in driving the TBMs through the rock/dirt) is
>almost certainly done by specialist companies that operate on an
>international basis, and it is likely that part of the challenge of a
>project like Crossrail is actually getting a slot in the schedule of
>the available expertise when the people aren't busy on things like the
>Gotthard Base Tunnel or Stuttgart 21.

That wasn't what their submission indicated to me. Read it again and see
if you agree.
--
Roland Perry

In message <su31k5$s57$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:49:09 on Thu, 10 Feb
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>The much trickier job with Crossrail was hand-excavating the large stations
>under central London (I think they used NATM). That needs a much larger,
>highly skilled workforce than the small teams operating TBMs. HS1, HS2, and
>TL did not need such skills. One previous project that did, and which came
>a cropper, was the HEx station adjacent to Terminal 3.

Yes the HEx station thing was spray-concrete, just like much of
Crossrail.

I get the feeling the techology was more in a hope-over-experience
category, than established.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 11:51:08 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <su0tnb$atl$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:30:19 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> There's plenty of indications that quite a bit of shine has been taken
>>>>> off.
>>>>
>>>> You keep trotting out that theory, but with zero evidence.
>>>
>>> Try searching for "value engineering", there are plenty of quotes.
>>
>>If you'd actually read the article, you'd know that was to improve the
>>efficiency of the construction, as should happen with any large engineering
>>project. No user visible deliverables were cut. So, your statement,
>>"There's plenty of indications that quite a bit of shine has been taken
>>off," is simply wrong.
>
>The same lighting and signage in the stations, rather than customised,
>is one example that leaps out from the reporting.

Shock, horror! That disastrous reduction in the spec is really going to upset the passengers. They will obviously be
disgusted to see common signage and lighting standards used in different stations. What an insult to their intelligence
and artistic sensibilities!

>
>I'm not surprised they didn't provide a detailed list in the overviews,
>because then people might have started to quibble (like they did with
>the scrapping of the toilets). There's probably lots of it in the
>thousands of pages of project documentation, but as you've clearly
>decided this is another of your "la la I can't hear you" threads, what's
>the point?
>
>>> Or is this now your turn to not be able to admit you are wrong?
>>
>>You've failed to provide any evidence to support your unfounded
>>allegations. So we already know who was wrong.
>
>You've decided to ignore the evidence, so it's not as clear-cut as that.

There is none.

>
>>>>> The design as it does implementing a mezzanine level, is further
>>>>> evidence that they made the two/four platform decision at the last
>>>>> minute.
>>>>
>>>> Why so?
>>>
>>> Because the escalators/lifts down to the mezzanine are independent of
>>> those from the mezzanine down to platform level.
>>>
>>> So you can get on with much of that, before deciding on the exact
>>> arrangement lower down.
>>
>>It sounds like the two-platform decision had already been made well before
>>then.
>
>To coin a phrase "you have no evidence for that". Whereas I've provided
>evidence that the four-platform (actually four *lines*, two island
>platforms) decision was only a last minute compromise to get the
>funding. The fit-out was done really quickly after that decision, so by
>any measure the decision was quite late in the process.
>
>Unless I'm mistaken, what they probably did was just build the platforms
>either side of the existing though-running lines, so not even any extra
>signalling let alone pointwork.

Yes, I think that's correct, though there obviously was signalling for the platforms when built.

>
>If they'd planned for just two tracks it would have been easier to
>design it around a single island platform,

That's GCR-style station design is not the preferred approach these days.

> but luckily (if that's the
>right word) the mezzanine scheme would have allowed for any of the three
>possible layouts (two tracks with side platforms, one island, or two
>islands).

They only constructed the mezzanine when they already knew what platform layout had been constructed.

>
>But they'd have to have planned that ahead of the 2004 closure to build
>the station box and through-line it. (For the duration, trains from the
>north terminated in what's now the domestic HS1 platforms, although very
>much themselves a work in progress (the buffet was a portacabin on the
>track level concourse).

Yes, assuming that the four track approach was ever the plan, which it appears not to have been.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 15:01:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <su31k5$s57$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:49:09 on Thu, 10 Feb
>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>The much trickier job with Crossrail was hand-excavating the large stations
>>under central London (I think they used NATM). That needs a much larger,
>>highly skilled workforce than the small teams operating TBMs. HS1, HS2, and
>>TL did not need such skills. One previous project that did, and which came
>>a cropper, was the HEx station adjacent to Terminal 3.
>
>Yes the HEx station thing was spray-concrete, just like much of
>Crossrail.
>
>I get the feeling the techology was more in a hope-over-experience
>category, than established.

