In part 3 of our look at the plans for Bank station we described the continuing growth that is taking place there and the revised plans to handle this growth, including a work site at Arthur Street that will simplify the logistics and speed up the work.
This revised scheme was the brainchild of Dragados who were successful at securing the contract when bidding against three other applicants. It was not just the initiative of the worksite at Arthur Street that helped secure the contract. There were other pleasant surprises too. How much these depended on the Arthur Street worksite is not clear but the additional tunnelling time made available by this worksite and, we believe, the advantages of having the new running tunnel slightly further away from the line of route originally proposed probably helped.
Joining up is so very hard to do
Early on in the scheme it was recognised that connecting the new southbound running tunnel to the old one north of Bank was going to be a problem. This is due to the fact that a step-plate junction is not really possible for a number of reasons – mainly the proximity of the northbound tunnel above and the DLR below. In any case step-plate junctions tend to be a feature of tunnels with segmented-lining and the plan was to use spray concrete techniques throughout. TfL may well have been hoping that at least one of the bids would show a proposed method of connecting the tunnels with only a short interruption.
The new connection of the southbound tunnel at the northern end. The tube in purple is the new southbound running tunnel. The northbound tunnel is directly above and the DLR almost directly below. The planned extra thickness of tunnel lining present for a short distance on the new (purple) tunnel is almost certainly to help spread the load under foundations present above that location. The short connecting passage with the original tunnel is there to assist construction whilst the diversion is implemented. Despite appearances it is expected that the new southbound tunnel will be slightly larger (4m) than the existing one.
Slightly disappointingly (but not surprisingly) no construction firm was prepared to commit to a step-plate junction at the northern end. One suspects that if there had been a recreation ground above instead of some of the most prestigious and most expensive historical buildings in the land then the options would have been different. Because a step-plate junction will not be used here there is no advantage in using this expensive method of construction at the southern end either.
The method that will now be adopted to join the new tunnel to the existing one involves filling the existing tunnel with foam concrete at the point of divergence. Then, approaching from the new tunnel, one of the remote tunnel digging vehicles will simply cut through with its sharp cutter. Apparently the cast iron segments will not be an issue as, although very strong in compression, the cast iron will offer limited resistance and will just get “chewed up” by the cutter.
Once Dragados was resigned to having to close the Bank station completely for a period of about four months they looked at how they could make the best use of this. They discovered that in fact they could get on with an awful lot of other work that involved line closure – such as building side passageways that would break out into the old southbound platform tunnel. With the advantage of the early start to tunnelling provided by the Arthur Street worksite, Dragados worked out that they could have the interchange facilities ready when the line was re-opened in August 2020. As we understand it, this includes fittings and fixtures such as new escalators. This would then just leave the Cannon Street entrance to be completed and fitted out in the following year.
The enhanced Central Line link
When TfL put the job out to tender the specification wasn’t actually for a passageway here and a passageway there, but was to achieve identified objectives such as the capability of allowing a certain number of passengers to interchange between the Central Line and the Northern Line. Dragados looked at the computer modelling of the original plan and weren’t overly confident that it would actually work. What they chose to propose instead was a completely revised route involving a long straight line passage and three new escalators to the Central Line avoiding the current passages completely. Any issues about the interchange being too long compared to the original route were dealt with by including a moving walkway within the long passage – as on the Jubilee line at Waterloo and installed in many places on the Metro in Paris.
The link from the Northern Line to the Central Line by a completely new route (in purple). Note that is does not rely on existing passageways. Unfortunately it is necessary to have a change in direction of more than 90° at the northern end of the moving walkway to get to the escalators. This is positioned in the bottom centre in the 3D plan and is partially hidden by one of the Central Line tunnels. The abrupt change in direction is a small price to pay for establishing this totally new link and the extra distance involved is mitigated by having the moving walkway and the convenience of escalators.
