http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5100/5447417148_dea821d7dd.jpg

Proper link is : http://www.flickr.com/photos/27662830@N02/5447417148/

:)

Just had a look at those floor plans of the terminus posted in an earlier thread.

How to? ....I don't know... but presumably if it were to be phased approach in the very beginning, the whole layout would have been very different. Nevertheless, there wouldn't be many options for the platform layout. I may suggest to split the platform floor at the line SL, and then develop the upper floors accordingly.

So Phase 1 would be the long haul platforms, and Phase 2 would be the shuttle platforms. During Phase 1 operation, some of the long haul platforms could also operate shuttle trains........something like this.

Any transport planner here in this forum who would like to give a view?

Where exactly is the footprint of the "top-side development"? Can't find it on those floor plans. But presumably if the platform layout of both phases are fixed, then the piles of the above ground structure could be positioned accordingly to enable construction of the platforms in later years.

I suppose the current overall layout is the optimal (unless you can suggest another one otherwise better), then to change to a less optimal one because of saving cost of an uncertain amount is really that make sense?

How much cost can be saved (as compared to the existing total cost) if you only not to build some of the platforms or some part of the underground floors themselves, but you still need to build all the reserved structures of the to-be-built platforms and floors, and you need also to consider to minimise the interruption to the buildings above as well as West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD) and the residential and roads nearby when you start building those things after all the topside structures have already been used?

To look into details, on top of the shuttle platforms and those parts of the other floors, there will be 3 levels of roads and part of the WKCD. You're really sure if only reserved piles are built, you will not affect these overground structures when you build the shuttle platforms and those parts of the other floors later? Or to demolish the already-built 3 levels of roads and that part of WKCD and turning them back to mega construction site again?

I highly doubt the feasibility and significance of such suggestion, given it is a mega underground structure (supposingly the largest underground rail station in the world). It would be better if you can quote similar examples to proof if it really works.

For topside property development please refer to the doc below:

http://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/tc/plan_application/Attachment/20100330/s16fi_A_K20_113_3_gist.pdf

I suppose the current overall layout is the optimal (unless you can suggest another one otherwise better), then to change to a less optimal one because of saving cost of an uncertain amount is really that make sense?

The cuurent layout may be optimal in the context of the development strategy being adopted, i.e. develop the terminus site in one go. What I have said is to adopt a different strategy (i.e. phased development) and hence it would result in another sets of optimal designs under a different strategy.


How much cost can be saved (as compared to the existing total cost) if you only not to build some of the platforms or some part of the underground floors themselves, but you still need to build all the reserved structures of the to-be-built platforms and floors, and you need also to consider to minimise the interruption to the buildings above as well as West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD) and the residential and roads nearby when you start building those things after all the topside structures have already been used?


I am not able to quantify the saving and it also depends on whether you you look at capital cost only, or the operational and maintenance costs, carbon footprint, etc.

As mentioned in previous paragraph, the layout of terminus and the top-side development would be built around a strategy different from the currently adopted one, and hence I guess the "reserved structures" could be minimized by clever planning and engineering design.

I have to emphasize that a different development strategy is being considered here, and so you may see a phased top side development, such that minimum "reserved structures" is needed.

To look into details, on top of the shuttle platforms and those parts of the other floors, there will be 3 levels of roads and part of the WKCD. You're really sure if only reserved piles are built, you will not affect these overground structures when you build the shuttle platforms and those parts of the other floors later? Or to demolish the already-built 3 levels of roads and that part of WKCD and turning them back to mega construction site again?

If the phased development factor is taken into consideration in the planning and design stage, there is no reason why those issues you mentioned cannot be overcome.


I highly doubt the feasibility and significance of such suggestion, given it is a mega underground structure (supposingly the largest underground rail station in the world). It would be better if you can quote similar examples to proof if it really works.

It is complicated, but is perfectly feasible. It's a matter of planning and engineering design. In MTR Diamond Station, it was originally designed to be able to expand sideways, and hence you can still see the station wall is comprised of half-caisson walls, that could be broken away easy should the sideway expansion scheme go ahead. The original MTR North Point Station was also expanded sideways for connection to TKO Line. The platforms of South Island Line Admiralty Station is built underneath underneath the existing Admiralty Station! The scale of the project isn't an engineering issue. In fact a larger area could indeed make the job easier.

So this kind of underground expansion is not uncommon in civil engineering world. Ask any engineer and he would tell you that it's feasible.

As mentioned in previous paragraph, the layout of terminus and the top-side development would be built around a strategy different from the currently adopted one, and hence I guess the "reserved structures" could be minimized by clever planning and engineering design.

Please elaborate your "clever" design, no "guess" please.

It is complicated, but is perfectly feasible. It's a matter of planning and engineering design. In MTR Diamond Station, it was originally designed to be able to expand sideways, and hence you can still see the station wall is comprised of half-caisson walls, that could be broken away easy should the sideway expansion scheme go ahead. The original MTR North Point Station was also expanded sideways for connection to TKO Line.

Please compare the scales and sizes of Diamond Hill Station (DIH) and North Point Station (NOP) with West Kowloon Terminus (WKT). Sideway extention of 2 platforms of a normal metro station is compariable to buiding a mega terminus with 6 platforms?

It is interesting for you to quote DIH as an example. Don't you know the reserved structure (i.e. the "half-caisson walls" you mentioned) of DIH will permenantly be abandoned as the newly designed DIH extension for Shatin-Central Link will not be built there? Do you know why? To utilise those reserved structure, MTR needs to temporarily close part of the Lung Cheung Road by phases for many years which will heavily affect the traffic and will not be acceptable by the public. So you think it is acceptable such situation to be happened near WKCD? Can you tell us how many cost will be wasted if such reserved structures will no longer be used? Why do you think it is justified given you don't even have an idea of how much cost is saved?

For NOP, do you know how the extention was built? What method they adopted? Can such method be adopted for WKT? Do you know some methods are only allowed for some types of soil? What is the type of soil under NOP and WKT? Are they the same? Do you know land around WKT is reclaimed land but NOP's is not? Have you considered these factors before making your comments?

So this kind of expansion is not uncommon in civil engineering world. Ask any engineer and he would tell you that it's feasible.

It seems that it should be your responsibility to ask an engineer to support your idea but not me.

The platforms of South Island Line Admiralty Station is built underneath underneath the existing Admiralty Station!


Admiralty Station (ADM) has a similar case with NOP. Certainly you can use 6 tunnel boring machines to build 6 tunnels and platforms on a level with hard rocks very deep under the original sea bed, and passengers need to take escalators/lifts to pass through 18 levels below ground to take the trains.

BTW, examples of NOP and ADM is not very relevant as the extensions are not built using reserved structure you suggested.

In fact a larger area could indeed make the job easier.

Please explain this sentence. I don't understand.

Longershanks is talking about whether so many platforms are needed, not whether the platforms should be built in phases. That, as I said, we will know someday.

I don't think a phased approach would be economically justifiable for this terminal, although in theory ANY project can be phased. A phased approach as suggested by ad50939 would require an almost complete detailed design of the entire structure which renders the first phase looking very expensive with the second phase looking very cheap. Normally a phased approach would be chosen when you could delay paying a significant enough portion of the total design fees.

Complications include (not exhaustively):
1. Road traffic disruptions
2. Extra overhead cost of equipment/labour
3. Prolonged period of noise and vibrations to nearby residents (2 periods instead of 1)
4. Rising construction material costs
5. Extra total carbon footprint due to construction phase restart
6. Impact/risk of damage on existing structure when ungoing terminal expansion
7. Impact on rail traffic within terminal
8. Economy of scale in constructing almost identical platforms
9. The need for another workable pedestrian flow within the station considering issues such as fire exits
10. More complicated logistics concerning construction material/waste movement

These are just a few points that readily come to my mind. That is not to say a phased approach is not feasible - we need to know the cost of "savings", but my opinion is that the "savings" would most probably be negative so I don't really see the merit of spliting the construction of this structure.

Just realised that ad50939 was saying IF the whole thing is designed with a phased approach in mind. Well then we probably won't have such an architectural masterpiece with a phased approach ;)

Just realised that ad50939 was saying IF the whole thing is designed with a phased approach in mind. Well then we probably won't have such an architectural masterpiece with a phased approach ;)

If a phased approach is adopted the only feasible solution I can think of is to build everything on the ground or even over the ground. It may result in another but probably even better architectural masterpiece (itself). Who knows? ;)

If it is a structure designed like the Guangzhou South Station definitely it can be built by phases with no doubt. I will be personally happy since I can see the CRH trains under the sun not under the ground :) But is this perferrable by general Hong Kong people when a mega area of open space is lost? Is it possible for WKCD to sacrifice part of its land for the rail terminus? Is it good for the landscape when we see another high building wall like the Kowloon Station development which is now avoided? God will know the answer.

If a phased approach is adopted the only feasible solution I can think of is to build everything on the ground or even over the ground. It may result in another but probably even better architectural masterpiece (itself). Who knows? ;)

If it is a structure designed like the Guangzhou South Station definitely it can be built by phases with no doubt. I will be personally happy since I can see the CRH trains under the sun not under the ground :) But is this perferrable by general Hong Kong people when a mega area of open space is lost? Is it possible for WKCD to sacrifice part of its land for the rail terminus? Is it good for the landscape when we see another high building wall like the Kowloon Station development which is now avoided? God will know the answer.

True to a certain extent! What I had in mind was WKCD by Foster, before and after, and purely from an architectural point of view ;)

Longershanks is talking about whether so many platforms are needed, not whether the platforms should be built in phases. That, as I said, we will know someday.

I don't think a phased approach would be economically justifiable for this terminal, although in theory ANY project can be phased. A phased approach as suggested by ad50939 would require an almost complete detailed design of the entire structure which renders the first phase looking very expensive with the second phase looking very cheap. Normally a phased approach would be chosen when you could delay paying a significant enough portion of the total design fees.

Complications include (not exhaustively):
1. Road traffic disruptions
2. Extra overhead cost of equipment/labour
3. Prolonged period of noise and vibrations to nearby residents (2 periods instead of 1)
4. Rising construction material costs
5. Extra total carbon footprint due to construction phase restart
6. Impact/risk of damage on existing structure when ungoing terminal expansion
7. Impact on rail traffic within terminal
8. Economy of scale in constructing almost identical platforms
9. The need for another workable pedestrian flow within the station considering issues such as fire exits
10. More complicated logistics concerning construction material/waste movement.

