SkyscraperCity Forum banner
301 - 320 of 2480 Posts

·
Lurker
Joined
·
14,081 Posts
There are other ways of conducting soil investigation, such as ground penetrating radar. I wouldn't go so extreme as to say that there should be something that can be damaged, but rather areas that can be disturbed in some sense. I think we can expect the EIA to include recommendations on the type of system to use, and the extend of intrusion into the CCNR. The engineering aspect of the project may have to give and take as well, in terms of having slightly less reliable data, or higher costs involved to acquire state of the art equipment to conduct the SI non-instrusively.
Can the whole stretch be built by boring?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,292 Posts
I wouldn't say that the whole stretch can be built by boring, but definitely will be built by boring. In fact, deep boring if I dare say, deeper than 40m below SL. The only challenge is that how SIs can be conducted without disturbing the surface, yet provide sufficient information to prevent any unexpected issues such as hitting ground water.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,806 Posts
IMHO:

Better to let it pass around nature reserve (instead of going through it which would damage the environment)

Environment is more important

And hey besides, there is still a new train line being built so it's an added bonus.

Never mind if it will take longer due to more curves along the route. At least, there is still train line.

Better than no train at all.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,292 Posts
I don't think going deep under the nature reserve would be the same as going through the nature reserve.
Agreed. Deep tunneling has very minimal im apace on the surface if managed well. We may concern ourselves on the boundaries of the CCNR too much, but the fringes of the CCNR is just as important too. The danger with running a longer route along the fringe is that escape shafts and ventilation buildings have to be built along the route, which means more excavations and permanent structures. The construction process itself will have far reaching impact on the area around it, due to surface run-off which can stretch as far as 1km from the worksites. Running the route across the CCNR, with probably around 1-1.5km below both the core and the buffer, the need for escape shafts can be waived, and can be located within the 2 golf courses at either ends, or even as far as Venus Drive and PIE respectively.
 

·
Land Transport Enthusiast
Joined
·
1,899 Posts
just thought I should share some of my views on the evaluation of the appropriate approach to the CCNR sector of CRL.

I have full confidence that we can achieve zero surface intrusion through the employment of deep tunnelling methods, especially over a 1km sector like ours. the worry is if something were to go wrong and grouting or other forms of soil improvement has to be carried out. that will most definitely result in wanton destruction.

this is made worse by the great unpredictability of soil conditions along this sector due to the need for non-invasive soil investigation methods that inherently possess higher margins of error as compared to samples of actual soil.

that is not to say I do not support tunnelling through the CCNR. I am going to benefit greatly from a direct route. I just think the above makes it all the more critical for the EIA team to make the best of the limited data available in determining the risk of the above happening. if the likelihood of soil improvement or surface disturbance (such as when controlled blasting has to be employed due to the presence of granite) veer towards the high side, I would rather not take that risk.

six years of actual civil work is a long time and I am sure having to guarantee that nothing goes wrong within that period will keep more than a few people awake for a while, not to forget how long will we be putting some very pristine geology in danger. lets all hope there is very little perceived risk along this route.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
I like that idea of having a T5 MRT station as this will greatly benefit potential employees of the new terminal and at the same time, enhance the connectivity to and from the airport, creating a second direct link to the expanded airport after the Eastern Region Line.

I still prefer the idea of a MRT station sited next to Tampines Retail Park too. That area is really in need of a MRT link to the rest of the island..
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,292 Posts
I hope the planners will take into consideration of T1/2/3 as well or else we could get into a situation of it turning into an undesirable destination for passengers, airlines and employees alike.
I believe there's a provision to extend CAL towards the east, so definitely they will all be connected. In the case of T5, we are given a clean slate so I'm sure LTA will take full advantage of it to make the transfers as seem less as possible.

Hi I have extracted some useful info from the tender document which we could use to discuss: Enjoy! :cheers:
Thanks a lot zeywery!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
Hi I have extracted some useful info from the tender document which we could use to discuss:

Enjoy! :cheers:
Thanks zeywery! Now there are 12 interesting and important details to note.

1. The line if I may say, would be built like Hong Kong's South Island Line, where there's an east and west branch, only that ours is one line to be built in two major phases, East (CRLe) and West (CRLw)

2. From the documents, CRLe will span from Sin Ming on the TSL to Changi East. CRLw will span from Jurong to Sin Ming via Clementi. For the CRLe there will be a short branch in the northeast, which we know it as the Punggol branch.

3. In relation to (2), it is highly possible that the Punggol branch will open with the CRLe together at the same time or in stages.

4. 50km, 30-34 stations. I suppose 30 is for a direct crossing through the nature reserve while 34 is for skirting.

5. 3 types of rolling stock config. to be studied: 4-car trains, 6-car trains & 8-car trains.

6. The line will be fully underground. But LTA says it WILL NOT EXCLUDE the possibility of having at-grade and/or elevated sections where possible. Subject to more studies.

7. 4 sites have been identified for the depots. Changi East & Lorong Halus are the obvious ones, as we might have discussed this earlier. These two will facilitate the CRLe ops. The other 2 sites are in the west and will facilitate ops on the CRLw.

8. Possible future interchange station within Changi Airport. As what I have speculated before and in y2koh's recent map, a T5 station. Subject to more studies.

9. Punggol branch to have 3 stations. 2 interchanges (Punggol is the obvious one)

10. If after the EIA is released, and if skirting is chosen, 2 TSL stations will be made interchanges with CRLw. Sin Ming and Upp Thomson are the more likely ones, looking at NSS' alignment.