It does at first sight seem strange that Dragados could include a moving walkway where one was never present in the invitation to tender. Indeed it is believed that London Underground originally considered it as an option but dismissed it, due to it requiring a straight, and preferably level, tunnel. It appears that moving the southbound tunnel slightly westward made this physically possible and having the Arthur Street site made the logistics of the removing the additional quantity of soil more economically and logistically feasible.
DLR access
Access to the DLR at Bank has always been less than ideal and again Dragados seem to have been very bold. Passenger modelling borne out by reality checks of seeing what actually happened showed that few DLR passengers actually used the central part of the wide passageway in between the two platforms. Because DLR passengers at Bank tend to be regular passengers, they are already in the correct part of the train to secure a suitable entry or exit at the appropriate end.
Escalators from the Cannon Street entrance to the Northern Line. From there, there will be a further bank of three escalators to the DLR platforms. The route between the sets of escalators is not very direct but this is deliberate as it avoids issues of conflicting passenger flows.
Based on the above knowledge, Dragados argued that installing three escalators in the central part of the wide DLR passageway would be a much better use of the space that its current use as a wide occasionally-used passageway. Those who did currently use it as a passageway would still have an alternative route available via the platforms if the central portion of the passage was not available. These three escalators would provide easy access to the DLR from the base of the new escalators taking passengers from the Cannon Street entrance to the Northern Line level.
The icing on the cake when it comes to DLR access is direct access by lift from the Cannon Street entrance. The lift shaft involved was in fact a very tight fit. Once the outline of the scheme was decided upon, the exact position of this lift shaft was then determined and the rest of the plans were finalised so they took this into account.
It is also notable that Dragados have slightly relocated the Cannon Street entrance within the available working space (the worksite) so it is slightly east of where it was intended to be at the time that the tender was issued. This is partly down to the DLR lift shaft which, once fixed, meant that the escalators had to go one side or the other. The advantage of going slightly east is that the alignment of the escalators is much better and fits better into the scheme as a whole and helps make the additional escalators to the DLR a practical proposition. The disadvantage is that one loses the entrance from King William Street but, as stated in Part 3, that is no great loss.
A Bijou Entrance to Bank
A very small entrance. Most passengers will be regular users who will pass through the station entrance quickly so a larger entrance space is not necessary. For what one expects to be a busy entrance though, it will be small by modern standards.
One thing that is very noticeable from the supplied computer generated image of the Cannon St entrance is just how small it will be. Compare it for example with the future Walbrook entrance. Although the Cannon Street entrance will be large enough for its needs, it really is a compact minimalist site and there would not be enough space for a ticket office if one wanted to put one there – which obviously London Underground don’t. One forced concession that goes against modern best practice is that the entrance is located on the main road (Cannon Street) rather than a side road off it, but the alternative would be a much more unsatisfactory 90° turn at the top of the escalator.
A Temporary Site Accommodation Free Zone?
Another really neat idea from Dragados, which is so obvious when you think about it, is to not bother with demolishing office space only to the replace it with temporary accommodation. Instead some buildings on a part of the Cannon St entrance worksite will be retained as site offices. This will have the additional advantage of retaining a facade that has been identified as being of architectural value. Of course the offices may well be demolished at the end of the scheme before the land is handed back to a developer but that can be done when, as far as the public is concerned, the scheme is complete and so it would not be delay the opening of the upgraded station.
Taking the Heat Out
There are still exact details to be finalised and additions to be made to the scheme if a case for these can be made. One major area for more investigation is the possibility of heat extraction. This could be any combination of three methods.
The first method of removing heat, which is thought to be highly likely to be implemented, is heat extraction of a conventional nature to heat the replacement office developments that would be built above the new Cannon Street entrance. With the price of energy so high this would seem easy to justify on straightforward commercial grounds and would probably use conventional well-established technology. Unfortunately it may not do much for the Central Line platforms where the need is probably greatest.
The second method is groundwater extraction as done at Green Park station using two boreholes within Green Park itself. The work tunnels at Bank station will be large enough for it to have its own “source” and “sink” sufficiently far enough apart. What could scupper this idea is the fear of doing anything to affect the foundations of the surrounding buildings.