These are just a few points that readily come to my mind. That is not to say a phased approach is not feasible - we need to know the cost of "savings", but my opinion is that the "savings" would most probably be negative so I don't really see the merit of spliting the construction of this structure.

Point 3 & 9 - 100% agree.

Point 1 - Normally traffic disruption would be less if work sites are splilt i.e. you are taking less area at any given time frame.

Point 2, 4 and 8 - This has to be compared to the "crash cost" currently facing the project. Phased development can facilitate resource-levelling and could drive cost down. For example, you may need 100 sets of formwork to build columns for single phase, but may need just 50 sets if it were built in 2 phases because of re-use.

Point 5 - Believe that using less machines over a longer period must result in a smaller carbon footprint.

Point 6 & 7 - Not necessarily - MTR must know the ways on how to protect their own railway facilities. They have an abundance of this type of experience.

Point 10 - Shouldn't be serious as the work site is isolated from Phase 1.


The phased concept is just an idea of my personal taste. Those wise men in charge have different considerations (i.e. politics).

If a phased approach is adopted the only feasible solution I can think of is to build everything on the ground or even over the ground. It may result in another but probably even better architectural masterpiece (itself). Who knows? ;)

If it is a structure designed like the Guangzhou South Station definitely it can be built by phases with no doubt. I will be personally happy since I can see the CRH trains under the sun not under the ground :) But is this perferrable by general Hong Kong people when a mega area of open space is lost? Is it possible for WKCD to sacrifice part of its land for the rail terminus? Is it good for the landscape when we see another high building wall like the Kowloon Station development which is now avoided? God will know the answer.

I think a terminus built on ground, or above ground, if possible at all, wouldn't be a problem in itself from planning and architectural point of view. Just adopt the concept of the current design, i.e. to make to roof of the terminus accessible.

The real evils are those "top side" development! :devil:

You have got the classic example. What's the point to get Terry Ferrell to design Kowloon Station if the end product is to be totally surrounded and enclosed by blocks after blocks of arcades and high rises.

Please elaborate your "clever" design, no "guess" please.

Please compare the scales and sizes of Diamond Hill Station (DIH) and North Point Station (NOP) with West Kowloon Terminus (WKT). Sideway extention of 2 platforms of a normal metro station is compariable to buiding a mega terminus with 6 platforms?

It is interesting for you to quote DIH as an example. Don't you know the reserved structure (i.e. the "half-caisson walls" you mentioned) of DIH will permenantly be abandoned as the newly designed DIH extension for Shatin-Central Link will not be built there? Do you know why? To utilise those reserved structure, MTR needs to temporarily close part of the Lung Cheung Road by phases for many years which will heavily affect the traffic and will not be acceptable by the public. So you think it is acceptable such situation to be happened near WKCD? Can you tell us how many cost will be wasted if such reserved structures will no longer be used? Why do you think it is justified given you don't even have an idea of how much cost is saved?

I know the SCL. I just bring this up to illustrate that sideway expansion of basement has been around in the engineering field for ages. It is a demonstration of engineering feasibility. Whether the station is consequently expanded or not depends on other non-engineering factors, some of which you have mentioned.

It is a general misconception that large means complicated. This is not necessarily the case. Large in many cases merely means more repetitions of the same task.

And then, isn't there a section of a major road just been permanently closed due to the construction of terminus? So it is acceptable provided that a proper diversion scheme is in place.

Cost..... since you pop such question, could you tell me how many energy, cost and manpower are wasted for most part of the terminus which will be under-utilized? It is pointless to raise any question of this type in this forum!

For NOP, do you know how the extention was built? What method they adopted? Can such method be adopted for WKT? Do you know some methods are only allowed for some types of soil? What is the type of soil under NOP and WKT? Are they the same? Do you know land around WKT is reclaimed land but NOP's is not? Have you considered these factors before making your comments?

Yes, I know the method, blasting & mining, which was probably the hardest method in engineering field. This method is not applicable in the terminus site because the terminus station adopts a much easier method of "cut and cover" construction method, which involves much less geotechnical complications. No matter it is one platform expansion or 10 platform expansion, the issue is always at the one and only one interface wall with the existing station.

It seems that it should be your responsibility to ask an engineer to support your idea but not me.

It is not about responsibility.

I think a terminus built on ground, or above ground, if possible at all, wouldn't be a problem in itself from planning and architectural point of view. Just adopt the concept of the current design, i.e. to make to roof of the terminus accessible.

The real evils are those "top side" development! :devil:


Not really for the case of WKT. If everything is built on top of the ground (including the platforms, certainly) then part of the WKCD will be stolen. Ms. Eva Cheng will definitely be killed by Mr. Henry Tang if that is the case :bash:. Therefore this is not possible unless XRL/WKT was planned and unveiled well before WKCD.

The result is, at least the platform level needs to be underground. And according to the existing schedule, the part of WKT structure must be constructed and completed on/before 2012 in order to hand over the site to WKCD. Then it creates too many constraints for the design, construction phases, approach etc. of WKT.

And according to the current design of WKT, the topside property development only shares a relatively minor portion of area as compared to that for the whole terminus. And there are many parts of the terminus are highly incorporated with the 3 levels of road networks around.

You have got the classic example. What's the point to get Terry Ferrell to design Kowloon Station if the end product is to be totally surrounded and enclosed by blocks after blocks of arcades and high rises.

Kowloon Station is the worst example of that kind of "podium" style structure in my opinion. Worst of the worst.

I know the SCL. I just bring this up to illustrate that sideway expansion of basement has been around in the engineering field for ages. It is a demonstration of engineering feasibility. Whether the station is consequently expanded or not depends on other non-engineering factors, some of which you have mentioned.

I was always talking about the overall feasibility of WKT specifically, but not only engineering feasibility in ideal or irrelevant cases. No sensible conclusion can be made unless you consider all factors specifically for WKT.

And then, isn't there a section of a major road just been permanently closed due to the construction of terminus? So it is acceptable provided that a proper diversion scheme is in place.

The roads currently around WKT have 1 level but it will have 3 levels which will also be highly integrated with the structure of WKT. What can be adopted currently around WKT does not mean that it can be adopted in future WKT reasonably. Too complicated road diversion scheme also means a higher "cost" for your phased approach.

Yes, I know the method, blasting & mining, which was probably the hardest method in engineering field. This method is not applicable in the terminus site because the terminus station adopts a much easier method of "cut and cover" construction method, which involves much less geotechnical complications.

You can do a "blasting & mining" or "TBM" enough deep below an existing structure. Can you do a "cut and cover" under the existing structure without affecting it? It needs to be nothing on the ground to achieve this, right? Otherwise you will need to "cut away" WKCD, 3 levels of roads and the topside development?

Again, I am focusing on WKT specifically, not general engineering feasibility or possibility.

No matter it is one platform expansion or 10 platform expansion, the issue is always at the one and only one interface wall with the existing station.

Not that simple for the case of WKT given it has complicated road network and WKCD integrated, as well as those topside development. The "reserved structure" may need to be very close to the final and completed products in order to minimise the impact when you start constructing the second phase afterwards. The "reserved structure" will still be very costly and it also have a risk that they are finally not used and wasted. As a result your purpose of the phase approach will not be well achieved.

It is a general misconception that large means complicated. This is not necessarily the case. Large in many cases merely means more repetitions of the same task.

Here I am not thinking in a "general" way, I am always talking about WKT specifically. I certainly understand large does not necessarily mean complicated, but WKT is large and also complicated. Please address the issues faced by WKT specifically.

Cost..... since you pop such question, could you tell me how many energy, cost and manpower are wasted for most part of the terminus which will be under-utilized? It is pointless to raise any question of this type in this forum!

You were only suggesting a relative minor portion of WKT (i.e. only those 6 shuttle platforms area) which should be built in a later phase, in your previous article. How are you now saying that "Most part" will be under-utilized? Isn't that what we need to consider is all factors and balance all associated costs & benefits, and risks etc. between one-off approach and phased approach?

Why do you think it is pointless? Isn't that the authority needs also to consider all the factors to make a decision? Or you think it is enough for them to only consider "general" cases or only consider "engineering feasibility"?

Not really for the case of WKT. If everything is built on top of the ground (including the platforms, certainly) then part of the WKCD will be stolen. Ms. Eva Cheng will definitely be killed by Mr. Henry Tang if that is the case :bash:. Therefore this is not possible unless XRL/WKT was planned and unveiled well before WKCD.

That's why I said "a terminus". I was not referring to West Kowloon Terminus.

The result is, at least the platform level needs to be underground.

Good idea. I buy this concept.

Good idea. I buy this concept.

In general cases, yes. For WKT, probably not. The platform level needs to be that deep underground because of WKCD or other factors. It will be a waste of the underground spaces between the ground and the deep platform level if building other floors overground. It also unnecessarily lengthen the travel time between concourses and platforms.

Point 1 - Normally traffic disruption would be less if work sites are splilt i.e. you are taking less area at any given time frame.

All my answers here are based on the assumption that we are going to build this particular design. I was talking about phasing this particular terminal which even yourself couldn't find a way to phase develop this design and if there is no way of phasing the construction of the superstructure then there is no way of taking less area in the first phase.


Point 2, 4 and 8 - This has to be compared to the "crash cost" currently facing the project. Phased development can facilitate resource-levelling and could drive cost down. For example, you may need 100 sets of formwork to build columns for single phase, but may need just 50 sets if it were built in 2 phases because of re-use.

Point 2: The delivery cost of certain equipment alone costs a hell lot of money and you really don't want to have it redelivered a few times.
Point 4: I agree we don't know yet, but it doesn't look like material costs are going down does it?
Point 8: Using your example, renting 20 sets of formwork could be cheaper than renting 10 sets due to one-off delivery and, up to a certain point, economy of scale allows certain companies to give a slight "discount". Even if you are only renting 10 sets regardless whether you want it phased or not, you could juggle around with your platform construction time.

Point 5 - Believe that using less machines over a longer period must result in a smaller carbon footprint.

