Old Oak Common - Level Boarding for Elizabeth Line trains

[Horizon22]

I appreciate what you’re saying but the way you said “that’s incredibly rare” to someone raising a very real concern came across a little dismissive. I agree with what you’ve said in this latest post but do not agree that it’s incredibly rare. I’d consider incredibly rare to be below 1%, maybe even below 0.5%, not 5-10% as is the experience of myself and every other disabled person I know.

Fair enough, I appreciate that. I guess it depends on terminology at this point then as to what "incredibly rare" means.

There's a few advances in this area which should allow for better comaprison between all TOCs / routes soon also which will identify best practice and problem areas.

 

[mr_moo]

So, I assume that for level boarding to Elizabeth Line trains they only need non-standard height on the relief lines. Is that the plan?

That's what is being looked at, yes.

The 'Main' platform will be standard height regardless. The 'Relief' line platforms will, if the work is successful, and that's an important if, be high.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2026 ==

Which would just cause even more confusion, how do you easily tell people they can only have step free access on certain services, how do you display that on a map?

Completely agree.
Whist a 2 platform high and 2 platform low system would work in principle, it would very lead to over-carrying of mobility impaired users, confusion about which trains had level boarding and which didn't, and would be more restrictive operationally as you'd need to adhere to the timetabled platform more rigidly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2026 ==

The structure coming from them have certainly started to be cast, a month or so ago the rebar had reached what looked like the level of the bridge above the station, so it would certainly be difficult to change at this stage.

Indeed. The platforms are designed and have started to be built. The base structure is there and pretty unchangeable now.
The track is still quite some time away so the level boarding solution is looking at lowering the designed levels of the track, not raising the platforms. Same result, just less disruptive.

(And yes, you may have gathered by now that I'm involved in this project!)

 

[Russel]

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

Am I missing something here, has an order been placed or is this speculation?

 

[mr_moo]

Am I missing something here, has an order been placed or is this speculation?

GWR are working on a tender to have low floor train displace the 165/166 and possibly the 387 fleets. Neither is to be scrapped - The 165/166 are to move Westwards within GWR. I don't know the plan for the 387s.

It's part of a plan that was called "Project Churchward", and is now called "Green Railway for Growth". Have a search on here for those terms and you'll find lots of info.

 

[Russel]

GWR are working on a tender to have low floor train displace the 165/166 and possibly the 387 fleets. Neither is to be scrapped - The 165/166 are to move Westwards within GWR. I don't know the plan for the 387s.

It's part of a plan that was called "Project Churchward", and is now called "Green Railway for Growth". Have a search on here for those terms and you'll find lots of info.

I know about that, but the post I quoted was worded as if a decision had already been made...

 

[mr_moo]

I know about that, but the post I quoted was worded as if a decision had already been made...

Ah, fair.
Yes, it has. The exact details, no, but the decision to procure low floor trains has absolutely been made. I believe there is a tendering exercise going on with manufacturers at present.

 

[Travelmonkey]

No, but I do see statistics on these figures on a regular basis.

Of course failings should be reduced to 0%, and any negative experience counteracts multiple routine, positive experience where assistance is fully provided. But I am not native to suggest that it will be easy to avoid completely without the implementation of widespread step-free access from train to street everywhere. But then I am also realistic enough to know this simply will not happen any time soon, so wheelchair users will be dependent on staff support for the forseeable. And when this occurs, unfortunately there will be some element of human error. This can be heavily mitigated, but elimination is probably impossible.

ah relying on statistics, unfortunatley the numbers can be massaged, not all disabled people will be as vocal as myself or @kingqueen but it does happen suprisingly alot, it's not the disabled persons fault that gaps exist and we are often subjected to lectures because we didn't plan ahead for the convinence of the railway. With TFL its diffrent you speak to station staff but broader mainline that HS2 and GWR feed into get upset when we want to turn up and go.

it takes one negitive expiernce to put someone off and the commbative nature sometimes is a big barrier.

 

[mr_moo]

Whilst I'm not disabled I have met several disabled people and they all share a level of realism. Ideally assistance is booked and it all works great. Reality begs to differ...

To their credit, GWR, TFL, GTS, and Network Rail, all have specific groups of disabled people who work with project teams to help them understand these issues and to assist with projects as they make decisions.

 

[Travelmonkey]

Whilst I'm not disabled I have met several disabled people and they all share a level of realism. Ideally assistance is booked and it all works great. Reality begs to differ...

