Old Oak Common - Level Boarding for Elizabeth Line trains

[mr_moo]

Hi everyone,

There is work being undertaken to establish whether level boarding can be provided to the Elizabeth Line at the new Old Oak Common station.

If you are interested, there's a PWI talk about it happening on 4th Feb in Reading (and also broadcast online):

Level Boarding for Elizabeth Line Trains at Old Oak Common - The PWI

Thames Valley Section hybrid meeting

www.thepwi.org

Thames Valley Section hybrid meeting

The Old Oak common station project is undertaking a detailed feasibility study to fully understand how level boarding could be implemented for Elizabeth Line trains at Old Oak Common. Philip Holbourn will describe the work being undertaken on a UK first.

Meeting in-person from 17:00 for refreshments courtesy of the PWI for a 17:45 start for all.

You can also join the meeting virtually through Microsoft Teams.

Meeting ID: 386 633 151 447 88
Passcode: PT7pB75h
You don't need to be a member to attend, and it's free.

 

[TUC]

Level boarding of course matters, but why is the Elizabeth line/Old Oak Common of particular interest to hold a talk?

 

[croydontangle]

Conflicts with freight and ECS moves over the slow lines? Also the Paddington-Greenfords maybe

 

[mr_moo]

It's different because the Elizabeth Line uses a high-floor train with a fixed footstep, whereas trains like the Greater Anglia 745/755 are low-floor with a mechanised deployable footstep.

Essentially, this means that, if level boarding is to be provided to the Elizabeth Line, the platforms need to be built high, which makes clearances to other trains, especiallit freight, more difficult, and also makes stepping distances to other trains more difficult.

It means that, if/when a low floor train (which GWR are procuring as part of an upcoming fleet replacement) stops at these platforms, you will have a step down from platform to train, instad of up as you normally have.

A step down is not unprecedented - you can see examples of this on the Bakerloo line on the section where is shares platforms with the Lioness Line. The tube and overground trains are at very different heights, leading to things like this...


It does add new safety issues of course, and does make accessability a lot more difficult.

Quite a challenging thing to make work.

 

[TUC]

It's different because the Elizabeth Line uses a high-floor train with a fixed footstep, whereas trains like the Greater Anglia 745/755 are low-floor with a mechanised deployable footstep.

Essentially, this means that, if level boarding is to be provided to the Elizabeth Line, the platforms need to be built high, which makes clearances to other trains, especiallit freight, more difficult, and also makes stepping distances to other trains more difficult.

It means that, if/when a low floor train (which GWR are procuring as part of an upcoming fleet replacement) stops at these platforms, you will have a step down from platform to train, instad of up as you normally have.

A step down is not unprecedented - you can see examples of this on the Bakerloo line on the section where is shares platforms with the Lioness Line. The tube and overground trains are at very different heights, leading to things like this...
View attachment 196690

It does add new safety issues of course, and does make accessability a lot more difficult.

Quite a challenging thing to make work.

I also observed the step down from the platform at a couple of Piccadilly line stations when travelling from Heathrow recently.

If anything, I would say that getting off the train is the bigger hazard, in addition to accessibility issues. People are used, for better or worse, to having to step up to get on a train. They are not used to a high step up on exit, and so the trip hazard risk is greater.

 

[mr_moo]

I also observed the step down from the platform at a couple of Piccadilly line stations when travelling from Heathrow recently.

If anything, I would say that getting off the train is the bigger hazard, in addition to accessibility issues. People are used, for better or worse, to having to step up to get on a train. They are not used to a high step up on exit, and so the trip hazard risk is greater.

Not sure I agree - a step up is a clearly visible thing, and, as it's unexpected, is likely to lead people to take more caution. The step down however, can easily be mis-judged or even (assuming phone zombies etc), missed.

How you write a safety demonstration to show that these risks are acceptable is an interesting question in itself!

 

[TUC]

Not sure I agree - a step up is a clearly visible thing, and, as it's unexpected, is likely to lead people to take more caution. The step down however, can easily be mis-judged or even (assuming phone zombies etc), missed.

How you write a safety demonstration to show that these risks are acceptable is an interesting question in itself!

For someone such as my wife, who is blind, her approach when getting off a train would be to step forward cautiously, stretching her leg forward and downwards to deal with any gap or drop. I can see an unexpected step up coming into conflict with that.

 

[mr_moo]

For someone such as my wife, who is blind, her approach when getting off a train would be to step forward cautiously, stretching her leg forward and downwards to deal with any gap or drop. I can see an unexpected step up coming into conflict with that.