Machines already delivered on site does not mean they have to be used all the time. If you are going to bore 10 piles, you get a CFA piling machine in and bore 10 holes. Your assumption of smaller carbon footprint can only be correct if there is LESS total work to be done. A phased approach does not mean less total work.

Point 6 & 7 - Not necessarily - MTR must know the ways on how to protect their own railway facilities. They have an abundance of this type of experience.

I agree, but my point was that it is going to add extra cost/complications. E.g. You need somebody to assess whether an excavation may result in excessive soil movement.

Point 10 - Shouldn't be serious as the work site is isolated from Phase 1.

Some sites can be very difficult to deal with for work access and logistics. Depending on construction phases, sometimes our designers may forget that a works access may be blocked by the completion of phase 1 and it's up to contractors on site to discover.

I agree that this normally isn't too serious when it's a large site, but then again I was only saying it may be a complication and may result in higher costs.

Your assumption of smaller carbon footprint can only be correct if there is LESS total work to be done. A phased approach does not mean less total work.

In the contrary, a phased approach may tend to mean more total work, including but not limited to extra planning, consultation, asking for fund, dealing with objections, site setup and wrap up, delivery of machinery (as you suggested), designing and constructing of temporary / provisional / reserved structures which some of them may need to be looked as if they are "final" if public visible and accessible, but will be demolished / abandoned / re-constructed some years later when a second phase starts etc. Even for traffic diversion you need to divert and change back to normal and divert again and change back to normal again. More work not only means higher $ cost but also higher other indirect or social cost e.g. disturb to public, pollution etc.

In the contrary, a phased approach may tend to mean more total work, including but not limited to extra planning, consultation, asking for fund, dealing with objections, site setup and wrap up, delivery of machinery (as you suggested), designing and constructing of temporary / provisional / reserved structures which some of them may need to be looked as if they are "final" if public visible and accessible, but will be demolished / abandoned / re-constructed some years later when a second phase starts etc. Even for traffic diversion you need to divert and change back to normal and divert again and change back to normal again. More work not only means higher $ cost but also higher other indirect or social cost e.g. disturb to public, pollution etc.

or less if the projections of passenger numbers if far too ambitious and the final phase never gets built as per the additional platforms in Central for the Tung Chung line that have never been commissioned and probably never will.

or less if the projections of passenger numbers if far too ambitious and the final phase never gets built as per the additional platforms in Central for the Tung Chung line that have never been commissioned and probably never will.

I agree with the first part of your sentence given the extra structure is really not necessay forever, before the end of the world.

Probably a 10-20 year- period is long for a person's life but it is short for a piece of infrastructure. A reserved structure not being utilized for 10-20 years doesn't mean anything. One day it is required to be used, it is worthy to build. You are actually paying an amount with certainty to mitigate the future uncertain risks and impacts of not being able to built that extra structure which is finally considered necessary.

It also involves a question of incorrect forecasts and projections. Forecasts and projections are not always correct, for some cases it over-estimates and in other cases it under-estimates. There will be associated risks and impacts on such incorrect estimates / forecasts / projections. So what do you think for which one the risks and impacts are greater? Over-estimates or under-estimates? What are the risks and impacts in general and for the case of WKT?

Besides, Hong Kong Station is a wrong example. We are talking about constraints that may make WKT need to adopt a one-off approach while for the Hong Kong station there is a constraint that is making the station must adopt a phased approach. They are completely different in the reasons behind.

Please find out the "engineering feasibility" reason youself why the second reserved platform cannot be used. I am sure you can find out the answer yourself.

And please also double check whether you want to say is Airport Express line or Tung Chung line.

All my answers here are based on the assumption that we are going to build this particular design. I was talking about phasing this particular terminal which even yourself couldn't find a way to phase develop this design and if there is no way of phasing the construction of the superstructure then there is no way of taking less area in the first phase.

It is a prerequisite for the discussion that any alternative design must be associated with some kind of deviations, major or minor, from the original design.


Point 2: The delivery cost of certain equipment alone costs a hell lot of money and you really don't want to have it redelivered a few times.

Imagine if you need two machines for single phase scenario, and one for each phase for phased scenario, then the total delivery cost of equipment will end up the same.


Point 4: I agree we don't know yet, but it doesn't look like material costs are going down does it?

It could go either ways. Supply-and-demand issue. Some products tend to become cheaper over time as production scale increases over time.


Point 8: Using your example, renting 20 sets of formwork could be cheaper than renting 10 sets due to one-off delivery and, up to a certain point, economy of scale allows certain companies to give a slight "discount". Even if you are only renting 10 sets regardless whether you want it phased or not, you could juggle around with your platform construction time.

I have to disagree. Formwork are expensive and repetitive use of smaller number of sets should be cheaper than the other way round. One of the major consideration of a formwork contractor in preparing a bid for works is how many sets of formwork they need to provide.

Sudden surge in demand of certain resources could drive the costs of the resources up, such as cost of employing formwork workers, steel benders, engineers, etc. That's why I mentioned "crash cost". Resource levelling by phased approach could keep the resource cost at a more reasonabe level.


Machines already delivered on site does not mean they have to be used all the time. If you are going to bore 10 piles, you get a CFA piling machine in and bore 10 holes. Your assumption of smaller carbon footprint can only be correct if there is LESS total work to be done. A phased approach does not mean less total work.

In such case, I'd bring the operational phase carbon footprint into the equation. A smaller station must have smaller carbon footprint during initial operation.


I agree, but my point was that it is going to add extra cost/complications. E.g. You need somebody to assess whether an excavation may result in excessive soil movement.

This type of estimation is piece of cake for consultants nowadays.


Some sites can be very difficult to deal with for work access and logistics. Depending on construction phases, sometimes our designers may forget that a works access may be blocked by the completion of phase 1 and it's up to contractors on site to discover.

I agree that this normally isn't too serious when it's a large site, but then again I was only saying it may be a complication and may result in higher costs.

This shouldn't be a major issue, consider the size and its relatively uncongested vicinity.

In some ways the phased approach could reduce complication because you have an extra piece of land (i.e. phase 2 area) to do all the maneuvers such as traffic diversions, more storage space and less movement of materials around because of limited site area, etc.

It is a prerequisite for the discussion that any alternative design must be associated with some kind of deviations, major or minor, from the original design.

It adds value to the discussions if you can show us more about how you think about the alternative design. What we understand it is difficult to cope with the integrated 3 levels of roads and WKCD.

In such case, I'd bring the operational phase carbon footprint into the equation. A smaller station must have smaller carbon footprint during initial operation.

To build everything at the beginning does not mean that you need to operating them all during initial operation. You can switch off the lights, escalators etc. for platforms not in use or only used for parking spare trains. I do not mean that the operating costs will be the same but you can still find some ways to reduce and minimise these costs as much as possible.

In some ways the phased approach could reduce complication because you have an extra piece of land (i.e. phase 2 area) to do all the maneuvers such as traffic diversions, more storage space and less movement of materials around because of limited site area, etc.

What we are focusing on is the complications in phase 2 but not phase 1.

In the contrary, a phased approach may tend to mean more total work, including but not limited to extra planning, consultation, asking for fund, dealing with objections, site setup and wrap up, delivery of machinery (as you suggested), designing and constructing of temporary / provisional / reserved structures which some of them may need to be looked as if they are "final" if public visible and accessible, but will be demolished / abandoned / re-constructed some years later when a second phase starts etc. Even for traffic diversion you need to divert and change back to normal and divert again and change back to normal again. More work not only means higher $ cost but also higher other indirect or social cost e.g. disturb to public, pollution etc.

You mentioned and emphasized several times in your post "reserved structures". I'm just interested to know what sort and to what extent these reserved structures are. If you could enlighten me. If it is reserved, why it is needed to be demolished.

1. It adds value to the discussions if you can show us more about how you think about the alternative design. What we understand it is difficult to cope with the integrated 3 levels of roads and WKCD.

2. To build everything at the beginning does not mean that you need to operating them all during initial operation. You can switch off the lights, escalators etc. for platforms not in use or only used for parking spare trains. I do not mean that the operating costs will be the same but you can still find some ways to reduce and minimise these costs as much as possible.

3. What we are focusing on is the complications in phase 2 but not phase 1.

1. I could do some sketches.

2. This might help. But if it could be shown that building it later is not that complicated and costly, why not?

3. Phase 1 will be more complicated than Phase 2. Phase 2 is merely an underground annex to Phase 1.

You mentioned and emphasized several times in your post "reserved structures". I'm just interested to know what sort and to what extent these reserved structures are. If you could enlighten me. If it is reserved, why it is needed to be demolished.

If the reserved structures are very close to the final and completed one then it may not need to be demolished but there will be no point to adopt a phased approach since very little costs can be saved as compared to the one-off approach.

Otherwise if they are very temporary structure such as only piles as you previous suggested then I am looking for your explanations how you can turn these piles into six platforms and tracks without affecting or even demolishing other structures on top of the platform level which have well been completed and are already in use, including the 3 levels of underground roads, WKCD and probably the topside property.

It is a prerequisite for the discussion that any alternative design must be associated with some kind of deviations, major or minor, from the original design.


No idea what you meant... :(


Imagine if you need two machines for single phase scenario, and one for each phase for phased scenario, then the total delivery cost of equipment will end up the same.


Contractors price their delivery with an overhead so often it's cheaper to deliver two machines in one go than to deliver one machine twice. To take it to the extreme, delivering ONE plane compactor 10 times is more expensive than delivering 10 plane compactors on the same truck once.

It could go either ways. Supply-and-demand issue. Some products tend to become cheaper over time as production scale increases over time.


Most construction materials don't.

I have to disagree. Formwork are expensive and repetitive use of smaller number of sets should be cheaper than the other way round. One of the major consideration of a formwork contractor in preparing a bid for works is how many sets of formwork they need to provide.

Sudden surge in demand of certain resources could drive the costs of the resources up, such as cost of employing formwork workers, steel benders, engineers, etc. That's why I mentioned "crash cost". Resource levelling by phased approach could keep the resource cost at a more reasonabe level.

I think the whole idea is over-simplified. Notice how I used the word "could", i.e. depending on where and what you need. I guess using your example wasn't a good idea. Perhaps I should say, referring back to point 8, that it's easier for workers to construct a few near-identical steel cages than to construct one, go away, forget what happened, come back, and to construct another one.