To their credit, GWR, TFL, GTS, and Network Rail, all have specific groups of disabled people who work with project teams to help them understand these issues and to assist with projects as they make decisions.

indeed even those who work for the companies have bogey stations that seem to be a all round pain, having met a few diffrenent stakeholders from TOCs and NR they want to do better and some ideas are good in pricipal but then get scoffed at by those it's designed to help (the help totems) there will be no one size fits all approach but the gap (physical/staffing & training) needs closing, I do like the Staddler setup for their 555s and 777s so hoping GWRs new regional units are similar although you do have ramps for step up to platform like on the Bakerloo line although TFL staff don't like using them.

 

[Chris125]

Completely agree.
Whist a 2 platform high and 2 platform low system would work in principle, it would very lead to over-carrying of mobility impaired users, confusion about which trains had level boarding and which didn't, and would be more restrictive operationally as you'd need to adhere to the timetabled platform more rigidly.

IMO a better compromise than either no level boarding at all, or platforms incompatible with other rolling stock and future level boarding GWR services.

 

[Snow1964]

Completely agree.
Whist a 2 platform high and 2 platform low system would work in principle, it would very lead to over-carrying of mobility impaired users, confusion about which trains had level boarding and which didn't, and would be more restrictive operationally as you'd need to adhere to the timetabled platform more rigidly.

GWR manage about 200 stations, and operate at about 75 more that are run by others.

There are multiple stations (including busy ones like Bath Spa) where there are mixture of IETs and local trains that are due to be replaced soon. So going to be a mix of high floor IETs and level boarding new stock. So the idea of confusion which trains have level boarding is very weak as it will apply to dozens of locations (not just Old Oak).

Of course Elizabeth line trains occasionally use fast lines on both western and lines towards Shenfield (both planned during engineering and unplanned during disruption). And there are many stations on these where platforms on different lines are at different height. Things happen so can't always adhere to same platform every day of the year. It happens now, so not sure why you are worrying about it as a operational restriction.

I am still thinking trying to get nearer 925-930mm (within the standard height tolerance) is better than going few millimetres under the nominal 915mm. Because it minimises any compromise.

 

[Recessio]

Worth pointing out that the standard of 915mm would not provide level boarding with any UK train without aids.

I'm not sure what's worse: having a standard and not following it, or having a standard that doesn't even allow level boarding and therefore seems a bit pointless.

We had "one small step for a man" in 1969, but still have one giant step off of trains in 2026, it's ridiculous.

 

[hwl]

I'm not sure what's worse: having a standard and not following it, or having a standard that doesn't even allow level boarding and therefore seems a bit pointless.

We had "one small step for a man" in 1969, but still have one giant step off of trains in 2026, it's ridiculous.

The standard wasn't actually that well chosen on technical basis - they just went for a round number: 1 yard

Southeastern are going for something that better fits their platforms most of which are noticeably above 1000 rather than 915.

 

[zwk500]

I'm not sure what's worse: having a standard and not following it, or having a standard that doesn't even allow level boarding and therefore seems a bit pointless.

We had "one small step for a man" in 1969, but still have one giant step off of trains in 2026, it's ridiculous.

That depends on what the purpose of specifying the platform height was.

 

[Recessio]

That depends on what the purpose of specifying the platform height was.

Well I'd hope if we were going to bother specifying a standard height - whether it is the main reason or not - that a height would be chosen so that it would enable level boarding.

 

[zwk500]

Well I'd hope if we were going to bother specifying a standard height - whether it is the main reason or not - that a height would be chosen so that it would enable level boarding.

The height chosen has to also allow for rolling stock to pass through, of course. Of particular concern are slam-door stock, which must have a clear area for the door to open, and freight, which wants the widest wagon bed possible.

915mm is first specified as an absolute value in GIRT7016, Issue 1 - published in 2004. The earlier standard just says:

The edge of the platform shall be located such that the distance from the top edge of the platform to the top edge of the step board or floor of passenger rolling stock using the platform is kept to a minimum necessary to maintain structural clearance.

(GCRT5161, Issue 1).

As the world has moved on, 915mm is (IMO) too low and changing to 950 or 960 would be better, as that's more within reach of gap fillers or low-floor designs. Smaller wheels limit performance, although 860mm now seems to be being accepted (UIC 506-2) without serious limit.

The UK is balancing the requirements of an extensive legacy network with the changing requirements for a modern public transport service. In an ideal world, we'd have been able to foresee all of this and specified a standard platform height that allowed level boarding with level-floored rolling stock right back in the 1955 modernisation plan. However, "they" didn't.