That's a really good point. Fair. There would absolutely be announcements made on board about it being unusual though, as well as on the station.

 

[Travelmonkey]

For a brand new station it should be step free or at least Harrington humped at the acessibility area (like Themeslink core) it does seem odd that despite the fortune spent on both Elizabeth line & HS2 disabled people are at the mercy of staff with ramps. It is especially akward when staff claim the station don't have a gap but then it does on arrival.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Level boarding of course matters, but why is the Elizabeth line/Old Oak Common of particular interest to hold a talk?

It's a new station and will be served by GWR trains as well as Elizabeih Line. That is if they are taking about the GWR station as well as the HS2 one.

There's already been controversy about the height of platforms at Ealing Broadway. In general at the stations out to Reading, the 345s and 387s seem moe difficult to board than their 165/166 predecessors or the 80x on the longer distance services.

At TfL stations served by both S stock and deep level stock, you already get step downs. Nearby Acton Town is an example as is Ealing Common.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

It’s a shame that GwR are ordering low floor trains. I reallly dislike the ones on Great Eastern. They make the interior feel really cluttered and uncomfortable

 

[mr_moo]

For a brand new station it should be step free or at least Harrington humped at the acessibility area (like Themeslink core) it does seem odd that despite the fortune spent on both Elizabeth line & HS2 disabled people are at the mercy of staff with ramps. It is especially akward when staff claim the station don't have a gap but then it does on arrival.

Agreed, but it's not as simple as that.
The Elizabeth Line, due to history essentially, has been built as high floor trains. It would be a LOT of work to convert the central section to facilitate low floor trains, if it's even possible at all.
Conversely, future rolling stock will be a mix of high and low floor trains, meaning there is no answer that will serve everything adequately, unless, you have a moveable platform or something, which would be totally impractical on an intensely used platform like this.

It's a new station and will be served by GWR trains as well as Elizabeih Line. That is if they are taking about the GWR station as well as the HS2 one.

Indeed, this is for the GWML station. the HS2 part of the station has 6 platforms down in the box, and the GWML part of the station has 8 platforms, 4 on the Mains and 4 on the Reliefs.

It’s a shame that GwR are ordering low floor trains. I reallly dislike the ones on Great Eastern. They make the interior feel really cluttered and uncomfortable

Tell that to The Campaign for Level Boarding!

The future direction of rolling stock procurement is heading towards low floor trains. Having high platforms makes clearance to other, sometimes larger, trains, more challenging.
To improve accessibility more generally across the network, a low floor train with a deployable footstep, serving a standard height platform and thus having level boarding, is the ideal. I agree, the internal train layout takes on a slightly odd 2-level element but overall I quite like it myself, and the accessibility benefits are clear.

 

[hwl]

The future direction of rolling stock procurement is heading towards low floor trains. Having high platforms makes clearance to other, sometimes larger, trains, more challenging.
To improve accessibility more generally across the network, a low floor train with a deployable footstep, serving a standard height platform and thus having level boarding, is the ideal. I agree, the internal train layout takes on a slightly odd 2-level element but overall I quite like it myself, and the accessibility benefits are clear.

Low floors also reduce floor space (including narrower aisles)which is less than ideal for capacity on metro type services (and DfT won't pay for the extra vehicles to make up for this loss in capacity).
If you look at the official definition of level boarding - it is just minimal step boarding (e.g. small lips are permitted), the gap fillers don't have to be horizontal they can be angled (as all the HS2 bidders had to do for NR platform infrastructure i.e. everyone but Stadler...). Everyone assumes level = horizontal just because Stadler bid at Greater Anglia in that way. Other OEMs bidding for future contracts may do things differently to what Stadler have done and still comply...

If memory services there may well be a previous forum thread on OOC level boarding.

There is also a London Reconnections article: https://londonreconnections.com/liz-line-level-boarding-at-old-oak-common/
(Note the comments haven't been transferred yet after the website upgrade)

 

[plugwash]

Level boarding of course matters, but why is the Elizabeth line/Old Oak Common of particular interest to hold a talk?

There are in general, two approaches to level boarding, "low floor" and "high platform".

Heathrow express went with the "high platform" approach to deliver level boarding at Heathrow, and the Eliziebeth line continued this approach into the "core" but the high-platforms approach raises issues of rolling stock compatibility and I suspect also issues with platform curvature. As a result the platforms at the stations outside the "core" were not raised.