Another example is when your total concrete needed is 250 cubic metres on 10 platforms, each needing 25 cubic metres, and you wanna construct 10 platforms separately, then you need:
50 standard 6m^3 truckloads or 40 8m^3 truckloads, giving (6+6+6+6+1)x10=250 or (8+8+8+1)x10=250.
Constructing the whole thing in one go gives:
42 standard 6m^3 truckloads or 32 8m^3 truckloads


In such case, I'd bring the operational phase carbon footprint into the equation. A smaller station must have smaller carbon footprint during initial operation.

Possible, but if you're talking about not switching on that few platforms of escalators then I'm not so sure...

This type of estimation is piece of cake for consultants nowadays.

Sorry to say, it costs money.

This shouldn't be a major issue, consider the size and its relatively uncongested vicinity.

In some ways the phased approach could reduce complication because you have an extra piece of land (i.e. phase 2 area) to do all the maneuvers such as traffic diversions, more storage space and less movement of materials around because of limited site area, etc.

As I already said, yes this doesn't tend to be a big problem but still, once phase 1 is in use there is bound to be more road traffic than at present which you will agree.

I'm not talking about complications in phase 1 I mean phase 2...

1. I could do some sketches.

We are looking forward to that.

2. This might help. But if it could be shown that building it later is not that complicated and costly, why not?

Please show us how it is not that complicated

3. Phase 1 will be more complicated than Phase 2. Phase 2 is merely an underground annex to Phase 1.

Phase 1 is built on a big site with nothing, but Phase 2 is "an underground annex" which have completed and in-use structures (underground roads and WKCD) on top of it. So you really think that Phase 2 is less complicated?

1. I could do some sketches.

2. This might help. But if it could be shown that building it later is not that complicated and costly, why not?

3. Phase 1 will be more complicated than Phase 2. Phase 2 is merely an underground annex to Phase 1.

1. Cheers that may ease our wordy conversation...
2. If it could be shown that building it later is not costly, then yes it's nice. My view is that this is not going to be the case, unless you're looking for a possibility to abandon the remainder of the works.
3. Soil mechanics is probably not as easy as you think :cheers:

Contractors price their delivery with an overhead so often it's cheaper to deliver two machines in one go than to deliver one machine twice. To take it to the extreme, delivering ONE plane compactor 10 times is more expensive than delivering 10 plane compactors on the same truck once.


Scenario 1 (Single phase)
Need 2 piling rigs to work at the same time in order to finish within the fixed timeframe. So 2 deliveries total.

Scenario 2 (2 phases)
Need 1 piling rig to work for each phase to finish the work. Also 2 deliveries total.

This is what I meant.


Most construction materials don't.

It's hard to tell, especially for human/labour resource, which is a big item in the bill.


I think the whole idea is over-simplified. Notice how I used the word "could", i.e. depending on where and what you need. I guess using your example wasn't a good idea. Perhaps I should say, referring back to point 8, that it's easier for workers to construct a few near-identical steel cages than to construct one, go away, forget what happened, come back, and to construct another one.

Another example is when your total concrete needed is 250 cubic metres on 10 platforms, each needing 25 cubic metres, and you wanna construct 10 platforms separately, then you need:
50 standard 6m^3 truckloads or 40 8m^3 truckloads, giving (6+6+6+6+1)x10=250 or (8+8+8+1)x10=250.
Constructing the whole thing in one go gives:
42 standard 6m^3 truckloads or 32 8m^3 truckloads

Another possibility is that you have to employ ten gangs to work, given the fixed timeframe, and each of them just build one cage and is then dismissed.

On the arithmetic....how about building 5 at a time? So that 125 cu m in two phase would fill up 42 trucks in total, same as the case of building 10 altogether.

Or, if we scale up the quantum. Say 2500 cu m. Building it altogether would need 417 truckloads; building it in 10 phases would take 420 truckloads. So the difference will narrow if the quantity with increasing quantity.

In fact, as mentioned before, there is no need to analyse the issue quantitatively. Suffice just to bring forward relevant factors and arguments that worth consideration, I suggest.

Possible, but if you're talking about not switching on that few platforms of escalators then I'm not so sure...

In that case, I'd suggest phased development could enable introduction of the latest energy-efficient technology in the later phase, thus further reducing the total carbon footprint.

Sorry to say, it costs money.
This will be a very very minor percentage of the total project cost.

As I already said, yes this doesn't tend to be a big problem but still, once phase 1 is in use there is bound to be more road traffic than at present which you will agree.
The West Kowloon is just too spacious a site could be.

I'm not talking about complications in phase 1 I mean phase 2...
Phase 2 is just as complicated, kif not simpler, as Phase 1 or doing all in one phase, in my opinion. Difficult to elaborate here further.

All my answers here are based on the assumption that we are going to build this particular design.

The alternatives to what was decided are wide and varied - asking for a detailed plan is very difficult thing to ask.

Making the thing simpler and 50% of the size would be a good start - but I expect to be shot down because the plan is not as detailed as the $67b plan from the Government that is resourced by hundreds of engineers .

If the reserved structures are very close to the final and completed one then it may not need to be demolished but there will be no point to adopt a phased approach since very little costs can be saved as compared to the one-off approach.

Otherwise if they are very temporary structure such as only piles as you previous suggested then I am looking for your explanations how you can turn these piles into six platforms and tracks without affecting or even demolishing other structures on top of the platform level which have well been completed and are already in use, including the 3 levels of underground roads, WKCD and probably the topside property.

Cost-saving is part of the consideration. Uncertain business environment (uncertain patronage outlook and market competition) is the driving reason to adopt a prudent approach to this capital project.

The West Kowloon is just too spacious a site could be.


Yes currently. But probably not when you already have phase 1 and the complicated road network completed which will also attract more traffic, as well as when WKCD should have been completed at that time.

Phase 2 is just as complicated, kif not simpler, as Phase 1 or doing all in one phase, in my opinion. Difficult to elaborate here further.

It is in violation of what we think for the case of WKT. It is disappointed that you are not able to elaborate further. I originally supposed you could at least say some words about the factors of 3 levels of road network and WKCD. I am actually not asking for a very detailed alternative plan.

The alternatives to what was decided are wide and varied - asking for a detailed plan is very difficult thing to ask.


I am not surprised that you'd never go into details when making your comments as ever.

Cost-saving is part of the consideration. Uncertain business environment (uncertain patronage outlook and market competition) is the driving reason to adopt a prudent approach to this capital project.

Cost-saving is not only a part, but also an important part.

If your prudent approach cannot save cost in a significant manner, there is no point to adopt it, given the risks and impacts of over-prudence may be higher.

Unless you can demonstrate us the cost-saving of your phased approach is significant, your suggestion does not seem justifiable.

I was always talking about the overall feasibility of WKT specifically, but not only engineering feasibility in ideal or irrelevant cases.....

1. Engineering principles are same everywhere despite of varying setting of sites. Applying, adpating and customising the key principles tried in previous cases and resolve the minor details particular to the site have always been and will remain the way of work throughout the construction field. That's the reason why "job references" are so important in the construction field.

2. The cases quoted are all RELEVANT. The key principles of those projects can be applied in a phased alternative WKT.

......
Can you do a "cut and cover" under the existing structure without affecting it?

There will be a SCL station that will be built this way.




You were only suggesting a relative minor portion of WKT (i.e. only those 6 shuttle platforms area) which should be built in a later phase, in your previous article. How are you now saying that "Most part" will be under-utilized? Isn't that what we need to consider is all factors and balance all associated costs & benefits, and risks etc. between one-off approach and phased approach?

Because, by a casual inspection of the plans, it is convenient to cut those shuttle platforms out for building in a later stage without affecting the overall planning.

Why do you think it is pointless? Isn't that the authority needs also to consider all the factors to make a decision? Or you think it is enough for them to only consider "general" cases or only consider "engineering feasibility"?

Do you expect an ordinanry citizen like myself could be as resourceful as the Government, or has the previlege to access to all those information to generate ten-feet thick of reports and papers?

..... It is in violation of what we think for the case of WKT. It is disappointed that you are not able to elaborate further. I originally supposed you could at least say some words about the factors of 3 levels of road network and WKCD. I am actually not asking for a very detailed alternative plan.

Because this has to be elaborated graphically.

Mystery donor paves way for end to rail row
10 February 2011
The Standard

The eviction and resettlement stalemate in Choi Yuen Tsuen to make way for a high-speed railway appears to have been resolved following news that a philanthropist has bought a road access that was preventing residents from moving to their new village.

The unnamed philanthropist paid an undisclosed amount for the road in Yuen Kong San Tsuen and donated it to the Heung Yee Kuk to be used by the public.

``I especially thank the philanthropist, who was very concerned about progress on constructing the rail link, mainland-Hong Kong economic integration as well as social harmony,'' kuk chairman Lau Wong-fat said at a spring reception yesterday.

``He generously bought the road access rights and donated them to the Heung Yee Kuk.''

Some villagers and their supporters had been in constant confrontation with MTR construction workers, fearing their old homes would be razed before the new village is built.

Choi Yuen Tsuen Concern Group chairwoman Ko Chun-heung said the 47 families holding out in the village had been asked to pay an access fee of up to HK$5 million for use of a 150-meter section of the road but were only willing to pay HK$500,000.

Lau declined to name the donor or the amount paid to the four road owners. A source said the donor had been keeping tabs on what was happening and agreed to buy the rights when Lau made the proposal.

Lau said the government may consider meeting maintenance costs out of the Home Affairs Department's rural public works program.

Lau and his deputy, Cheung Hok-ming, yesterday signed a letter formalizing the arrangement, which was handed to villager Yip Shui- lai, 72, who in turn passed it to Ko.

Ko said villagers are pleased with the breakthrough. However, the deal covers only a section of the 500-meter road.

She said although Lau has assured villagers there is no need to deal with the rights of the remaining 350-meter section, she wants the kuk, or the government, to state clearly that villagers have free access.

Ko also said villagers will discuss with the government whether their relocation can be completed by November, when construction of their new homes will be completed.

A bureau spokesman pointed out that the government has given villagers a four-month grace period effective since October. He called on villagers to move out as soon as possible.

1. Engineering principles are same everywhere despite of varying setting of sites. Applying, adpating and customising the key principles tried in previous cases and resolve the minor details particular to the site have always been and will remain the way of work throughout the construction field. That's the reason why "job references" are so important in the construction field.

