HS2

[Siberian Snooper]

The crushing plant at Foster Yeomans Merehead Quarry tows an 11000 volt (I think, it is) cable around and caused a power outage when it walked on it back in the 80's.

 

 

[Foulounoux]

1 hour ago, Edwin_m said:

No real reason why electric plant should be more expensive to hire than diesel, other than that it hasn't yet attained economies of scale in production.  And going by electric cars I imagine it would be cheaper to operate.  There would be some extra cost to provide the power supply, but in a project like this it may be bringing forward part of the electrical work ultimately needed to supply the station.   

 

There is a lot of work going on 're electricifying such plant

 

Remember the hard work is done by hydraulics and use of accumulator means that the power source to the main hydraulic pump doesn't have to be that powerful.

 

A number of our major OEM clients are heading down the green fuel route quite rapidly.   

[GoingUnderground]

3 hours ago, melmerby said:

I think that is more correct.

More comprehensive, but I'd argue not more correct. I cited Cornwall as there have been various reports in the media about locals including fishermen & women (sorry i hate the genderless name "fishers") recently being priced out not only of housing but also waterside business premises as these are being bought and redeveloped into waterside "des res" with a correspondingly high selling price. Low and uncertain/unpredictable wages in the gig economy makes it impossible for some to buy anywhere, desirable or not. But I won't say more as this is bordering on the political.

[GoingUnderground]

4 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

I totally agree.

There are a number of examples of electric and hybrid powered machines being employed on the HS2 project.

The PR is full of it.

PR BS aside, it's all good.

The contractors love to wave their "green credentials" to show them off though, ....understandable I suppose.

I've no idea if HS2 specify, or set the contractors targets or suchlike, in the contract awards, requiring them to introduce new, greener tech?

Still, I imagine there's a price to be paid and this new equipment is likely to be increasing the cost of the bids.

 

.

In major projects such as HS2, the cost of the plant and equipment will be included in the bid price no matter how it is powered if it can't be used for anything else. It would be financial suicide for the contractor otherwise. TBMs are a good example and are rarely removed but just used to cut a blind tunnel and then abandoned because it costs too much to disassemble and remove them, replace the worn components, and then keep them in usable codition in store until they can be used again. And TBMs tend to be electrically powered. So electrical power isn't something new on big construction projects.

[Zomboid]

4 hours ago, woodenhead said:

It's three screens and some controls, it's not an a380 simulator.

 

And this beats digging lots of holes in a real location just to fill them back in for no reason other than practice.  He's also less likely to go through a real pipe or cable whilst doing this, no animals harmed and no diggers damaged.

No diesel burned (or vastly less juice if they have an electric digger), comparatively tiny space needed (which could be anywhere, in a city centre office...) and much much easier to go back and repeat exercises for however many trainees they need to do it with.

[Ron Ron Ron]

34 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

In major projects such as HS2, the cost of the plant and equipment will be included in the bid price no matter how it is powered if it can't be used for anything else. It would be financial suicide for the contractor otherwise. .....

 

I think you've missed my point Keith.

My question, or rather, musing, was whether HS2 specified that the bidders (and winners) would be required to meet certain targets, or requirements for such plant?

In other words, it's a requirement of the contracts to meet tight emissions targets, or whatever the criteria happens to be?

It was just speculation on my part. Nothing more.

 

34 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

.....TBMs are a good example and are rarely removed but just used to cut a blind tunnel and then abandoned because it costs too much to disassemble and remove them, replace the worn components, and then keep them in usable codition in store until they can be used again.....

 

 

From what I've read and understand, the various TBM's being used along Phase 1, are being removed from the tunnels once they've completed their work.

At least one of them is being reused for a second tunnelling drive on the project.

 

The twin bores of the Long Itchington Wood Tunnel, will be created using just one TBM.

Apparently, once it has completed the first bore, it'll be dismantled and taken back to the starting portal, at the other end;  reassembled and will then dig the 2nd bore.

Presumably there will be some maintenance and refurbishment between digs?

......and before anyone asks, I've no idea why they don't reassemble it where it emerges, turned around to go back the other way.

 

Quote from HS2.....

"The 2,000 tonne tunnel boring machine will create a one-mile twin bore tunnel under Long Itchington Wood, preserving this ancient woodland.