This leads to the undesirable situation where a wheelchair user can board a train in central london without assistance, but requires assistance to alight in the suburbs. Combine this with the fact that elizibeth line trains are DOO and wheelchair users can be effectively trapped on a train until it returns to central London, or they happen to encounter a member of staff who can provide assistance.

It's embarrassing enough to have this situation at existing stations, but it would be even more embarrasing to have it happening at a new flagship station..

So it does not surprise me that a group would be tasked with figuring out if there is any way out of this embarrasing situation.

 

[MerlinRail 804]

Isn’t there a platform height national standard or something? Why can’t all new trains be built to that height if it exists?

 

[Geogregor]

Is the idea to have new higher platforms only on 4 Relief lines and leave 4 Mains at the old height?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn’t there a platform height national standard or something? Why can’t all new trains be built to that height if it exists?

There is - 915mm above rail. Unfortunately, the Elizabeth Line wasn't built to that, which was I think largely because Heathrow wasn't years ago and I guess they didn't want the long term disruption of needing to close the Heathrow stations to change the track level. Unfortunately this has made it in effect impossible to make the whole Liz fully accessible, because you can't raise platforms where they might whack freight trains.

The current HS2 design has the exact same problem.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Isn’t there a platform height national standard or something? Why can’t all new trains be built to that height if it exists?

The problem is that there's more than one. Historically there was a step up from the platform to the train. It wasn't possible at the time to build trains with lower floors. As a consequence the Heathrow Express only used platforms which were higher than normal. It wasn't possible to rebuild all stations to this standard because it would foul the loading gauge for existing stock, particularly freight.

The Heathrow Express high platform standard was perpetuated in the Elizabeth Line tunnel stations but cannot be applied once out on the older main lines east and west where it shares tracks which have platforms built to older standards.

It's noticeable that the S stock on London Underground has level boarding at many stations. These are full sized trains ofa similar style to the Elizabeth Line but have the advantage that on most of their routes they don't share the plaforms with anything else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's noticeable that the S stock on London Underground has level boarding at many stations. These are full sized trains ofa similar style to the Elizabeth Line but have the advantage that on most of their routes they don't share the plaforms with anything else.

They're low floor throughout with platforms somewhere around 915mm. They do it by having small wheels, which limits top speed (but that doesn't matter on a metro service). The platforms are NR compatible - Chiltern stop at some of them with the normal step up.

This could have been done for the Liz, but wasn't, presumably because of Heathrow.

 

[plugwash]

Isn’t there a platform height national standard or something? Why can’t all new trains be built to that height if it exists?

There is a "standard height", but there are a few issues.

1. real-world stations can vary a fair bit from said height. Remember our railway is a patchwork of railways built by different private companies in an era when wheelchair access was far less politically important than it is today. A train onto which passengers have to step down rather than up, breaks expections and as-such increases risk.
2. A gap between the train and platform is needed on curved platforms, or when trains pass a platform at speed. Traditionally in the UK this gap is mitigated by having the step on the train "ride over" the platform. You can't do that for level boarding, so, to support level boarding on existing platforms without creating unacceptable gaps you will need some form of "gap filler".
3. A lower floor means it's harder to pack in the required stuff under said floor,

That's not to say that the "low floor" approach to level boarding can't be made to work. GA and merseyrail are making it work, but they have relatively compact self-contained networks. They also only entered service in 2019, well after the Elizibeth line, let alone the heathrow rail stations were designed.

The heathrow stations and the elizibeth line core were NOT built to standard platform heights. They were built with high platforms to provide level boarding to "normal height" trains. This provides level boarding in the core but makes it difficult to roll out that level boarding to the wider network.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2026 ==

They do it by having small wheels, which limits top speed (but that doesn't matter on a metro service).

But it does matter for Thameslink/Crossrail/RER style services. The S stock is only 62MPH. Compared to 90MPH for the elizibeth line stock.

 

[SynthD]

The needs are high platforms for Liz, and low platforms that aren't on the main line for diversions. As there are only two parts to the upper station, the relief line must take trains that can't go through high platforms.

 

[hwl]

Isn’t there a platform height national standard or something? Why can’t all new trains be built to that height if it exists?

Having low floors reduces the vehicle width and usable internal width at floor level thus reducing space for passengers which is a problem on high capacity routes (like Crossrail) and limits train speeds unless you have reasonable sized wheels - which then require normal high floor levels above the bogies). An alternative (as HS" are doing) is to use angled gap fillers with existing floor heights (but this deeply upsets the Stadler fan club), as @plugwash points out you need a gap filler for low floor levels anyway so this just involves a different design of gap filler.