2. The cases quoted are all RELEVANT. The key principles of those projects can be applied in a phased alternative WKT.


Please directly and specifically elaborate how they are relevant to WKT. I still can't see how they' re relevant from what you say above, and I don't need you to teach me those principles. For example, I feel strange when you quote NOP which uses drill and blast methods which is actually not be able to adopt for WKT and now you say this is RELEVANT.

In addition to the "engineering feasibility" you consider, you still need to think about if it is financially justifiable.


There will be a SCL station that will be built this way.


Which one? Why don't you directly say the name of the station and then explain in details? It seems you really like the phased approach and adopt the phased approach when making your comments here.

But please don't forget to relate your explanation to the case of WKT and make sure it is relevant.

Because, by a casual inspection of the plans, it is convenient to cut those shuttle platforms out for building in a later stage without affecting the overall planning.

Can you tell me how you deal with WKCD and the 3 levels of roads from your casual inspection? I think I have repeated "WKCD" and "3 levels of roads" more than ten times but you refuse to address them specifically.

Do you expect an ordinanry citizen like myself could be as resourceful as the Government, or has the previlege to access to all those information to generate ten-feet thick of reports and papers?

You can well elaborate your idea at least by referring to the drawings posted here and some other basic resources through google which are readily available in the Internet. You don't need to generate thick reports here to explain to an ordinary citizen like myself.

Because this has to be elaborated graphically.

If you are not able to elaborate graphically then no one can help. Though I think it is not too difficult to elaborate through words.

Cost-saving is not only a part, but also an important part.

If your prudent approach cannot save cost in a significant manner, there is no point to adopt it, given the risks and impacts of over-prudence may be higher.

Unless you can demonstrate us the cost-saving of your phased approach is significant, your suggestion does not seem justifiable.


Your highest, I'm afraid I am not your consultant, and I have no duty to demonstrate to you anything. I am here to put forward my ideas and express my views in my own ways. I do not own anyone any duty to write a thesis or research report to justify each and every point I express here just because someone happen to find my view not align with his/her view.

Your highest, I'm afraid I am not your consultant, and I have no duty to demonstrate to you anything. I am here to put forward my ideas and express my views in my own ways. I do not own anyone any duty to write a thesis or research report to justify each and every point I express here just because someone happen to find my view not align with his/her view.

You can anytime stop the discussion by not replying anything. In a forum, it is common if one finds weaknesses in others comments, he/she would make queries. But no one has an obligation to reply to anyone's queries. If one can't accept this, he/she should post his/her comments in a blog, but don't forget to turn off the feedback button.

If you are not able to elaborate graphically then no one can help. Though I think it is not too difficult to elaborate through words.

I am able to elaborate graphically.

Textual elaboration: Support the road box structure on columns/piles that are coordinated with the platform structural grid.

ad50939, I suppose one day you might realise if you become a site engineer yourself. I presented myself clear and if you're not convinced then it's fine. I have to point out that the examples you listed are mostly special cases and not quite the norm, but anyway... duh... peace

I am able to elaborate graphically.

Textual elaboration: Support the road box structure on columns/piles that are coordinated with the platform structural grid.

I'm afraid these kinds of thing are not significantly cheaper than the final and completed structures.

For example, It still needs at least to do the foundation work which is quite expensive in order to support these temporary structure, isn't it?

PS: No need to reply if you don't want to.

2/6

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1813.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1814.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1815.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1816.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1817.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1819.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1820.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1821.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1822.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1824.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1826.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1827.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1828.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1830.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1837.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1838.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1834.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1839.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1842.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1844.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1845.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1846.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1848.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1851.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1852.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1868.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0206/IMG_1869.jpg

That is a lot of equipment...

That is a lot of equipment...

That's what you need for 5- years to complete a job that take 10+ years in the western world. :lol:

It must be a nightmare to do the site logistic planning in this job.

That's what you need for 5- years to complete a job that take 10+ years in the western world. :lol:

It must be a nightmare to do the site logistic planning in this job.

But probably needs 2.5 years if done in Mainland China

That's what you need for 5- years to complete a job that take 10+ years in the western world. :lol:

It must be a nightmare to do the site logistic planning in this job.

Things work like that in the West because projects over there develop in a manner similar to the developments of the proposed third HKG runway and WKCD.

Things work like that in the West because projects over there develop in a manner similar to the developments of the proposed third HKG runway and WKCD.

Very true. Their contractors aren't really dandy either tho.

Very true. Their contractors aren't really dandy either tho.

Super infrastructures were built in the US in breathtaking speed in the first 60 years of the 20th century because most Americans only cared about "Popular Science"-style progress and nothing else.

東廊「移位」 路署否認隱瞞
(星島)2011年2月20日 星期日 05:30

(綜合報道)

(星島日報 報道)路政署證實，東區走廊興發街連接路橋墩及伸縮縫物料出現移位，估計與威菲路道車房重置挖泥工程有關。當局指現時工程已停工及進行加固工程，強調連接路橋墩結構安全，可繼續行車。路政署署長劉家強否認當局隱瞞及延遲公布有關路段移位問題，指不是「每件小事都要公布」。

　　記者：周源源

　　銅鑼灣 興發街上東區走廊連接路橋面伸縮縫物料及橋墩出現移位，由於附近有食環署 威菲車房重置工程正在進行，故路政署估計移位與該工程有關。路政署署長劉家強表示，工程進行前有進行探土，是次移位亦十分輕微，大約只有一至二厘米，但由於現場位處舊填海區，而車房重置工程須要進行地下挖掘，因此可能會使填海區出現壓實程度不均，引致沉降，從而使橋墩出現移位。

　　已換伸縮縫物料增墊片

　　路政署於一月底發現該路段伸縮縫物料及橋墩出現問題，當時已立即暫停有關工程，並回填泥土及進行灌漿；路政署又於二月在晚間分段封閉行車線，以更換伸縮縫物料，並於橋墩進行加固工程，在原有的九個支座之間增加墊片作為臨時承托。

　　劉家強指，已要求承建商提交詳細調查報告，而經過工程師及橋墩支座供應商的視察，認為支座雖然有少許變形，但結構仍然安全，對東區走廊行車並不構成影響，只是縮短了支座的使用壽命，目前亦沒有惡化迹象，故有關路段並沒有封閉，仍然開放給車輛使用。而路政署亦已加裝監測儀器，並將原來每日兩次的結構量度增加至每小時一次，但真正原因及長遠處理方法，則仍須待承建商提交報告後才得以確定。

　　是次東區走橋墩廊移位於一月底發現，但路政署延至昨日才正式公布，劉家強則否認延遲通報，「土木工程進行有一定風險，並非每件小事都要公布，但因為近來網上及報紙有討論，而討論內容容易使人以為整條東區走廊都有結構性問題，因此有必要澄清，以免大眾誤解。」

　　遲20日公布「澄清誤解」

　　有關地下車房重置工程屬於中環 灣仔繞道工程的其中一部分，由聯益建造有限公司承建，造價約一億五千萬元，於二○一○年二月底動工，原本預計於今年第三季完成，工程主要包括興建一層地下停車場，清拆及重置車房和其他受影響的設施，以及為未來東區走廊連接路進行前期打樁工程。路政署表示，其他中環灣仔繞道的工程將會繼續進行，不受是次移位事件影響。


This is irrelevant but perhaps could show how soil in reclaimed land could f up nearby structures.

From: http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/110219/3/mscr.html

Villagers get full access rights to private road
11 February 2011
SCMP

Displaced Tsoi Yuen villagers will get permanent access to their new homes at Yuen Kong Tsuen, Pat Heung, via a private road to the main road, Heung Yee Kuk chairman Lau Wong-fat said yesterday.

Lau also promised that villagers would not have to pay to maintain the private road because that was the district council's job.

Speaking on RTHK, Lau, nicknamed the King of the New Territories, said all 18 landowners who owned parts of the private road had agreed to keep it permanently open after a mystery benefactor bought the access rights for the new villagers. But Lau remained silent on the identity of the benefactor.

Forty-seven Tsoi Yuen families, displaced by the HK$66.9 billion high-speed railway project connecting Hong Kong to Guangzhou, bought land near Yuen Kong village and were preparing to build new homes.

But construction could not begin because the villagers were told they could not use a private road to their sites until they paid an access fee.

That fee, which was HK$200,000 in August, jumped to HK$500,000 in November and then to HK$5 million in December.

Lau said on Wednesday that the mystery benefactor who had paid for the access rights had also donated them to the Kuk, the body that represents the interests of all indigenous people in the New Territories.

"It is a rare opportunity. We know each other but [the deal] is coincidental," Lau said.

"The owners all agree to the Kuk's solution. Everyone can use the road. The access right will last for thousands of years and tens of thousands of generations," he said.

"The district council will be responsible for the maintenance. All the private roads in the New Territories are maintained by applying for the council's small project funds."

Ko Chun-heung, the head of the Tsoi Yuen villagers' concern group, said they would contribute to the building of community facilities in the new neighbourhood.

The goodwill gesture, aimed at improving the frosty relationship between Yuen Kong villagers and their new neighbours, will see HK$500,000, an amount the Tsoi Yuen villagers had earmarked for buying the access rights, spent on community facilities.

"The neighbourhood is always threatened by flooding," Ko said. "We are prepared to contribute to this or other community facilities. We will talk to our neighbours, we respect their needs."

The Tsoi Yuen villagers also gave up their right to vote in elections at Yuen Kong after villagers expressed hostility over their moving in.

MTR's views over design of WKCD conceptual plans:

http://www.wkcda.hk/files/doc/pe2/ws/WF0008.pdf

OVBpTB7fUY0

100 police, 300 workers descend to wrest land back for railway
23 February 2011
South China Morning Post

Hundreds of police, security guards and workers were used to resume two plots of farmland and a recycling plant at Tsoi Yuen Tsuen yesterday, a number police said was appropriate.

Resumptions in the village, being razed to make way for the HK$66.9 billion high-speed railway to Guangzhou, began in October, but some 60 families have refused to leave.

Families on the farmland and the owner of the recycling plant woke yesterday to find their land being resumed. Another resident, who drove out of the village in the morning, was unable to return to his house by car in the evening because the road was blocked.