The third method is probably a long shot but Crossrail have developed some very innovative ideas to extract heat from the tunnel lining which the Bank project team are aware of. Unfortunately, as both time was against them and it was untested in the real world, it was thought too risky to include on Crossrail itself. The original method does presume concrete segments in the tunnel so it may not be suitable at this location and so, if it ever debuts at all, it will probably not make an appearance until Crossrail 2 is built.
You can never have too much space
A much less exciting and less dramatic further enhancement to the scheme is the possibility of inclusion of extra storage or other space within the final plans. Underground stations never seem to have adequate space for ancillary functions and Bank has been particularly problematic. With spray concrete lining it will be as easy as it can be to create additional rooms or other spaces should a suitable case be able to be made for it.
An Air of Optimism
There are other reasons for excitement and a positive feel from the project team. The first is the perceived lack of objections. Of course there are concerns that need to be addressed but the feeling in the city and from the public is that this project cannot come soon enough.
A second reason for optimism is seeing how well Crossrail is progressing, construction-wise, and Dragados is one of the main contractors involved with the project. The project team hope by getting started early with the contractors they can do better still. As a result of lessons learnt on Crossrail they are proposing to “embed” National Grid Gas and Thames Water teams into the joint construction team so there aren’t delays as utility pipes are encountered or supplies are required – not only does concrete requires a supply of clean water to mix it, there is also bound to be unwanted dirty contaminated water that needs getting rid of.
Onward to tackle Camden Town?
It is still early days but the project team feel that TfL are getting much better at putting forward their case for major schemes involving station rebuilds. Certainly if they had their time again they believe TfL would have presented their case for Camden Town differently. They would have also spent much longer anticipating and understanding the objections in advance of the public inquiry with a view to resolving as many as possible prior to it – anyone familiar with the original proposals for Camden would be aware of the sheer diversity of objections made to the scheme.
As has been indicated before, TfL are now in the process of the early stages of preparing a revised case for Camden Town. If a revised scheme there is approved and the money can be found for it then there should be nothing standing in the way of the long-desired complete split on the Northern Line. One has the feeling that TfL will prepare the Camden Town proposal very slowly, methodically and with determination. Bank will be good preparation for that. One is lucky when one gets two bites of the cherry – it would be a very optimistic person who thought there could be a third chance if the second one failed.
Next Steps
The next stage for the Bank Upgrade is for the project team to arrange test borings and prepare a draft Transport and Works Act Order. The latter should be sent for approval in July 2014 according to the planned timetable. It is almost inevitable that, even if there are no objections to the scheme on principle, a scheme of this nature will have objections on the finer detail, lack of compensation or proposed extent of disruption during the construction phase. With this in mind the need for a public inquiry is seen as almost unavoidable. Assuming a favourable outcome, work will not start until April 2016 and four years later a closure of around sixteen weeks will take place to bring the new southbound tunnel and platform into use.
Looking at the proposals for Bank station and the final outcome, however, it does all seem to be good news. There is a significant downside though and that is the need to close the station completely for around four months. When we eventually get around to part five we will look at the issues involved in closing Bank station in 2020.
When will Part 5 be published?
Joe Flores,
I abandoned part 5 because everyone started speculating on how the closure would be handled. It seemed a bit pointless to bother to subsequently write about it – especially as at the time it was a bit speculative. Hence my earlier comment about not publishing part 5.
In any case it is almost superfluous as so much has happened since then and many details have been made public. Furthermore the public inquiry is currently taking place. Normally I trawl through public inquiry documents but there as so many I leave it as an exercise for the reader. If you are interested in more then set a day aside and follow this TfL link.
Walked past a sign today (just north of London Bridge) which said that TfL have started doing enabling works for the upgrade
The latest TfL Commissioner’s Report includes commentary on the Bank upgrade and the public inquiry.