That was true when HEx was built, but the method is now much more proven.

In message <j6kgsmFjq0U1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:05:26 on Thu, 10 Feb
2022, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:

>At King's Cross - St.Pancras the greatest improvement, in my opinion,
>would be a passenger tunnel from the lower-level Thameslink platforms
>direct to the tube system. They aren't very far apart but at present
>you have to go up two levels, along a walkway crowded with Eurostar
>passengers and then down about the same distance. With a new tunnel
>the connection time for passengers might be reduced from about 8
>minutes to 2 or 3.
>
>I gather that there is a small river in the way, but diverting that
>shouldn't be beyond the reach of modern civil engineering.

No, that river is a red herring. Subsequent detailed analysis and
mapping shows it was indeed diverted, round the north east of the box
and emerges from the footprint of the station complex under the new
entrance here https://goo.gl/maps/1oArjcWcFPNsnPcr6 and hence not in the
way of that interchange possibility.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <su31k5$s57$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:49:09 on Thu, 10 Feb
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>> The much trickier job with Crossrail was hand-excavating the large stations
>> under central London (I think they used NATM). That needs a much larger,
>> highly skilled workforce than the small teams operating TBMs. HS1, HS2, and
>> TL did not need such skills. One previous project that did, and which came
>> a cropper, was the HEx station adjacent to Terminal 3.
>
> Yes the HEx station thing was spray-concrete, just like much of
> Crossrail.
>
> I get the feeling the techology was more in a hope-over-experience
> category, than established.

Invented in 1957
<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Austrian_tunnelling_method>.

"The 1994 Heathrow Airport tunnel collapse led to questions about the
safety of the NATM. However, the subsequent trial blamed the collapse on
poor workmanship and flaws in construction management, rather than on the
NATM.[7]"

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 15:13:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <j6kgsmFjq0U1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:05:26 on Thu, 10 Feb
>2022, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
>
>>At King's Cross - St.Pancras the greatest improvement, in my opinion,
>>would be a passenger tunnel from the lower-level Thameslink platforms
>>direct to the tube system. They aren't very far apart but at present
>>you have to go up two levels, along a walkway crowded with Eurostar
>>passengers and then down about the same distance. With a new tunnel
>>the connection time for passengers might be reduced from about 8
>>minutes to 2 or 3.
>>
>>I gather that there is a small river in the way, but diverting that
>>shouldn't be beyond the reach of modern civil engineering.
>
>No, that river is a red herring. Subsequent detailed analysis and
>mapping shows it was indeed diverted, round the north east of the box
>and emerges from the footprint of the station complex under the new
>entrance here https://goo.gl/maps/1oArjcWcFPNsnPcr6 and hence not in the
>way of that interchange possibility.
>
AFAIR from an Eagle-style cutaway drawing** published a few years ago
(and possibly still lurking somewhere on the internet) there is quite
a bit of miscellaneous subterranean crap (not just railways) in the
way in and around the front of Kings Cross station and the River Fleet
was a relatively minor problem.

** Definitely not No.5 in -
https://www.netcredit.com/blog/cutaway-london-inside-famous-landmarks/

In message <su3ll8$hl9$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:31:04 on Thu, 10 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <su31k5$s57$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:49:09 on Thu, 10 Feb
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>> The much trickier job with Crossrail was hand-excavating the large stations
>>> under central London (I think they used NATM). That needs a much larger,
>>> highly skilled workforce than the small teams operating TBMs. HS1, HS2, and
>>> TL did not need such skills. One previous project that did, and which came
>>> a cropper, was the HEx station adjacent to Terminal 3.
>>
>> Yes the HEx station thing was spray-concrete, just like much of
>> Crossrail.
>>
>> I get the feeling the techology was more in a hope-over-experience
>> category, than established.
>
>Invented in 1957
><https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Austrian_tunnelling_method>.
>
>"The 1994 Heathrow Airport tunnel collapse led to questions about the
>safety of the NATM. However, the subsequent trial blamed the collapse on
>poor workmanship and flaws in construction management, rather than on the
>NATM.[7]"

Clearly not a fail-safe technology then.