 

[plugwash]

Do we have any drawings of how these "angled gap fillers" are supposed to work?

 

[Snow1964]

Having low floors reduces the vehicle width and usable internal width at floor level thus reducing space for passengers which is a problem on high capacity routes (like Crossrail) and limits train speeds unless you have reasonable sized wheels - which then require normal high floor levels above the bogies). An alternative (as HS" are doing) is to use angled gap fillers with existing floor heights (but this deeply upsets the Stadler fan club), as @plugwash points out you need a gap filler for low floor levels anyway so this just involves a different design of gap filler.

The standard UK loading gauge (actually there are lots different ones, but most are different top height, flat or various shapes approximating arches), also has curve in at the lower sides, it doesn't go straight down to axle height.

This means standard 915mm platform heights are at a narrower part of the vehicle, than high floor vehicles (where floor is nearer 1.1m above track level). In slam door era vehicles had wooden step boards and so floor could be at higher level above the frames.

Nowadays the trend is to have the centre of the vehicle at platform height (915mm in UK), but this has a problem where platforms were designed for the high floor (at Heathrow, and more recently Elizabeth line core). These platforms are non standard, and give level boarding, but are non standard, so any trains built to fit 915mm platforms would have step up to these.

Of course there are around 2500 stations in UK and although historically many different companies built platforms to different heights, in more recent years alterations and extensions have been done to close to 915mm. Over time more platforms will get done.

The 8 surface platforms were originally to be built so any surface trains could call there, and that means with 915mm platforms as there is now plans for many new trains to have a floor section by the doors at this height (even if floor is higher over wheels)

 

[Vexed]

Hi everyone,

There is work being undertaken to establish whether level boarding can be provided to the Elizabeth Line at the new Old Oak Common station.

If you are interested, there's a PWI talk about it happening on 4th Feb in Reading (and also broadcast online):

Level Boarding for Elizabeth Line Trains at Old Oak Common - The PWI

Thames Valley Section hybrid meeting

www.thepwi.org

Thames Valley Section hybrid meeting

I saw an email from the PWI about this, thanks for for the reminder! Looks quite interesting to me, I'll try and attend virtually.

 

[Horizon22]

This leads to the undesirable situation where a wheelchair user can board a train in central london without assistance, but requires assistance to alight in the suburbs. Combine this with the fact that elizibeth line trains are DOO and wheelchair users can be effectively trapped on a train until it returns to central London, or they happen to encounter a member of staff who can provide assistance.

Elizabeth line stations are staffed from first to last train, so no need to "encounter" anyone.

The main issue would be someone boarding at a level-boarding station (say Heathrow or the central stations Paddington <> Abbey Wood) of their own accord heading to a station on the GEML and GWML, not advising staff or realising they need assistance (despite copious announcements and signage) and then not being met at the other end because the destination was none the wiser. Queue delays, passenger alarms being pulled or overcarries.

Stations aren't going to rebuilt en masse any time soon (possibly not ever in a realistic timeframe), and 345s are here to stay for probably decades so we are where we are.

 

[alf]

I have seen wheelchair users get themselves aboard/off trains that don’t have Level boarding.
What is the tolerance? I guess they can drop down 5 cm but can they wheel up a 5 cm climb to the platform/train unaided?

I ask because maybe a compromise height can be agreed.

 

[z444z]

Elizabeth line stations are staffed from first to last train

This does not mean that staff are readily available where you need them. The sentence you’re replying to made perfect sense and this doesn’t as a response to it imo.

 

[apinnard]

Hi everyone,

There is work being undertaken to establish whether level boarding can be provided to the Elizabeth Line at the new Old Oak Common station.

If you are interested, there's a PWI talk about it happening on 4th Feb in Reading (and also broadcast online):

Level Boarding for Elizabeth Line Trains at Old Oak Common - The PWI

Thames Valley Section hybrid meeting

www.thepwi.org

Thames Valley Section hybrid meeting

Having listened to you passionately speaking about the project at the forum Christmas meal, I can definitely say that this will be a very interesting talk. Shame I’m not a railway employee any more, otherwise I’d come along too.

 

[wanderingriver]

Shame I’m not a railway employee any more, otherwise I’d come along too.

The zoom call is open to everyone I believe