The following is a quote from the report
The Secretary of State held a public inquiry into our application and this closed on 30 April after sitting for 10 days.
The Inspector’s final closing statement included the following observations:
‘There now remain eight objections and two representations. In contrast, there are 21
letters of support, including the Corporation of London (CoL), within whose area the scheme would be carried out, as well as from each of the 12 local authorities through whose areas the Northern line passes. In respect of highways, there is no objection from either the strategic highway authority or the local highway authority. There is no objection from the Environment Agency or any other regulatory body. Indeed, there is support for the scheme from Historic England.
A notable feature of the Inquiry is that there has been no challenge to LU’s evidence,
with no parties availing themselves of the opportunity to cross-examine LU’s eight
witnesses and no party appearing at the Inquiry to present evidence. This is remarkable for a complex engineering project in a constrained environment, and with a construction period lasting several years. It is not unreasonable to infer that, taken together with the extent of support, the absence of any challenge to LU’s evidence reflects a widespread recognition that this is the right scheme to meet a compelling need.’
A decision is expected by the end of 2015. If the Secretary of State gives permission, work would start in 2016 and be completed in 2021.
That looks reasonably positive then.
Work could start in 2016
I noticed this morning Arthur Street has been temporarily closed and that the wire mesh fencing on Arthur Street is sporting London Underground & Dragados logos so it looks like they were keen to start investigating rather sooner than 2016.
They’re moving cables and pipework prior to any real construction.
because they can do that without waiting for the Transport and Works Act approval to be given.
Does the wording of the public inquiry report quoted above imply good project (stakeholder) management by the project team in addressing any potential concerns up front? If so then a good lesson to be taken to other projects, particularly in the light of some comments made about Network Rail in the recent past!
CDBrux,
It is hard to tell but the opinion I got was that this was an exceptionally well prepared TWA application. The consultation meetings had senior people present that really wanted to enthuse about the project as well as having 3D models and walkthroughs and loads of other graphics. Follow-up emails got answered which is certainly not always the case. Clearly they were also aware that they had to tread carefully in the City of London. It was also interesting talking to them about where the original Camden Town TWA application went wrong. I think they now understand they need to be an order of magnitude more thorough and treat all concerns seriously. I also detected a total absence of a “we know best” attitude that can potentially irritate objectors (and the planning inquiry inspector).
PoP
I also detected a total absence of a “we know best” attitude …
Indeed – LBWF have just been “had” by some of theor own councillors over just that smug attitude to a planning-proposal, referred to elsewhere … they’ve had to call a n other consultation meeting, because said councillors raised hell, having been on the recieving end from their constituents. (!)
I wonder if the council officialdom will learn this time?
Because this is a general lesson, for all “authorities” everywhere.
Good to see that TfL at least, seem to have taken this on-board.
@greg/poP
“I also detected a total absence of a “we know best” attitude …”
A lesson which perhaps should be attended to by their customer services people, especially in the bus department, where patronising responses to queries about seemingly illogical decisions are still the norm.
(Is it really so silly to suppose that a direct bus route from the busiest railway station in London* to the closest part of the Square Mile would be quite useful?)
(*Oh, silly me, SWT is a figment of my imagination – it’s not on the Tube map)
@ Timbeau – having done battle with Surface Transport a long while back when I was a LU employee it took about 4 rounds of ever more pointed letter writing before someone twigged that they weren’t dealing with “Mr Ranting Pleb”. In the end I was not at all convinced I had been listened to but the final response was sufficiently “pointed” that I was likely to have the thumb screws applied within the TfL organisation. I knew the then Head of Consultation! The issue concerned the loss of route 73 north of Stamford Hill where TfL quite simply refused to accept there was any case or benefit from retaining the link. This despite the fact that it was well used and provided a very useful backup when the Victoria Line fell over. The issue was clearly one of cost savings overriding everything else not that that was ever admitted.