--
Roland Perry

In message <gmmb0hphe5lhji95qmpa02us3kg8nrbpvp@4ax.com>, at 04:03:46 on
Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 15:13:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <j6kgsmFjq0U1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:05:26 on Thu, 10 Feb
>>2022, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
>>
>>>At King's Cross - St.Pancras the greatest improvement, in my opinion,
>>>would be a passenger tunnel from the lower-level Thameslink platforms
>>>direct to the tube system. They aren't very far apart but at present
>>>you have to go up two levels, along a walkway crowded with Eurostar
>>>passengers and then down about the same distance. With a new tunnel
>>>the connection time for passengers might be reduced from about 8
>>>minutes to 2 or 3.
>>>
>>>I gather that there is a small river in the way, but diverting that
>>>shouldn't be beyond the reach of modern civil engineering.
>>
>>No, that river is a red herring. Subsequent detailed analysis and
>>mapping shows it was indeed diverted, round the north east of the box
>>and emerges from the footprint of the station complex under the new
>>entrance here https://goo.gl/maps/1oArjcWcFPNsnPcr6 and hence not in the
>>way of that interchange possibility.
>>
>AFAIR from an Eagle-style cutaway drawing** published a few years ago
>(and possibly still lurking somewhere on the internet) there is quite
>a bit of miscellaneous subterranean crap (not just railways) in the
>way in and around the front of Kings Cross station and the River Fleet
>was a relatively minor problem.
>
>** Definitely not No.5 in -
>https://www.netcredit.com/blog/cutaway-london-inside-famous-landmarks/

I have quite a few drawing of proposed reconstruction of the tube
footways between the Subsurface platforms and the Piccadilly/Northern
Line (thus obsoleting the up-and-over connection via the Khyber Pass).
But they didn't go ahead with it.

However, the western end of the Northern Line platforms are only just
over 100m from the southern end of the Thameslink platforms, and the
only plausible explanation I've seen is they didn't want to have to
introduce/operate a gateline.

Admittedly the Victoria and Piccadilly platforms are even further east,
the whole length of the Northern platforms, plus another hundred yards.

The other lost opportunity was failing to provide a lift from the MML
concourse down to at least the Thameslink Mezzanine. The route via the
escalators in the main shed is quite a detour, and for wheelchair users
to the nearest lift even further.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:44:40 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <gmmb0hphe5lhji95qmpa02us3kg8nrbpvp@4ax.com>, at 04:03:46 on
>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 15:13:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <j6kgsmFjq0U1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:05:26 on Thu, 10 Feb
>>>2022, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
>>>
>>>>At King's Cross - St.Pancras the greatest improvement, in my opinion,
>>>>would be a passenger tunnel from the lower-level Thameslink platforms
>>>>direct to the tube system. They aren't very far apart but at present
>>>>you have to go up two levels, along a walkway crowded with Eurostar
>>>>passengers and then down about the same distance. With a new tunnel
>>>>the connection time for passengers might be reduced from about 8
>>>>minutes to 2 or 3.
>>>>
>>>>I gather that there is a small river in the way, but diverting that
>>>>shouldn't be beyond the reach of modern civil engineering.
>>>
>>>No, that river is a red herring. Subsequent detailed analysis and
>>>mapping shows it was indeed diverted, round the north east of the box
>>>and emerges from the footprint of the station complex under the new
>>>entrance here https://goo.gl/maps/1oArjcWcFPNsnPcr6 and hence not in the
>>>way of that interchange possibility.
>>>
>>AFAIR from an Eagle-style cutaway drawing** published a few years ago
>>(and possibly still lurking somewhere on the internet) there is quite
>>a bit of miscellaneous subterranean crap (not just railways) in the
>>way in and around the front of Kings Cross station and the River Fleet
>>was a relatively minor problem.
>>
>>** Definitely not No.5 in -
>>https://www.netcredit.com/blog/cutaway-london-inside-famous-landmarks/
>
>I have quite a few drawing of proposed reconstruction of the tube
>footways between the Subsurface platforms and the Piccadilly/Northern
>Line (thus obsoleting the up-and-over connection via the Khyber Pass).
>But they didn't go ahead with it.
>
>However, the western end of the Northern Line platforms are only just
>over 100m from the southern end of the Thameslink platforms, and the
>only plausible explanation I've seen is they didn't want to have to
>introduce/operate a gateline.
>
>Admittedly the Victoria and Piccadilly platforms are even further east,
>the whole length of the Northern platforms, plus another hundred yards.

I wonder if there's a reluctance to have such a long underground passageway? Are there safety implications? At the
very least, I suppose there would have to be moving walkways.