The owner of the plant, Cheung Sun-yau, said about 100 police and 300 security guards and workers were used in the operation.

Police refused to say how many officers were used but said the manpower was appropriate to maintain public order.

The gate was then cut open and hundreds of people stormed into the plant, he said. "More than 10 policemen pushed me into my house and searched me. The others were outside erecting barbed wire."

Cheung's truck was driven out of the plant by workers after he was told to give them the key. "I don't understand why they need hundreds of people to deal with me - a single person," he said.

Cheung's house was not resumed, but nearly all the land around it was.

He said he felt despair, anger and helplessness. "I was negotiating with the government peacefully only a few days ago. Why would they now resume the land so suddenly?"

The South China Morning Post reported on Saturday that Cheung was offered HK$220,000 from the government for the trees, seedlings, pond, abandoned house and chicken shed on the 40,000 square feet of farmland, which he has turned into an illegal metal recycling plant.

The MTR Corporation also offered HK$150,000 for materials including hoardings at the site. But Cheung refused the offers, saying they were insufficient to recover his investment in the plant.

Another villager, Lo Li-yin, 46, said a narrow path was built for the villagers a week ago, but yesterday the main road in the village was blocked and cars could not enter.

A spokeswoman for the Transport and Housing Bureau said the villagers and business operators had already had a four-month period of grace. The bureau had discussed the relocation schedules with Cheung for months without success, she said.

Activists expect showdown with MTR Corp over access to village
3 March 2011
South China Morning Post

Activists expect a showdown with the MTR Corporation as access is restricted to a Yuen Long village being razed for the express rail link to Guangzhou.

Chu Hoi-dick, a member of the Tsoi Yuen Tsuen Concern Group, said the volunteers helping the remaining 47 families in Tsoi Yuen Tsuen would no longer be able to freely walk through the area because a gate would soon be installed to block the entrance to the village.

"The village used to be a large piece of land where everyone could move freely. The MTR Corp has turned the village into dozens of zones by erecting hoardings and barricades. It has also built gates between these zones, so there is no way we can walk from one end of the village to another without being stopped by security guards," he said. "Now everything is in place. They can build the last gate very quickly."

However, the MTR Corp said the hoardings and barricades were needed for the safety of workers, villagers and visitors. It promised an access road would be built for villagers who had not yet moved out.

Chu believed the gates were to stop the group's patrol teams entering the village to help the villagers. The group recruited nearly 500 city dwellers, most of them university students, to form patrol teams to provide instant help to villagers. Patrol team members frequently argue with MTR Corp workers, sometimes resulting in clashes. Police arrested two team members for criminal damage on Tuesday after a dozen tried to stop a piling machine digging a trench near the home of an elderly couple.

"The arrest is a warning signal," Chu said. "It is aimed at intimidating the patrol teams."

Tsoi Yuen village has to be bulldozed so a depot can be built for the HK$66.9 billion Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Link. The 47 families plan to rebuild their homes together on land they bought at Yuen Kong Tsuen, and are negotiating with the government on a timetable for leaving Tsoi Yuen Tsuen.

China completes construction of world's fastest underwater railway tunnel

English.news.cn 2011-03-12 14:04:30

GUANGZHOU, March 12 (Xinhua) -- Construction of China's first underwater railway tunnel was completed Saturday in south China, which allows trains to operate at the world's top speed under the water.

The project, or the Shiziyang Tunnel, crossed the Pearl River estuary in south China's Guangdong Province with a length of 10.8 kilometers. It is designed for trains travelling at 350 kilometers per hour, the highest of all underwater tunnels worldwide.

The 10.8-kilometer tunnel, which is also the country's longest, is a key part of a 140-kilometer high-speed rail link that connects Guangzhou, the capital of China's southern economic powerhouse Guangdong, with the city of Shenzhen, also in Guangdong, and Hong Kong.

Liu Guangjun, project manager with the Shiziyang Tunnel, said large shielding machines had been used in digging of the tunnel at 60 meters underwater.

Construction of the tunnel started in November 2007, and the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong express rail link is scheduled to put into operation in 2012, which would slash travel time between Guangzhou and Hong Kong to 40 minutes from the current two hours.

The express is also expected to join with the country's express railway network and take passengers only eight hours from Hong Kong to Beijing.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-03/12/c_13774762.htm

Pictures taken yesterday on the construction site of the FuTian Station.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5097/5522003048_5c94f84161_z.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5256/5521414331_8363624623_z.jpg

Bill Nye Should Check Out China; Another “World’s Fastest” Train Near

Mar. 12 2011 - 11:42 pm

China completes underground tunnel Saturday for its latest high speed line. MTR Corporation's bullet train will average 217 mph and be operational between 2012-15.
This weekend, America’s favorite science teacher Bill Nye the Science Guy, blasted the US for not having a high speed rail system. Meanwhile, on the other side of the planet, China completed its first underwater railway tunnel on Saturday. The government there likes to call it the “world’s fastest” underwater railroad. It will be.

Nye was lambasting our lack of high speed trains during a National Engineers Week event at Walt Disney World’s Epcot Center.

China’s Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong bullet train is run by Hong Kong based MTR Corporation, (MTRJY). These are the guys who run the Hong Kong metro. MTR’s GSHK express train will be able travel 217 miles per hour, the company says. By comparison, our Acela Express, which has daily runs from Boston to Washington, DC, can only go up to 150 miles per hour.

MTRs super train is not ready to glide at top speeds under ground just yet. What was completed this weekend was just the Shiziyang Tunnel under the Pearl River estuary in south China’s Guangdong Province. The tunnel is around 7 miles long and designed especially for high speed, underground transit. China’s underground will be the world’s fastest when the express train is operational by as early as 2012, according to MTR.

The tunnel is a key part of a 140-kilometer high-speed rail link that connects Guangzhou, the capital of China’s southern economic powerhouse Guangdong, with the city of Shenzhen, also in Guangdong, and Hong Kong. Liu Guangjun, project manager with the Shiziyang Tunnel, told Xinhua that large shielding machines had been used in digging the tunnel at 196 feet underwater.

Construction of the tunnel started in November 2007. The Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong express rail would slash travel time between Guangzhou and Hong Kong to 40 minutes from the current two hours and will ultimately be part of an 88 mile stretch of high speed railroad connecting Hong Kong with mainland China. According to the environmental impact study on the project back in 2009, the train “will significantly increase integration of cities, and promote business and tourism towards a greener economy.”

The tunnel is just the beginning. The Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong rail is part of China’s “Medium to Long Term Rail Network Plan”, established in 2004. The plan seeks to create a 9,941 mile rail line to integrate most of China’s major cities. So, yes, the infrastructure and growth narrative is very much in place in China. But let’s not forget the technological know-how to build this thing.

At 217 miles per hour, the new train will be China’s fastest below ground, but not China’s fastest overall. The Siemens AG (SI) built Shanghai magnetic levitation train can reach top speeds of 267 miles per hour, according to passengers who have traveled on the Shanghai Maglev.

(Can Bill please explain to me why we can’t do this in the US? I mean, I’ve been on the Acela train. I love it. But I don’t think it’s ever gone over 100 mph on my Bos-Nyc trips.)

http://blogs.forbes.com/kenrapoza/2011/03/12/bill-nye-should-check-out-china-worlds-fastest-train-near-complete/

First arrests in Tsoi Yuen Tsuen
2 March 2011
South China Morning Post

Two protesters were arrested for causing criminal damage after clashing with MTR Corporation employees at Tsoi Yuen Tsuen yesterday. They were the first arrests since the lands officials and MTR Corp moved into the village in Shek Kong, Yuen Long, in November to start building a depot for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Link. Police said they arrested the two after receiving complaints that metal fences were being damaged.

What will be the estimated Journey time comparison between Hong Kong and Zhongshan for

1) HSR via Shibi
2) Bus via mega bridge


just wondering

What will be the estimated Journey time comparison between Hong Kong and Zhongshan for

1) HSR via Shibi
2) Bus via mega bridge


just wondering

Bus fetishist alarm!

Don´t you just love traveling to London by bus so you can get off nonstop enroute?

What will be the estimated Journey time comparison between Hong Kong and Zhongshan for

1) HSR via Shibi
2) Bus via mega bridge


just wondering

I think the ferry is still the top choice between the two places.

I think the ferry is still the top choice between the two places.

Probably simplest and easiest by ferry.

Final bitter-sweet days for railway refugees
11 April 2011
South China Morning Post

Few traces remain of the two-year battle waged between villagers, activists, the government and the MTR Corp over the future of a community forced to move out of the way of the new high-speed border railway.

The self-styled patrol unit of students and other volunteers who vowed to protect the Tsoi Yuen villagers has gone. So have the security guards hired by the MTR Corp with whom the protesters often clashed. And by the end of the month, the remaining villagers will also be gone.

All that is left to show of the intense political struggle between a new breed of activists, who believe the city should not sacrifice the well-being of any individual in its pursuit of economic growth, and the pro-growth government are the paintings and photographs around the village that document a two-year campaign.

Things have gone quiet since a deal was finalised for the residents to move to temporary homes built by the MTR Corp on land they have bought to build a new village.

"I have been packing for several days," 72-year-old Ip Shui-lai said. "It will take some soul-searching to figure out what to take and what to leave. Moving from a big home to a smaller one means plenty of the things have to be thrown away."

Ip and his father pooled their savings of HK$30,000 to buy 7,800 sq ft of land in the once little-known village near the People's Liberation Army camp at Shek Kong in 1963. His father, a teacher, named it Ip Garden and built a 700 sq ft house where they planted fruit trees, grew vegetables and raised chickens and pigeons, selling what they did not need.

"But it is a relief that we are having a new village eventually after so much hardship and frustration," Ip said as he took a break from packing in his house, which will be demolished to make way for a depot for the HK$66.9 billion railway connecting Hong Kong with Guangzhou. "I look forward to living in the new village where I believe I can enjoy retirement," he said.

But for neighbour Shung Tai, it is a sad moment. "The past two years have been a bad time," she said. "This house I am living in was built by my parents. I have lived here since I was born and those neighbours have been my neighbours for the past half a century. I don't want to move but I have no choice." Weeping, she said she had not started packing because "I don't know how to pack".

