On May 17, 3:48 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 17 May, 00:56, Mizter T wrote:

Not so quick - there is another reason, namely that North Quay will be
the worksite for the Crossrail station. The Canary Wharf Group (CWG)
can't begin construction of the new office development on North Quay,
which already has planning permission, until the Crossrail station box
has been finished - which it should be by summer 2012. So the shops
aren't the driving force here.

Ah, that makes sense.

So the station is CWG's 'baby', which perhaps explains the addition of
the four floors of retail (is this element really such a late addition
though?).

Yes. Original design with two separate islands (see drawing page 336):http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk...1.Environmenta...

Announcement of new design (July 2008):http://www.canarywharf.com/news/ns_news_t.asp?id=344

(it may have always been envisioned something might go in the middle,
but certainly it was only as an optional extra)

U

There's something else big happening in the Stratford area in 2012
(can't immediately think what...) which might feed a desire to get
worksites cleared away, retail open etc.
Tim

In message
, at
02:49:11 on Sun, 17 May 2009, Mizter T remarked:
Do they have to dig the tunnels that connect to the station first, or
does the station box come first?

The station box, by the looks of it - the construction of which was
kicked off on Friday at Canary Wharf (or at least that's what the PR
people would have you believe!) . From a construction POV I'd imagine
that sequencing the station box first can only make sense - not sure
it'd really be possible or at least easy to do it the other way round.

I'd have thought it would be easier to drive one TBM through the site
(twice if two tunnels) before the box was there. Otherwise you have two
disconnected tunnels to bore, and a machine to move from one side of the
box to the other.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:29:58 on Sun, 17
May 2009, John Rowland
remarked:
Do they have to dig the tunnels that connect to the station first, or
does the station box come first?

If they don't want the tunnels to flood, they'd better build the station box
first!

If they build a tunnel all the way through the site, why would that fill
up with water any more than the other bits of tunnel under other docks
and the river?

Or are you suggesting the tunnel isn't deep enough to be completely
under the dock - which would be very odd because the station box is
shorter than the dock.
--
Roland Perry

On May 17, 3:48*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 17 May, 00:56, Mizter T wrote:

Not so quick - there is another reason, namely that North Quay will be
the worksite for the Crossrail station. The Canary Wharf Group (CWG)
can't begin construction of the new office development on North Quay,
which already has planning permission, until the Crossrail station box
has been finished - which it should be by summer 2012. So the shops
aren't the driving force here.

Ah, that makes sense.

So the station is CWG's 'baby', which perhaps explains the addition of
the four floors of retail (is this element really such a late addition
though?).

Yes. Original design with two separate islands (see drawing page 336):
http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk...1.Environmenta...

Announcement of new design (July 2008):
http://www.canarywharf.com/news/ns_news_t.asp?id=344

(it may have always been envisioned something might go in the middle,
but certainly it was only as an optional extra)


Thanks for the info. I wonder if CWG's financial support for Crossrail
was contingent on being able to hitch this extra development into the
Crossrail station...

On May 17, 6:22*pm, TimB wrote:

On May 17, 3:48 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 17 May, 00:56, Mizter T wrote:
Not so quick - there is another reason, namely that North Quay will be
the worksite for the Crossrail station. The Canary Wharf Group (CWG)
can't begin construction of the new office development on North Quay,
which already has planning permission, until the Crossrail station box
has been finished - which it should be by summer 2012. So the shops
aren't the driving force here.

Ah, that makes sense.

So the station is CWG's 'baby', which perhaps explains the addition of
the four floors of retail (is this element really such a late addition
though?).

Yes. Original design with two separate islands (see drawing page 336):
http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk...1.Environmenta...

Announcement of new design (July 2008):
http://www.canarywharf.com/news/ns_news_t.asp?id=344

(it may have always been envisioned something might go in the middle,
but certainly it was only as an optional extra)

There's something else big happening in the Stratford area in 2012
(can't immediately think what...) which might feed a desire to get
worksites cleared away, retail open etc.

Hmm, whilst "ready by 2012" is the magic phrase in London planning, I
can't really see this being particularly connected - I think it's
really more to do with dovetailing in with the overall Crossrail
construction timetable.

In message , at 12:06:12
on Sat, 16 May 2009, remarked:
Having built on every scrap of land they are now building on the
old docks - so inconsiderate for someone to have dug them in the
first place.

Why? It's not as if the docks are required for shipping any more.

Having seen some more paperwork, it appears that the docks are also a
conservation area.
--
Roland Perry

On 17 May, 18:46, Roland Perry wrote:
I'd have thought it would be easier to drive one TBM through the site
(twice if two tunnels) before the box was there. Otherwise you have two
disconnected tunnels to bore, and a machine to move from one side of the
box to the other.

Quoth the horse:

"The plan is to have the SCL station platform tunnel primary lining
completed in advance of the arrival of the running tunnel TBMs. This
will allow the tunnel boring machinery to be slid through the
completed platform tunnels and re-start the running tunnel drive to
the next station."

http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk... 0Strategy.pdf

At Paddington (which is cut-and-cover, not SCL) they are planning to
build one of the running tunnels first, so that the earth from digging
the station box can be taken away to Royal Oak. At Isle of Dogs
there'll be no such shenanigans, as far as I know.

U

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...

Hanover Square / Tenterden St behind Oxford St / Oxford Circus is the
eastern exit point for Bond St Station. IIRC there is no physical link
to Oxford Circus tube station. Only in London could we fail to provide
such a link.

To provide such an interchange here would probably add so much to the cost
of the scheme that it would never happen. I limit my use of Oxford Circus to
the cross platform interchanges between the Victoria and Bakerloo lines, and
that's bad enough. The thought of adding a load of Crossrail passengers to
the scrum doesn't bear thinking about. It would make more sense to add an
interchange as part of a (much needed) rebuild of Oxford Circus station,
rather than trying to do it as part of Crossrail.

David A Stocks

In message
, at
12:36:40 on Sun, 17 May 2009, Mr Thant
remarked:
"The plan is to have the SCL station platform tunnel primary lining
completed in advance of the arrival of the running tunnel TBMs. This
will allow the tunnel boring machinery to be slid through the
completed platform tunnels and re-start the running tunnel drive to
the next station."

If that's the new plan, it differs from the one posted earlier today,
which describes the kind of discontinuity at the station that I was
assuming they would be trying to avoid:

"The tunnel drives westwards to Stepney Green are commenced from the
crossover area at the western end of the Isle of Dogs station box.
Assembly of the TBM will take three months at this location, with the
subsequent drive to Stepney Green taking ten months. Additionally, the
Isle of Dogs station box will be broken through at its eastern end by a
TBM completing its drive from the east, having been launched from
the Limmo Peninsula nine months previously. This TBM would then be
disassembled within the Isle of Dogs station box."
--
Roland Perry

On 17 May, 22:07, Roland Perry wrote:
If that's the new plan, it differs from the one posted earlier today,

Yes. They completely rethought the tunnelling strategy after protests,
and the crossover at Isle of Dogs has also been removed.

The document you quoted is from the original Environmental Statement
and hasn't been updated, although they have published four sets of new
documents that cover only the changes. The only way to work out what
the current plan is for anything to work backwards through all five
sets of documents to find the newest one that covers the detail
you're interested in (and people wonder why I quit blogging about this
stuff).

In any case, the tunneling strategy I just linked to is a current one.

U