>
>The other lost opportunity was failing to provide a lift from the MML
>concourse down to at least the Thameslink Mezzanine. The route via the
>escalators in the main shed is quite a detour, and for wheelchair users
>to the nearest lift even further.

Yes

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:30:41 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <su3ll8$hl9$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:31:04 on Thu, 10 Feb
>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <su31k5$s57$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:49:09 on Thu, 10 Feb
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> The much trickier job with Crossrail was hand-excavating the large stations
>>>> under central London (I think they used NATM). That needs a much larger,
>>>> highly skilled workforce than the small teams operating TBMs. HS1, HS2, and
>>>> TL did not need such skills. One previous project that did, and which came
>>>> a cropper, was the HEx station adjacent to Terminal 3.
>>>
>>> Yes the HEx station thing was spray-concrete, just like much of
>>> Crossrail.
>>>
>>> I get the feeling the techology was more in a hope-over-experience
>>> category, than established.
>>
>>Invented in 1957
>><https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Austrian_tunnelling_method>.
>>
>>"The 1994 Heathrow Airport tunnel collapse led to questions about the
>>safety of the NATM. However, the subsequent trial blamed the collapse on
>>poor workmanship and flaws in construction management, rather than on the
>>NATM.[7]"
>
>Clearly not a fail-safe technology then.

Sloppy workmanship can cause problems with any construction method.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <su3ll8$hl9$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:31:04 on Thu, 10 Feb
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <su31k5$s57$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:49:09 on Thu, 10 Feb
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> The much trickier job with Crossrail was hand-excavating the large stations
>>>> under central London (I think they used NATM). That needs a much larger,
>>>> highly skilled workforce than the small teams operating TBMs. HS1, HS2, and
>>>> TL did not need such skills. One previous project that did, and which came
>>>> a cropper, was the HEx station adjacent to Terminal 3.
>>>
>>> Yes the HEx station thing was spray-concrete, just like much of
>>> Crossrail.
>>>
>>> I get the feeling the techology was more in a hope-over-experience
>>> category, than established.
>>
>> Invented in 1957
>> <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Austrian_tunnelling_method>.
>>
>> "The 1994 Heathrow Airport tunnel collapse led to questions about the
>> safety of the NATM. However, the subsequent trial blamed the collapse on
>> poor workmanship and flaws in construction management, rather than on the
>> NATM.[7]"
>
> Clearly not a fail-safe technology then.
>

Neither is using a TBM <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastatt_Tunnel>

Neither is any construction method if not done properly (see Gerrards
Cross).

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 13:05:26 +0000, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu>
> wrote:
>
> <Major Snip, promoted to Lieutenant-Colonel>
>
>>
>> At King's Cross - St.Pancras the greatest improvement, in my opinion,
>> would be a passenger tunnel from the lower-level Thameslink platforms
>> direct to the tube system. They aren't very far apart but at present
>> you have to go up two levels, along a walkway crowded with Eurostar
>> passengers and then down about the same distance. With a new tunnel
>> the connection time for passengers might be reduced from about 8 minutes to 2 or 3.
>>
>> I gather that there is a small river in the way, but diverting that
>> shouldn't be beyond the reach of modern civil engineering.
>
> OT (as usual) but the reverse appears to be a problem in Lisbon.
>
> There's a TV series out of Quebec called "Waterfront Cities of the
> World". A recent episode related that a major earthquake devastated
> the Portuguese capital over 200 years ago... and the re-building
> technique supposedly involved supporting structures on wooden piles
> placed deep within the water table's whatever (soil/sand/clay).
>
> Along came a recent extension of the Lisbon Metro which, according to
> the presenter spouting the program's research, has blocked
> replenishment of the water table by the Tagus River.
>
> The program claims this has resulted in drying of the wooden piles and
> crumbling support for stuff above... but with no hint of remedial
> action.
>
> The *wet pile* approach sounds like an early version of Wellington,
> NZ's approach of lead/rubber bearings under buildings to absorb
> earthquake shocks.
>

Interesting; presumably that'd be the most recent extension near water,
which was opened in 2007.

The Wikipedia page <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_Metro> has a
great animated timeline map
<https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Metro_Lisboa_timeline.gif> but
makes no mention to crumbling buildings; though it does mention other
problems experienced "On 19 December 2007, after 11 years of construction,
the final 2.2 km (1.4 mi)-long section of the Blue Line between
Baixa-Chiado and Santa Apolónia opened, with some controversy and many
successive delays due to the difficulty of construction. The segment was
originally slated to open in 2001, but in 2000, cracks were discovered in
the original tunnel that led to land subsidence. The consequent flooding of
the tunnel seriously slowed down the completion of work and road traffic at
the Praça do Comércio and part of the Avenida Infante D. Henrique was
forced to be closed temporarily while the new tunnel was constructed in its
place."