11. A particular "Spur Line"... What could this be? And provisions are to be made for this "Spur Line".

12. Express services to be considered for this line, possibly the first in the MRT history...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
Thanks zeywery! Now there are 12 interesting and important details to note.

1. The line if I may say, would be built like Hong Kong's South Island Line, where there's an east and west branch, only that ours is one line to be built in two major phases, East (CRLe) and West (CRLw)

2. From the documents, CRLe will span from Sin Ming on the TSL to Changi East. CRLw will span from Jurong to Sin Ming via Clementi. For the CRLe there will be a short branch in the northeast, which we know it as the Punggol branch.

3. In relation to (2), it is highly possible that the Punggol branch will open with the CRLe together at the same time or in stages.

4. 50km, 30-34 stations. I suppose 30 is for a direct crossing through the nature reserve while 34 is for skirting.

5. 3 types of rolling stock config. to be studied: 4-car trains, 6-car trains & 8-car trains.

6. The line will be fully underground. But LTA says it WILL NOT EXCLUDE the possibility of having at-grade and/or elevated sections where possible. Subject to more studies.

7. 4 sites have been identified for the depots. Changi East & Lorong Halus are the obvious ones, as we might have discussed this earlier. These two will facilitate the CRLe ops. The other 2 sites are in the west and will facilitate ops on the CRLw.

8. Possible future interchange station within Changi Airport. As what I have speculated before and in y2koh's recent map, a T5 station. Subject to more studies.

9. Punggol branch to have 3 stations. 2 interchanges (Punggol is the obvious one)

10. If after the EIA is released, and if skirting is chosen, 2 TSL stations will be made interchanges with CRLw. Sin Ming and Upp Thomson are the more likely ones, looking at NSS' alignment.

11. A particular "Spur Line"... What could this be? And provisions are to be made for this "Spur Line".

12. Express services to be considered for this line, possibly the first in the MRT history...
7. I believe the unidentified depot sites for CRLw could be at the Jurong industrial area, former Turf City/ Eng Neo (if cutting through CCNR) and/or Bukit Brown (if skirting CCNR). All of these options would likely require land acquisition to some extent, which could be why the sites are not named in the document.

10.
"The CRL station is envisaged to be a shallow station to interchange with TSL via a subway connection" - most probably Sin Ming, since it also mentions the "subway provision made in TSL"

"At the other location, the consultation shall study the feasibility of CRL interchanging with a TSL interchange station" - this sounds like an existing TSL interchange station, maybe Caldecott

11.
"2.16.6 Provision for a future spur line"
This sounds like a separate spur line from the one earlier mentioned in 2.16 under Spur Lines. The "future spur line" could be running east of the future aviation park or running southeast of Hougang, towards the southern portion of the existing Paya Lebar Airbase. The latter is more likely, as east of the future aviation park would be Changi Airbase (East).

The one mentioned from 2.16.1 to 2.16.5 is likely to be the Punggol spur, with the two alignment options likely to be either cutting through the existing Paya Lebar Airbase (existing restriction zone) or running west of it, along Tampines Rd. The two possible interchange stations where the Punggol spur branches out are likely to be at Pasir Ris West and Lorong Halus respectively.

Under 2.16.2, the following is mentioned: "Flexibility in alignment design for the spur line to become a main RTS line, with the CRLe terminating at the interface between spur and main line." Seems like the Punggol spur, along with the section from Changi to Pasir Ris/Lorong halus, could be further extended and operated separately as the North Coast Line in future, as speculated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,612 Posts
24x7 Operations

If the operation of both local and express services will be accomplished by having two tracks in each direction, as opposed to only at stations, then it would be possible to operate a night service 365 days per year. Depending on which tracks were being serviced on any particular night, the night service might be either a regular local service or it might be a local service along most of the route but skipping the local stations between two adjacent crossover points between the local and express lines. For example, sometimes the night service might stop at all stations except those between Sixth Avenue and Clementi (in order to service the local tracks between Sixth Avenue and Clementi). Passengers would be able to check in advance (hopefully at least any time the preceding day) which stations, if any, would be closed during the upcoming night service. Then, using the example above, special night buses could be used to provide connections between Sixth Avenue and Clementi with stops at each closed station along the way. If night buses would not be provided, taxis would tend to congregate at, again using the example above, Sixth Avenue and Clementi stations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,686 Posts
Tender closing date is 14th April 2014, its only around 5 weeks. Is this a realistic frame time to prepare the engineering feasibility study for the entire CRL? Would the participating companies required to do their own SI before submitting their proposal?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
Tender closing date is 14th April 2014, its only around 5 weeks. Is this a realistic frame time to prepare the engineering feasibility study for the entire CRL? Would the participating companies required to do their own SI before submitting their proposal?
I think from the delayed implementation of DTL, TSL and ERL and going by this pace of development, LTA is heading for a "meet the deadline on time and successfully" approach, which might suggest the tight timeline for bidders to submit their bids and the winner to be announced. Following which, LTA might push the winner to conduct SIs, feasibility studies and EIAs early and submit reports early. For a mega MRT project like the CRL, 10 years should be more than enough for all works.
 

·
Whoop
Joined
·
1,884 Posts
Tender closing date is 14th April 2014, its only around 5 weeks. Is this a realistic frame time to prepare the engineering feasibility study for the entire CRL? Would the participating companies required to do their own SI before submitting their proposal?
The 5 weeks are preparation time for participating firms to submit their interest by tendering. The authority would then leave the various studies and proposals in their hands, which is the purpose of the tender.
 
301 - 320 of 2480 Posts
Top