I have had more recent issues with the W11 service in my local area where two sets of replies from TfL (on the same issue) completely contradicted each other which struck me as rather stupid. I gave up trying to explain the “bleedin’ obvious” to people who seemed unable / unwilling to understand. The second issue is one that I’m still fuming over and I have yet to decide what to do next in terms of escalation.
The fundamental problem is that TfL do not consider passengers to be “stakeholders”. While there is more involvement these days via the online Consultations process there is little openness as to what is being considered or discussion of a range of options. There is a widely held view that public consultation only takes place after TfL have already decided what to do [1]. There also seems to be “disdain” for anything that the poor souls who use the buses might think. I can understand officialdom being “weary” about the more loony rantings they may get from a minority of people but that doesn’t explain or justify the poor attitude that is sometimes displayed in responses to the public. Things could be done far, far better than they are.
[1] I imagine this issue will erupt shortly in South London where TfL have decided to proceed with their changes in New Addington. There was considerable opposition to a new service serving Purley Downs Road and also a removal of a route in Forestdale with the loss of local links and halving of frequency. For the sake of balance there was also some support for the new Purley Downs Road service. Despite those views being made and local councillor concerns nothing has changed. I expect there will now be more vocal opposition and local campaigns against TfL’s decision.
European Investment Bank …
£1 billion ( I assume £1*10^9 ) for London transport investment/infrastructure projects.
Here …
Seeing as Greg has revived this thread I might as well mention that utilities diversions have begun in earnest at Arthur Street. The works look more substantial than they are because there is an adjacent office redevelopment going on a the same time. If I recall correctly there is a “Delays until 2020” roadsign. Of course utility works don’t require Transport & Works Act Order approval so they can get ahead by getting on with these – this always was the plan.
According to the latest Operational and Financial Performance and Investment Programme Reports, which is a lot more interesting than it sounds, “a decision is expected from the Secretary of State later in the year”.
@Greg
“I assume £1*10^9”
I read that as £1 10s 9d ! Which is probably what it will be worth by the time TfL finish their paper excercises and decide to actually buy some shovels.
Re Timbeau,
Tfl have been shovelling for several months already – see my comment above on 30 June 2015 at 17:45.
Other equipment may so be conveniently be available soon after finishing on Crossrail (along with the people to use it).
Hi ho hi ho it’s off to Bank we go. The Secretary of State for Transport has approved the TWAO for Bank’s reconstruction.
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/december/major-upgrade-of-bank-tube-station-gets-the-green-light-for-work-to-begin
Well that’s one of the most important schemes off the starting blocks (for building works).
And won’t come a moment too soon!
Well now we have the Bank Station upgrade getting underway ( demolition and site clearance is already underway next to west side of London Bridge at its northern end) the next London Mayor will need to look at the Central Line platforms and how to improve them and provide step free access to Central line . I take it installing a lift with the new escalators from Northern to Central Line was not possible especially given awkward platforms Central Line has at Bank.
Melvyn,
Are you sure about the work getting underway? I think that is a completely unrelated redevelopment of an adjacent site.
Pedantic
There’s signs from TfL at the north part of London Bridge that say the work is prep work for the Bank upgrade
D-Notice,
Yes. But I am virtually certain that refers to diversion of utilities not any demolition.
Remember they only got TWAO powers today so it is hardly likely that they started before then. In any case if you read the inspector’s report (I am one of those sad people that actually reads these documents) you will have noticed paragraph 2.27 on page 14.
There is no reference to any other work being authorised and I believe that you need planning permission (or a TWAO or an Act of Parliament) nowadays to demolish a building.
The demolition of the building surrounded by Arthur Street, King William Street & Upper Thames Street isn’t part of the Bank Station work.
The site owners were looking to redevelop anyway (late ’80s building with poor use of space) and have taken advantage of the timing of the utilities works (Arthur Street closed) before the Station works as it couldn’t work on their site concurrently with the station works so had to go before or after.