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <udaa0hp2bjlpt1pi6ug1jgdphru3fjmbfq@4ax.com>, at 15:11:08 on
Thu, 10 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 11:51:08 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <su0tnb$atl$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:30:19 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> There's plenty of indications that quite a bit of shine has been taken
>>>>>> off.
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep trotting out that theory, but with zero evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Try searching for "value engineering", there are plenty of quotes.
>>>
>>>If you'd actually read the article, you'd know that was to improve the
>>>efficiency of the construction, as should happen with any large engineering
>>>project. No user visible deliverables were cut. So, your statement,
>>>"There's plenty of indications that quite a bit of shine has been taken
>>>off," is simply wrong.
>>
>>The same lighting and signage in the stations, rather than customised,
>>is one example that leaps out from the reporting.
>
>Shock, horror! That disastrous reduction in the spec is really going
>to upset the passengers. They will obviously be
>disgusted to see common signage and lighting standards used in
>different stations. What an insult to their intelligence
>and artistic sensibilities!

The consequences are disjoint from the implementation.

There was a time when giving stations individual identities was regarded
as important. Different platform wall tiling for example. Was this
something we adopted from Paris, or re-invented for ourselves?

>>I'm not surprised they didn't provide a detailed list in the overviews,
>>because then people might have started to quibble (like they did with
>>the scrapping of the toilets). There's probably lots of it in the
>>thousands of pages of project documentation, but as you've clearly
>>decided this is another of your "la la I can't hear you" threads, what's
>>the point?
>>
>>>> Or is this now your turn to not be able to admit you are wrong?
>>>
>>>You've failed to provide any evidence to support your unfounded
>>>allegations. So we already know who was wrong.
>>
>>You've decided to ignore the evidence, so it's not as clear-cut as that.
>
>There is none.

"LA-LA, I can't hear you".

[StP Thameslink]

>>Unless I'm mistaken, what they probably did was just build the platforms
>>either side of the existing though-running lines, so not even any extra
>>signalling let alone pointwork.
>
>Yes, I think that's correct, though there obviously was signalling for
>the platforms when built.
>
It's all in-cab signalling I suspect, and you wouldn't need any extra
signalling just because there's an extra stop on a plain line.

>>If they'd planned for just two tracks it would have been easier to
>>design it around a single island platform,
>
>That's GCR-style station design is not the preferred approach these days.

Some of it on the Jubilee Line extension though.

>> but luckily (if that's the right word) the mezzanine scheme would
>>have allowed for any of the three possible layouts (two tracks with
>>side platforms, one island, or two islands).
>
>They only constructed the mezzanine when they already knew what
>platform layout had been constructed.

Now it's your turn to provide some evidence.

>>But they'd have to have planned that ahead of the 2004 closure to build
>>the station box and through-line it. (For the duration, trains from the
>>north terminated in what's now the domestic HS1 platforms, although very
>>much themselves a work in progress (the buffet was a portacabin on the
>>track level concourse).
>
>Yes, assuming that the four track approach was ever the plan, which it
>appears not to have been.

It absolutely was, as confirmed by others up-thread.
--
Roland Perry

In message <odsc0ht0it3vgktl9g9kops6jcub63qrgf@4ax.com>, at 14:26:07 on
Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>I have quite a few drawing of proposed reconstruction of the tube
>>footways between the Subsurface platforms and the Piccadilly/Northern
>>Line (thus obsoleting the up-and-over connection via the Khyber Pass).
>>But they didn't go ahead with it.
>>
>>However, the western end of the Northern Line platforms are only just
>>over 100m from the southern end of the Thameslink platforms, and the
>>only plausible explanation I've seen is they didn't want to have to
>>introduce/operate a gateline.
>>
>>Admittedly the Victoria and Piccadilly platforms are even further east,
>>the whole length of the Northern platforms, plus another hundred yards.
>
>I wonder if there's a reluctance to have such a long underground passageway? Are there safety implications? At the
>very least, I suppose there would have to be moving walkways.

You can't get much longer than the passageways from the Northern Ticket
Hall to Picc/Vic platforms (and on to the old KGX Thameslink station,
now just a part-time entrance/exit).

Then there's another from the Northern Ticket Hall to the Google
complex.
--
Roland Perry