The villagers will move into 35 temporary flats of 400 sq ft each on a 188,000 sq ft site in nearby Yuen Kong village, which they bought for more than HK$18 million and where they plan to build an eco-friendly village with an organic farm and orchard.

Chen Yun-chung, an assistant professor of social science at the University of Science and Technology, who is helping plan the new village, said it should be completed by the end of the year.

Chen said villagers approached the government in mid-February with a proposal for moving to temporary housing. "They were exhausted by the clashes with the MTRC security guards, and the environment of the village was deteriorating rapidly as demolition had begun, so they made the concession of living in temporary housing," he said.

But first they had to overcome the objections of their new neighbours. After agreeing to forgo their rights in the village elections, they were faced with mounting financial demands for the right to use the only access road, which rose from an initial HK$200 to HK$5 million, or 12,000 sq ft of land plus HK$500,000.

The deadlock was resolved shortly after the Lunar New Year when a mystery benefactor paid the access fee and donated the rights to the Heung Yee Kuk.

The villagers began protesting in 2008 when they were first told they had to move, but no one took much notice until January last year when thousands of people in their twenties responded to activists' calls to surround the Legislative Council when a vote on funding for the railway was to be taken.

The action developed into a serious challenge for the government and marked the emergence of the so-called post-80s generation as a political force.

Originally 86 families joined the plan to buy land for a new village, but that number had dwindled to 47 by the time the deal was signed in December last year.

Clashes between Tsoi Yuen villagers, their patrol unit and MTR Corp security guards became a common sight after early January as demolition work intensified. One of the clashes led to about 50 villagers and supporters being taken away by police and security guards.

Ip hopes the villagers' campaign will change the government's way of handling demolitions prompted by development projects.

"I hope we will set a precedent that those who move out are not consumed by anger," he said.

"I hope the government will treat and talk to those affected by resettlement with respect and care.

"If they can change their attitude, I'm sure they can avoid a lot of confrontation with the public. Who wants confrontation?"

West Kowloon - 4/9

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0409/IMG_6398.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0409/IMG_6399.jpg

West Kowloon - 4/9

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0409/IMG_6398.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0409/IMG_6399.jpg

This is the site of Austin Station development - nothing to do with the high speed rail project.

This is the site of Austin Station development - nothing to do with the high speed rail project.

Are they building more apartments here? On top of the station? Hope they are at least half decent...

Railway protester in court for tearing off police officer's epaulette
6 May 2011
South China Morning Post

An activist accused of tearing off a police officer's epaulette in a protest last year appeared in court yesterday accused of criminal damage.

Yang Kuang, 43, a programme host on Green Radio, an internet radio station, pleaded not guilty at Eastern Court.

The incident took place on January 15 during a demonstration outside the Legislative Council building against construction of the high-speed rail line to Guangzhou.

Judge Gary Lam Kar-yan ruled that Yang had a case to answer. The court heard Yang clashed with policeman Sze Yu-leong at the junction of Jackson Road and Chater Road when Legco discussed funding for the high-speed rail line. Sze said he formed a human chain with 40 officers by holding hands to prevent the protesters from lunging towards Legco.

"I warned him not to lunge forward, but he ignored the warning and continue lunging towards the human blockade," he told the court. "I took several small steps backwards because of the force. He used his left hand to clutch at my left epaulette. He kept pulling it until I swayed a bit.

"I warned him to withdraw his hand and back off, but he ignored the warning and the badge was torn off." A 17-minute video was played in court showing Yang's clash with police.

Sze said the badge was damaged and added that he and his colleagues used slight force to prise the badge from Yang's grasp.

Defence counsel Randy Shek said Sze pushed Yang's chest with both hands to stop him from proceeding.

Shek said the badge was damaged by the police when they tried to get it back. Sze said he did not rule out such a possibility.

NGO warns of asbestos in sites of demolition
29 March 2011
China Daily - Hong Kong Edition

An NGO warned on Monday that workers' health is being placed at risk of asbestos, a banned cancer-causing building material at demolition sites.

Trevor Sun, project manager of the Hong Kong Workers' Health Centre, told at a news conference that the health of workers and residents in Choi Yuen Village and Lower Ngau Tau Kok (II) Estate was being endangered by asbestos residues found in randomly piled rubble around demolition sites.

Sun showed results of a laboratory test on rubble samples from the sites, showing the presence of asbestos.

He suggested that workers and citizens' health may have been undermined by the asbestos tossed in rubble heaps in Choi Yuen Village by the Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTRC).

He said that the contractor had been working against the provisions of the Air Pollution Control Ordinance while demolishing buildings.

He also pointed out that 1,100 of 1,400 buildings given preliminary evaluation under the Hong Kong Housing Society and Urban Renewal Authority's "Operation Building Bright" program contained asbestos.

Asbestos was widely used in construction before the 1980s.

Tse Lap Ah, assistant professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said asbestos may lead to serious illness like pleural endotheliomas and asbetosis, and even lung cancer.

The malignant pleural endotheliomas and lung cancer still lack effective methods of treatment.

Most of the sufferers are shipyard and construction workers, he said.

The government has banned the import and sale of substances containing two kinds of asbestos since 1996.

However, other types of asbestos are still being imported to Hong Kong .

Sun said he hoped the Environmental Protection Department will help to augment building supervision and insist upon proper handing of asbestos rubble in Choi Yuen Village.

He also called on the Labour Department to make more careful examinations of demolishing workers to ensure they are properly equipped.

He also appealed for a physical check for the involved workers and citizens.

The MTRC said it was acting within the law on all phases of its work.

The environment and labor departments concurred that "no unlawful practices" had taken place during the demolition of Choi Yuen Village.

Housing Department replied that the area affected by the reconstruction of Lower Ngau Tau Kok (II) Estate is "quite limited".

Villagers raise stink over 'ridiculous' sewage fees
The Standard
Monday, July 04, 2011

MTR Corp has been accused of providing Choi Yuen Tsuen villagers with a defective sewage treatment system, resulting in them having to pay "unreasonably high" fees.

Thirty-five households from the village were relocated to temporary prefabricated housing in Yuen Long to make way for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail link, before the construction of Choi Yuen New Village is completed by the end of the year.

But residents say each household has to pay more than HK$1,000 a month to hire sewage-sucking trucks to treat the waste water under the current treatment system designed and constructed by the MTRC.

Village concern group chairwoman Ko Chun-heung said the volume of sewage is high, as the runoff from sinks and showers, the so-called "gray water," is discharged to the centralized septic tanks, designed to only treat discharges from toilets - so-called "black water."

In addition, she said, ground water leaks into the septic tanks. Trucks need to be called at least three times a week, with villagers charged HK$1,500 per vehicle, invoices showed.

Longtime resident Yip Shui-lai said it is ridiculous for temporary villagers to be charged differently from others.

"No one in the New Territories has to bear such expensive sewer treatment fees like we do. But we have no choice but to pay," the 73-year-old farmer said.

"We are not running factories that generate a huge volume of sewage. Most of us live a simple farming life."

Concern group member and conservation activist Chu Hoi-dick said the system was sloppily and hastily designed by the railway operator last year, as it wanted residents to move out as soon as possible to make way for the high-speed railway.

"Villagers feel cheated by the MTRC, as they were not told about the high cost they would have to bear for sewage services," he said.

The estimated HK$100,000 bill has not yet been settled, and residents will meet Transport and Housing Bureau officials this morning.

An MTRC spokeswoman denied fees are as high as the villagers claim, saying the cost is between HK$10,000 and HK$20,000 a month.

Inspector calls amid fears of express rail link safety
The Standard
Thursday, August 04, 2011

A local think-tank has urged mainland authorities to set up an independent inspectorate to help ensure safety of the Hong Kong- Guangzhou Express Rail Link, amid public concerns after the fatal train crash near Wenzhou.

Professional Commons, led by Civic Party vice chairman Albert Lai Kwong-tak, said while the SAR has a regulatory body to oversee local railway safety, the lack of a corresponding mainland body would make it very difficult for the territory's government to ensure its section of the express rail link is safe.

Safety should be ensured along the entire rail link, not only the Hong Kong section, he stressed.

"There should be independent bodies on both sides [of the border] to exchange rail safety information and techniques," Lai said, calling for the mainland inspection body to be independent of the Ministry of Railways.

Commons member Paul Zimmerman said direct communication between the two bodies would be equally important.

The think-tank also called for a review of the terms of reference of the independent Hong Kong Railway Inspectorate - the railways branch of the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department - and its ability to ensure the safety of passengers and the system, including all cross- boundary services.

It also stressed the importance of a cooperation protocol between local and mainland inspectors.

Building of the express rail link began in January last year, with completion targeted for 2015.

High-speed rail opening undecided
2011-August-11 08:53
Shenzhen Daily

THE opening date of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong high-speed rail was yet to be decided, a senior official with Shenzhen’s rail traffic office told a news conference Tuesday.

The office announced last month that the line would open yesterday or no later than tomorrow before the Universiade, connecting Shenzhen’s high-speed railway with Guangzhou, Wuhan, Changsha and other large cities. When the line opens, it will take only 25 minutes to reach Guangzhou and four hours to Wuhan. It will take eight hours to reach Beijing next year when the 2,200-kilometer Beijing-Guangzhou-Shenzhen high-speed railway opens.

“We are waiting for a notice from higher authorities,” office spokesman Hu Chunlei said.

A Guangshen Railway Group source told the Guangzhou Daily on Tuesday that the rail would definitely open before the Universiade closes.

“The group has promised to open the line for the Games,” the source was quoted as saying.

The Guangshen Railway Group announced March 26 the Guangzhou-Shenzhen high-speed rail would open by the end of August.

The Guangzhou-Shenzhen section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong line had a test run July 26.

The section starts at Guangzhou South Railway Station and ends at Futian Station in Shenzhen. The 104.5-kilometer line was designed for speeds of up to 350 kilometers an hour, but it is not known whether the train will run at the design speed following the recent rail crash in Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, on July 23.

In the initial stages, Shenzhen will run 50 trains to Guangzhou, Changsha and Wuhan each day. The opening of the section will help Shenzhen integrate with the nation’s high-speed rail network.

The 3.95-billion-yuan (US$617 million) section has three stations in Shenzhen, including Guangming, Shenzhen North and Futian. Work on the 26-kilometer Hong Kong section started in 2010 and will be completed in 2015.

