Pan TfL Escalator Project Kings Cross Escalators 1 to 3 Kings Cross Escalator Replacement Options Feasibility Report Signature Date Prepared by Adam Thompson Project Manager Checked by I endorse this deliverable as the designated technical authority for the relevant engineering discipline and am accredited to do so. Faizel Williams Discipline Engineer Checked by John Fitzgibbon Lead Discipline Engineer L&E Checked by William Breslin Senior Planner L&E Sponsor Checked by Simon Galbraith Operations Representative Distributed to Stephen Miller Sponsor Document History Revision Date Summary of changes Version
Transcript
Pan TfL Escalator Project
Kings Cross Escalators 1 to 3
Kings Cross
Escalator Replacement Options
Feasibility Report
Signature Date
Prepared by Adam Thompson
Project Manager
Checked by I endorse this deliverable as the designated technical authority for the relevant engineering discipline and am accredited to do so.
1 Executive Summary The replacements of Kings Cross Escalators 1 & 3 are part of the Pan TfL Escalator replacement contract and are due to be replaced in a planned closure from 15th October 2014 and 12th March 2015. This report addresses whether the existing escalators can be replaced sequentially (one escalator at a time with two escalators left operational). Whether it makes sense to replace escalator 2 as part of escalator 1 & 3 replacement and outlines problems which may be encountered when replacing
2 Background Escalators 1 & 3 are APV PS-X type escalators with a rise of 5.64m incline of 30 degrees installed in June 1996 as part of escalator works initiated by the Kings Cross Fire. The escalator division of APV Baker was acquired by Kone in 1998 and stopped manufacturing in the UK, parts for APV escalators are now difficult to source. Between them is escalator 2 originally a fixed stair which was installed in September 2002 this escalator is not due to be replaced. Refurbishments were carried and completed on escalator 1 on 25th May 2012, escalator 2 on 18th April 2012 and escalator 3 on 28 October 2009
2.1 Boundaries Drawings of the new 520 escalators have been overlain on drawings of the existing escalators see figure 1 & 2 this shows that at the top concourse the new escalators will be 14mm shorter than the existing and at the lower concourse will be 51mm longer.
The tops of escalator 1 & 3 both have access doors close to their newels it is therefore good that the new escalators will not impede either access. However it is likely that the access to the UMC above escalator 1 will need to be to be moved to give access when the new HD metro escalators are installed as the truss comes further into the UMC and will block the stairs in the UMC. Over escalator 3 access the CER will be unaffected which is positive as sizeable structural elements would make moving the access complicated. Access to the CER will need to be maintained during works for maintenance.
Discussions with Station planning have indicated that the top concourse connecting to the Piccadilly line platforms, escalators 4-6 and stairs to the Victoria line has a number of none compliances with current station planning standards the marginal decrease in size will not impact these none compliances. In the case of Escalator 2 which has a comb line 367 mm longer than escalator 1 & 3 (3833 mm EWP to Newel wheel centre versus 3466mm) There would be an improvement in the none compliance however the run off would still not be compliant.
Figure 1. Comparison of existing escalator measurement with new Otis HD Metro (520) machine at upper concourse of Kings Cross Esc 1 & 3 showing a length of 3452 mm from the centre of the newel wheel to the Engineering Working Point for the new escalators and 3466mm for the existing.
Figure 2. Comparison of existing escalator measurement with new Otis HD Metro (520) machine atlower concourse of Kings Cross Esc 1 & 3 showing a length of 2524 mm from the centre of the newel wheel to the Engineering Working Point for the new escalators and 2473 mm for the existing
2.2 Escalator constructability Dependant on the configuration chosen the escalator truss will arrive on site in sections, delivered by train either from the Northern Line or the Piccadilly Line access from either platform is good and which line is eventually used will be determined by detail constructability design with Otis.
Delivery by train will impact when deliveries can be scheduled, it will be in engineering hours only and the size and number of deliveries will be governed by a number of factors, size of train, size of sections, train booking
Sequential installation of the escalators keeping two escalators operational whilst replacing one escalator is replaced will restrict the amount of storage on site
2.4.1 Surveys This is an approximate amount as it will not be clear the extent of survey works required until detail design is started it is likely to be similar whether 2 or three escalators are installed and whether the escalators are installed at one time or one after the other.
2.4.2 Removal of Machinery The removal of machinery cost is based on the cost for these works at Charing Cross these escalators are smaller therefore will cost less to remove but additional cost will be incurred because access to the site is more complicated.
2.4.3 ROM (Civils) As with removal of machinery additional cost is incurred because of limited access to site because installation of these escalators was relatively recent the removal of supporting concrete plinths is less than the comparative Charing Cross.
2.4.4 UTS/Connect/Power PFI No cost is anticipated for a power upgrade or work moving or tempory works to the gate line. There maybe works involved with the leaky feeder but there are monies allowed elsewhere for communications
2.4.5 Permanent Lighting & Power Additional cost has been allowed for the sequential installation of lighting and power
2.4.7 Fire enabling works Fire enabling will be more complicated for sequential installation with a separate installation for each phase of works costs shown allow for this.
2.4.8 Temporary lighting & power As with fire enabling allowance has been made for additional temporary work related to
2.4.9 Premises and general building Cost has been allowed for the more extensive premises and related building work for the installation of three escalators
2.4.10 Hoardings & temporary works Hoarding and temporary works will be more complicated for sequential installation
2.4.11 Communications
2.4.12 Mechanical (incl. vent and Pumps and Drainage) It is not clear at this time what mechanical works will be involved
2.4.13 Sub Station/Power No cost ahs been allowed for costs related to a power upgrade
2.4.14 Engineering trains cost and number The number of engineering trains will be subject to detailed design and project planning additional trains have been allowed for sequential working because the limited storage will mean that each train can be used less efficiently.
2.4.15 Project Management The cost of project management has been adjusted according the length of the contract
2.4.16 Escalators Cost of escalators is the price listed in the TfL contract.
2.4.17 Risk 10% has been allowed for project risk
2.4.18 Lifetime costs It has not been possible to gain detailed information on the current cost of maintaining escalators 1 – 3 but from information provided the cost under the TfL contract would give a saving of £200k over ten years if escalator 2 was replaced and included in the 30 year TfL contract.