It will take five months to dig the first bore of the tunnel, then it will be extracted at the south portal before being transported by road back to the north portal to commence the second bore." .

 

 

.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[corneliuslundie]

And yet at another site there are two TBMs side by side.

Certainly on some other projects the TBMs have been buried after use.

I suspect that it depends very much on the individual project and how easy it is to remove the TBM. On Crossrail I think some of the tunnelling ended at quite deep shafts, from which it might have been rather difficult to extract any large machine.

Anyway, you have to leave something for future archaeologists to puzzle over.

Jonathan

[jamie92208]

28 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

I think you've missed my point Keith.

My question, or rather, musing, was whether HS2 specified that the bidders (and winners) would be required to meet certain targets, or requirements for such plant?

In other words, it's a requirement of the contracts to meet tight emissions targets, or whatever the criteria happens to be?

It was just speculation on my part. Nothing more.

 

 

 

From what I've read and understand, the various TBM's being used along Phase 1, are being removed from the tunnels once they've completed their work.

At least one of them is being reused for a second tunnelling drive on the project.

 

The twin bores of the Long Itchington Wood Tunnel, will be created using just one TBM.

Apparently, once it has completed the first bore, it'll be dismantled and taken back to the starting portal, at the other end;  reassembled and will then dig the 2nd bore.

Presumably there will be some maintenance and refurbishment between digs?

......and before anyone asks, I've no idea why they don't reassemble it where it emerges, turned around to go back the other way.

 

Quote from HS2.....

"The 2,000 tonne tunnel boring machine will create a one-mile twin bore tunnel under Long Itchington Wood, preserving this ancient woodland.

It will take five months to dig the first bore of the tunnel, then it will be extracted at the south portal before being transported by road back to the north portal to commence the second bore." .

 

 

.

The answer will probably be that all the support infrastructure such as segment production, waste didposal, Nd other facilities will be at the start point, including the narrowcgauge supply trains etc.  On the channel tunnel, one TBM, the one that drove the French lanward tunnel was turned round but I think that was because the shaft at Sangatte had so much equipment in it by then they could no longer assemble and launch from there. The British TBM's are buried under thecrunning tunnels in mid channel and the French ones, were dismantled, leaving their circular shields as part of the tunnel lining.

 

Jamie

[phil-b259]

59 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

In major projects such as HS2, the cost of the plant and equipment will be included in the bid price no matter how it is powered if it can't be used for anything else. It would be financial suicide for the contractor otherwise. TBMs are a good example and are rarely removed but just used to cut a blind tunnel and then abandoned because it costs too much to disassemble and remove them, replace the worn components, and then keep them in usable codition in store until they can be used again. And TBMs tend to be electrically powered. So electrical power isn't something new on big construction projects.

 

Its normally only the cutting head which gets left - most of the cost of TBMs is in its associated tail or train which removes the muck and erects segments all of which can be dismantled and reused on other projects.

[melmerby]

According to the 'web one of the Channel Tunnel TBMs was later sold on ebay!

 

 

[Foulounoux]

Or you can turn a TBM into a Christmas display

 

This is one of the Channel Tunnel TBM heads on the roundabout near the French terminal

[Ron Ron Ron]

9 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

The answer will probably be that all the support infrastructure such as segment production, waste didposal, Nd other facilities will be at the start point, including the narrowcgauge supply trains etc.  On the channel tunnel, one TBM, the one that drove the French lanward tunnel was turned round but I think that was because the shaft at Sangatte had so much equipment in it by then they could no longer assemble and launch from there. The British TBM's are buried under thecrunning tunnels in mid channel and the French ones, were dismantled, leaving their circular shields as part of the tunnel lining.

 

Jamie

Unlike the Channel Tunnel project, the HS2 TBM’s are being recovered.

There is information available online, detailing where the drives commence and end and where the ten TBM’s being used are being removed.

With the HS2 London tunnels, I understand the TBM’s are going to be dismantled and removed through the large access and ventilation shafts, just like on Crossrail.

 

The twin bores of the Northolt tunnel, from West Ruislip to OOC will be dug in 2 sections, meeting at the Green Park Way ventilation (and construction access) shaft.

4x TBM's will be used on these 4 bore drives and they will be removed in sections, through the Green Park Way shaft.

 

I can’t remember offhand, what happens with the 2x TBM’s at the end the last drive, heading east from a launch at OOC, until they emerge at the Euston approaches.