8/14

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7135.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7137.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7138.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7140.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7143.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7145.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7147.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7151.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7157.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7158.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7172.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7171.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7166.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7174.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7175.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7181.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7182.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7183.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7184.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2011/0814/IMG_7185.jpg

By Zzlaz from a Hong Kong discussion forum :

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j324/koalatsi/001.jpg

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j324/koalatsi/002.jpg

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j324/koalatsi/003.jpg

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j324/koalatsi/004.jpg

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j324/koalatsi/005.jpg

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j324/koalatsi/006.jpg

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j324/koalatsi/007.jpg

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j324/koalatsi/008.jpg

LCQ12: Construction works of the Hong Kong section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Government Press Release

Following is a question by the Hon Cheung Hok-ming and a written reply by the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Ms Eva Cheng, in the Legislative Council today (November 30):

Question:

Since the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) commenced the tunnelling works for the Hong Kong section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) last year, quite a number of residents in the villages have relayed to me that MTRCL conducts tunnel blasts regardless of night or day in order to meet deadlines, and the villagers are disturbed by the noise nuisance and are unable to sleep at night. Such villagers have also pointed out that because of the vigorous blasting works, vertical cracks appear on the walls of the village houses in the vicinity of the construction sites, gaps are found between the external walls of the houses and the ground, settlement in buildings and falling groundwater tables are detected, and other serious problems also prevail. Regarding the progress and safety issues of the XRL project, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the latest progress of the XRL project;

(b) whether it has assessed and measured the intensity of shock generated by the tunnel blasting works concerned in respect of three aspects, namely the extent of damages made to the affected buildings on the ground, changes in topography and people's feelings; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and whether it will make public the findings as soon as possible after making the assessment and measurements; and

(c) whether it knows the total number of complaints received since the commencement of the works by the authorities and MTRCL about the problems caused to the buildings and the topography in the vicinity of the construction sites as a result of the impact of the XRL project, the problems concerned and the measures taken to deal with them?

Reply:

President,

My reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:

(a) Construction works for the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) commenced in January 2010 and are progressing smoothly. Foundation works for the West Kowloon Terminus are substantially completed, while various related construction works in Yau Tsim Mong, Sham Shui Po, Kwai Tsing, Tsuen Wan and Yuen Long, en-route areas of the railway alignment, have started successively. As the Hong Kong section of the XRL runs in a dedicated tunnel throughout, the tunnels are built mainly by using tunnel boring machines (TBMs) and the drill and blast method. We have briefed the relevant district councils on the construction methods of the tunnels. We also keep liaising with the relevant communities on the works arrangement in the light of progress of the drilling and blasting works.

On tunnel boring, the first TBM was activated in September 2011 and has bored through 80 metres so far. Separately, tunnel drilling and blasting works in Tsuen Wan commenced in November 2010, while those in Kwai Tsing and Yuen Long began in 2011 gradually.

It is expected that civil works (including tunnel drilling and blasting) for the main tunnel will be completed in 2013 and the Hong Kong section of the XRL will be completed in 2015 as scheduled.

(b) We will do our best to minimise the impact of the works on the public during the construction of the XRL project.

As early as the project design stage, we carried out careful and comprehensive assessments on the geological conditions and structures in the vicinity of the works areas to ensure that the construction works and the methods employed would not affect the structural safety of nearby structures. In addition, we conducted an environmental impact assessment as required under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance on the Hong Kong section of the XRL, in which the environmental impact during the construction and operation of the railway was carefully evaluated and corresponding mitigation measures were proposed.

In the course of the drilling and blasting works, the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) and their contractor will stringently implement various safety measures and codes of practice concerned, and will strictly observe all relevant legislation and requirements, including the mitigation measures specified in the Environmental Permit for alleviating environmental impact. Also, the MTRCL and their contractor have installed monitoring points to oversee the works by checking such relevant data as measurements on noise and vibration, with a view to monitoring the impact of the works on the adjacent environment and structures for enhancing public safety and minimising environmental impact.

Every time when blasting works are carried out, the airflow and vibration caused will be measured at both ends of the tunnel and nearby monitoring points. Up to now, the data recorded, including those on airflow and vibration, have not exceeded the corresponding statutory ceilings or jeopardised the structural safety of adjacent buildings. The noise generated during the works has not gone beyond the relevant statutory limit either.

During construction, the MTRCL and their contractor will try to minimise the impact of works on the neighbourhood, and maintain close contact and communication throughout with residents concerned by such measures as giving explanation to relevant dwellers, owners' committees / corporations, village representatives, district councillors and local communities and addressing their concerns; organising community liaison group meetings; distributing XRL Newsletters and pamphlets on tunnel drilling and blasting works; and arranging site inspections for district councillors and local personalities to inspect the works and be briefed by engineers on the works procedures and safety measures taken.

(c) We have so far received 80 reports on damage to relevant land lots and buildings suspected to have been caused by the works. Upon receipt of such reports, the MTRCL and their contractor will visit the damaged lots or buildings within one working day to conduct investigation. If the damage is proved to have been caused by the works, repairs will be carried out as soon as possible; if proved otherwise, the MTRCL will also inform the clients of the investigation results. On some occasions, the MTRCL will, at the request of the clients, refer the cases to notaries public for objective and fair arbitration to safeguard the interests of local residents.

Not looking forward to ride this new railway considering HK and China's standards are way different :ohno:. There has been 1 rather serious accident in Wenzhou that actually resulted in deaths. Another in Beijing as well. Considering that Japan and HK has had a pretty clean record regaring rail transport since their beginnings, China has already had deaths in only a few years in operations.

GZ-SZ high-speed link starts test run
2011-December-19 08:53
Shenzhen Daily

A TEST run has started on the 104.5-kilometer Guangzhou-Shenzhen section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong high-speed railway.

Six trains without passengers travelled in both directions with a departure interval of 15 minutes during rush hours in accordance with a running chart, Guangzhou Daily reported Friday.

According to a timetable at Shenzhen North Railway Station, the earliest train would leave Shenzhen at 7 a.m., and the latest 10 p.m., with a total of 39 trains setting out from Shenzhen each day and 36 of them carrying passengers.

The train stops at Guangzhou South Railway Station, Qingsheng in Guangzhou’s Panyu District, Humen Township in neighboring Dongguan City, and Shenzhen’s Guangming New Zone and Shenzhen North Railway Station. A single ride in the test run was only 29 minutes.

Passengers from Shenzhen can take Metro Longhua and Huanzhong lines to Shenzhen North Railway Station.

The section has passed a preliminary inspection by the Ministry of Railways, a final step toward its official opening.

Shielding gates would be installed on the platform of Shenzhen North Train Station, which has been prepared for the operation of the section, the paper said.

There will be more than 1,600 parking spaces at Shenzhen North Railway Station. The sidewalks on the platform, however, have not yet been connected to the station halls and escalators.

Ticket pricing has not been announced.

Does anyone know which construction companies are responsible for the construction of this high speed railway?

Why are Hong Kong forums so inactive?

Does anyone know which construction companies are responsible for the construction of this high speed railway?

http://www.expressraillink.hk/en/construction/contracts-awarded.html

大角咀居民反對挖高鐵隧道
2012年02月13日(一)
http://the-sun.on.cc/img/v2/logo_tsn.png

http://the-sun.on.cc/cnt/news/20120213/photo/0213-00407-035b1.jpg

http://the-sun.on.cc/cnt/news/20120213/photo/0213-00407-035b2.jpg

【本報訊】近二百名大角咀居民昨發起遊行集會，反對港府因高鐵工程，收回該區十九幢樓宇的地層以鑽挖隧道。居民指該區樓宇樓齡高，部分更屬鹹水樓，擔心一旦鑽挖高鐵隧道會影響樓宇質素，及令樓宇沉降，又不滿當局要居民自行出資聘請專家及律師評估工程對樓宇的影響，透過法律程序才可申請賠償。居民指已收集過千份反對書，將遞交運輸及房屋局局長鄭汝樺，要求她落區與居民對話。

廣深高鐵中途死火近句鐘
2012年02月20日(一)
http://the-sun.on.cc/img/v2/logo_tsn.png

Synopsis : The first operational event has occurred on the new Guangzhou-Shenzhen HSR route. Due to an electric failure, train G6255 stopped in a tunnel. Lights and circulation went off. It took about an hour to repair. The train left Guangzhou South at 5:55pm.

【兩岸組記者深圳報道】開通僅個多月的廣深港高鐵廣深段，前晚發生首次事故，因供電設備故障，廣州南至深圳北的G6255班次列車在駛過虎門站前的隧道後突然煞停，車上照明及空調全關，車廂漆黑一片，部分乘客不適及恐慌，近一個小時始修復，多個班次受影響延誤個多小時。

當日乘搭G6255班次的旅客鄭小姐透露，列車在下午五時五十五分從廣州南站開出，駛至虎門站前的獅子洋隧道時開始減速，出隧道後不久突然停下，不少乘客以為到站，準備下車時卻發現列車停在路軌，車內空調及照明也停掉。

漆黑封閉的車廂悶熱，愈來愈多乘客不適，列車長暫時打開三個車門通風。至六時四十五分左右，空調方重新啟動，數分鐘後列車開動，至七時許抵達虎門站，乘客須換乘另一列車往深圳。

受故障影響，多班列車延誤。當晚近八時，仍有不少乘客被迫滯留虎門站，部分欲前往廣州南站轉乘長途汽車的旅客，因錯過開車時間向車站投訴，車站方面致歉，並安排受影響旅客退票或換乘列車。

Deleted.

China's locomotive giant secures order from Hong Kong

BEIJING, April 17 (Xinhua) -- China South Locomotive and Rolling Stock Corporation Ltd. (CSR) announced Tuesday that it has secured a 1.36-billion-yuan order (216.2 million U.S. dollars) from Hong Kong, for the provision of high-speed trains.

The CSR will supply high-speed trains to Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway (MTR) for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link which is expected to enter service in 2015, said a CSR statement.

The awarding of this contract marks the first time the Chinese mainland will deliver its high-speed trains to Hong Kong.

Based on CSR's CRH380A model, the trains will be customized according to MTR requirements, the CSR said.

Each train will have eight compartments and can run at a maximum of 380 kilometers per hour.

Delivery of the first train is expected for 2013.