The building caught fire very early in the demolition:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-bridge-closed-after-fire-breaks-out-at-nearby-building-site-9821936.html
ngh, Pedantic, et al,
The Arthur Street worksite is indeed for utility diversion works to allow the Arthur Street shaft to be sunk. This shaft will allow the new southbound running and platforms to be built from this site and will create a separate worksite from the Whole Block Site which will be used to construct the new Cannon St station entrance.
The site adjacent to the Arthur St site is 33 King William Street and is indeed separate to the BSCU works.
Regards,
Joe Flores.
Pedantic of Purley 18 December 2015 at 23:06
” I believe that you need planning permission”
Not usually, unless it is on the list of buildings of Architectural or Historic Interest, in a Conservation Area or covered by an Article 4 Direction suspending the General Development Order.
Of course, in the City of London and in the case of many railway buildings, some of these might well apply.
Noting all the above comments around the Arthur Street worksite and the not-directly-related 33KWS redevelopment, I certainly wonder if the coinciding of the two is a help or a hindrance. Have any opportunities in the design or work programme been missed or identified because of this ?
Stuart,
I am pretty sure that the developers of 33 King William St were one of the major objectors and it took a lot of discussion before they agreed to withdraw their objection. So undoubtedly there would have been a lot of interaction between the parties. Whether opportunities were identified or missed I could not say.
Thinking about the new improved link passageways, particularly between Central and Northern, will they leave all the existing routes open as well, or will there be a certain amount of rationalisation going on?
IIRC there were diagrams somewhere inside these pages ( i.e. L-R as a whole) showing the layout – but they seem to have vanished, or I’m looking in the wrong place(s)
I think they showed that, effectively all existing passages will remain & there will be lots of new, larger ones, as well.
Greg,
Do you mean these?
@ Greg – I assume you mean the images at
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bankstation and then page down and select “More images and information” to see more images showing new tunnels, escalators etc for the planned rebuild.
@Greg, WW, Edgepedia: See also the documents from the public enquiry listed here, especially the non-technical summary document which has drawings of the existing and upgraded station. There was also a document in there somewhere going into quite a lot of detail about the reduced walking times (measured in seconds) on various routes within the station.
Hefty CPO in the Evening Standard last night, a total of some 158 distinct pieces of property (mostly basement I think) are required.
CPO Compulsory Purchase Order
@Southern Heights (Light Railway) – 16 August 2016 at 10:48
Hefty CPO in the Evening Standard last night, a total of some 158 distinct pieces of property (mostly basement I think) are required.
Amazing how many properties in the heart of the City have no known owner!
I was trying to find the list somewhere on the TFL web-site (or even the E.S. site), but I did find a drawing of the footprint…
Page 4 on this PDF shows it quite nicely….
John UK
Because of the way that the Land Registration Acts have been draughted,”Having no known owner” is not as dramatic as it sounds.
Believe me,that land is owned,and the owner knows that he/she/they own it,in 99% of such cases.
@ John UK property only gets registered with the Land Registry upon sale. If purchase took place before the Register commenced it will be recorded as no known owner. The Corporation of the City of London is one of the largest freeholders within the city limits and their acquisition of most of these properties took place centuries ago. I can confirm they are very aware of their property rights and watch for any potential encroachments like a hawk. Similarly the livery companies acquired their property a long time ago.
There is a new series of the C4 programme “hidden Britain by drone”, fronted by Tony Robinson. The episode broadcast this week included a sequence about the Northern Line new platforms, photographed from within the Bank worksite. Inevitably, given the audience the tv show is aimed at, some readers here may find the coverage a bit “lightweight”, but I found it fascinating. How many of us knew that some of the new tunnel is being dug by workers with nothing more sophisticated than a shovel!?
The Bank section is only a small part of the tv programme, to find the Bank section – skim forward to the end of the vignette filmed in Wentworth Woodhouse.
Should be available on “4player”. Health warning, if you have never used 4player, it can be infuriatingly awkward to use, not as easy as bbc iplayer.
Good to see the amount of progress to date …