 

On Crossrail, there were 8x TBM's used, but there were 10x separate tunnel drives.

That's because 2 of the TBM's (Jessica and Ellie) were dismantled after their first use on reaching Stepney Green, brought to the surface and transported to be re-used on another section, starting at Limmo Peninsula in Canning Town.

 

On at least one Crossrail tunnel drive, the cutting heads were cut up below ground, before removal, but the rest of the machines were dismantled, removed and returned to the manufacturer to be recycled.

The last Crossrail TBM, Victoria, was brought up in sections from 40 metres below the surface at Farringdon, in 2015.

 

 

 

.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[corneliuslundie]

Thanks I either misremembered or last saw any news of the Crossrail TBMs before they had been dismantled. Or perhaps the cutting up of the cutting heads was misreported.

The question then is what you do with un employed TBMs. Are they ever suitable for the next job, like a JCB would be, or are they so specific to the project that they are little further use?

I must say I like the idea of them being for sale on eBay. Do you think my debit card would cover the cost?

Jonathan

[melmerby]

28 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

I must say I like the idea of them being for sale on eBay. Do you think my debit card would cover the cost?

Jonathan

Putting a bit of a damper on that, I found largish purchases on debit cards now get investigated by FCA as part of money laundering procedures. (presumably unless it is normal for the account)

I tried to pay for my latest car using a debit card and it was refused on the grounds that the amount was over the FCA limit, with the previous car I did pay for it using a debit card and it was a similar amount.

[Edwin_m]

I read somewhere that the manufacturer will take back used TBMs, as presumably they are in the best position to re-use them if a contract comes up for something suitable.  The cutter heads are bigger than the eventual tunnel so can't just be removed bodily the way they came in, so often end up bein buried or cut up on site.  Much of the rest of the TBM is probably re-useable unless worn out, perhaps even on a machine of a different size or specification.  

 

TBMs can be re-used on the same project, as mentioned for Crossrail.  The main factor is the length of tunnel which determines the excavation time, and how critical that is to the overall project.  So a long tunnel will probably have a TBM for each bore, or even start from both ends with a total of four TBMs as with the Crossrail central area.   At Long Itchington there is only one TBM for the two bores, which will create the first one then be dismantled and returned to the start to dig the second one.  That's preferable to turning it round, because either would involve dismantling and reassembling, and the segment supply and spoil disposal is at the launch end so can be re-used for the second bore.  

[Fat Controller]

1 hour ago, Edwin_m said:

I read somewhere that the manufacturer will take back used TBMs, as presumably they are in the best position to re-use them if a contract comes up for something suitable.  The cutter heads are bigger than the eventual tunnel so can't just be removed bodily the way they came in, so often end up bein buried or cut up on site.  Much of the rest of the TBM is probably re-useable unless worn out, perhaps even on a machine of a different size or specification.  

 

TBMs can be re-used on the same project, as mentioned for Crossrail.  The main factor is the length of tunnel which determines the excavation time, and how critical that is to the overall project.  So a long tunnel will probably have a TBM for each bore, or even start from both ends with a total of four TBMs as with the Crossrail central area.   At Long Itchington there is only one TBM for the two bores, which will create the first one then be dismantled and returned to the start to dig the second one.  That's preferable to turning it round, because either would involve dismantling and reassembling, and the segment supply and spoil disposal is at the launch end so can be re-used for the second bore.  

At least one of the Channel Tunnel TBMs was subsequently reused on one of the tunnels on the Northern ring-road in Lyon; I met the man who 'drove' it. Others were driven into the tunnel floor, and had the upper-works gas-axed off.

[Ron Ron Ron]

4 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

I read somewhere that the manufacturer will take back used TBMs, as presumably they are in the best position to re-use them if a contract comes up for something suitable......

 

 

The manufacturer Herrenknecht, took back the Crossrail TBM's and recycled parts, sub-systems and subcomponents for use on other machines.

The same manufacturer has provided the TBM's for HS2 phase 1.

 

 

4 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

.....So a long tunnel will probably have a TBM for each bore, or even start from both ends with a total of four TBMs as with the Crossrail central area.   .......

 

As you say, 4 of the 8 Crossrail TBM's dug the central section tunnels.

Phyllis and Ada launched from the Royal Oak portal, west of Paddington (3 months apart), heading east and arriving at Farringdon 17 months later (again, 3 months apart).

They were then dismantled and lifted out in sections, through the huge shaft.

 

Meanwhile, a few months after the first two set off, Elizabeth and Victoria launched from Limmo Peninsula in East London, heading west.

These two set off only 10 days apart, arriving at Farringdon 15 days apart, some 16 months after Phyillis and Ada (which had been removed a year before).

They were also dismantled there, making it  4 TBM's that were removed from the Farringdon shaft.

 

.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[Fat Controller]

15 hours ago, melmerby said:

According to the 'web one of the Channel Tunnel TBMs was later sold on ebay!

 

 

That was the one that was outside the exhibition centre at Cheriton.

[jamie92208]

24 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

That was the one that was outside the exhibition centre at Cheriton.

Yes that was lifted up a shaft near Cheriton and taken to the exhibition centre. The one from the the other running tunnel was being lifted, all 500 tons if it; but got dropped and caused a measurable  earthquake in the area. The one on display at Sangatte, is, I believe the landward French service tunnel  one.

 

Jamie

Edited June 9, 2021 by jamie92208

[Pandora]

As construction progresses, and if the HS2 project construction costs are subject to amendment  in the future.

Here is the statement by Michael Byng

 

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/21457/pdf/

Edited June 10, 2021 by Pandora

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Pandora said:

As construction progresses, and if the HS2 project construction costs are subject to amendment  in the future.

Here is the statement by Michael Byng

 

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/21457/pdf/

That's an unresolvable file name.

It doesn't have a valid extension, it needs to end ".pdf"

 

Effectively it is a file named "pdf" without an extension

If when you download it you add ".pdf" you can open it

Edited June 10, 2021 by melmerby

[black and decker boy]

On 08/06/2021 at 21:50, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

I think you've missed my point Keith.

My question, or rather, musing, was whether HS2 specified that the bidders (and winners) would be required to meet certain targets, or requirements for such plant?

In other words, it's a requirement of the contracts to meet tight emissions targets, or whatever the criteria happens to be?

It was just speculation on my part. Nothing more.

.

Yes, HS2 have set in their contracts very very onerous emissions limits. All city centre works for example have to meet the clean air / air pollution zone limits but HS2 have used the same for all areas.

 

This is driving the use of renewables (solar panels to power offices & welfare), hybrid and electric heavy plant, use of biofuels and a whole array of cutting edge stuff. HS2 is by its actions, changing the industry for the better.

[corneliuslundie]

I had no problem opening it without actually downloading it.

I hope is engineering is better than his English. Several statements are very mangled.

In at least two cases his financial statements are also nonsense.

 In August 2019, Mr. Allan Cook, the Chairman of HS2 Limited, in his Stock Take report suggested that the costs were as high as £88 billion, an increase of £32.30 billion or 157.98% high than the figure offered 9 month previously by his Chief Executive Officer.

The figure of 157.98% is completely spurious. There is an in crease but it is actually from £55.2 billion to £88 billion so 37% by my reckoning.

The total cost is directly comparable with the Government Funding Envelope announced by the then HS2 Minister, Nus Ghani MP, in 2019 and appears to be £72.51 bn or 230.18% over budget.

Gibberish. How can even his highest estimate be 230% over budget? £128 billion compared with £66 billion is not even 100% over budget.

While I am concerned if it is true that HS2 has been working without detailed engineering estimates, I am more concerned that if he can make these errors in an important report it is not possible to place any reliance on his calculations.

Incidentally, since he has a whole string of clients with an interest in the project, how can he state at the end:

"4 I confirm that I have no conflicts of interest"

Jonathan

 

[jamie92208]

I'm afraid the Mr Byng has not covered himself in glory in his opposition to the project. He has worked for Chris Packham I believe that he producmed some of Packham's evidence. Much of Packhams evidence drew rather scathing comments from the judges. I am choosing my words carefully.

 

Jamie

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

I had no problem opening it without actually downloading it.

 

Jonathan

 

Not sure how you have done that as the filename is incomplete and it shouldn't open.

I've tried all sorts of ways to open it and the only way is to download it and modify it.

I end up with a file named "pdf" which is correct for the address given in the link but there is no file extension, so it wont open unless you add one e.g. make it "pdf.pdf"