If a platform height can be found that allows freight wagons to pass while maintaining universal unassisted level boarding with level-floor rolling stock that use standard UIC compliant, I'd be all for the redefinition of the standard.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As the world has moved on, 915mm is (IMO) too low and changing to 950 or 960 would be better, as that's more within reach of gap fillers or low-floor designs.

A 915mm platform gives you effective level boarding at a 960mm floor. This is what Merseyrail have. The reason it's like this is that it is physically impossible for the step to be flush with the floor (there has to be bodywork above it to hold it in place), so there has to be a small step up which it is possible for a wheelchair's large wheels to easily traverse. What it gives you is in effect about 2cm onto the step and 2cm from the step into the train. A 950/960mm platform would give a step down and up, not sure if that would be of any more benefit?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Feb 2026 ==

If a platform height can be found that allows freight wagons to pass while maintaining universal unassisted level boarding with level-floor rolling stock that use standard UIC compliant, I'd be all for the redefinition of the standard.

It could be done by raising platforms to over 1m but with the top bit back from the edge and moving gap fillers used to cover the wide gap which provides for the freight loading gauge. This is essentially how Germany etc have done it (albeit at a lower height). It isn't however really compatible with existing stock that doesn't have moving gap fillers.

It wouldn't be UIC compliant, though, as that's much lower and basically never results in a flat floor.

 

[zwk500]

A 915mm platform gives you effective level boarding at a 960mm floor. This is what Merseyrail have. The reason it's like this is that it is physically impossible for the step to be flush with the floor (there has to be bodywork above it to hold it in place), so there has to be a small step up which it is possible for a wheelchair's large wheels to easily traverse. What it gives you is in effect about 2cm onto the step and 2cm from the step into the train. A 950/960mm platform would give a step down and up, not sure if that would be of any more benefit?

The point of the 960mm platform would be to remove the need for gap fillers. You would have the platform edge flush with the train floor edge, like Crossrail or ELL core sections.

It could be done by raising platforms to over 1m but with the top bit back from the edge and moving gap fillers used to cover the wide gap which provides for the freight loading gauge. This is essentially how Germany etc have done it (albeit at a lower height). It isn't however really compatible with existing stock that doesn't have moving gap fillers.

And this is the problem. We are stuck in a legacy trap that requires substantial long-term thinking and investment to overcome.

Oh for the 'what-if' of a 1955 Modernisation plan that had committed to substantive UIC-GB conversion of structures, platforms and stock, or even Beeching for lines to be retained. But we are where we are now.

 

[Corn]

Some places, like in the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit in America, have addressed the issue of freight vs high platforms by using gauntlet track to provide a platform avoiding loop in a small space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoma–Marin_Area_Rail_Transit#Stations

 

[zwk500]

Some places, like in the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit in America, have addressed the issue of freight vs high platforms by using gauntlet track to provide a platform avoiding loop in a small space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoma–Marin_Area_Rail_Transit#Stations

Which requires greater horizontal separation between pairs of platforms, especially if both platform tracks have gauntlets. That would expand the site of, say, Old Oak Common's 8 platforms by an appreciable amount.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The point of the 960mm platform would be to remove the need for gap fillers. You would have the platform edge flush with the train floor edge, like Crossrail or ELL core sections.

Though the downside of not having gap fillers is that on an old system (which it is) you're going to end up with massive chasms at some stations due to curvature even if there is no vertical difference between platform and train. The S-stock has level boarding without gap fillers, and at several stations you clearly couldn't just wheel a wheelchair straight off.

The advantage of gap fillers is that they at least partially fill such gaps.

If you're building a wholly new system like the Liz core (or Metrolink, which has had that type of level boarding since it opened in the 1990s, interestingly largely without fully rebuilding platforms on the original rail conversions) you can achieve that, but the cost of achieving it on the "legacy" Liz would be immense.

 

[BoundForFinalD]

I remember this issue being raised when the OOC station was set in stone to be the priority and the used-for-longer-than-desired HS2 terminal. And as many pointed out it’s not impossible to have level boarding but utterly knotty. But I was taken aback by the debate about the step up VS step down. Whereas it’s true that stepping down on a platform from a train is indeed the norm, stepping up is inevitable on curved island platforms. And no Londoners will be unfamiliar with such stepping up… just a case in point the subsurface lines share some platforms with deep tube lines with their S stock. But at least in that case the step was inevitable. What is frustrating are those now used exclusively by the deep tube lines, such as some on the western sec. of the jubilee line for “cost” reasons. The stepping up at the curved Finchley Road from a Jubilee can be dangerous even if you are able bodied.

 

[mr_moo]

There's a key issue though - Fitting legacy stock into a system is one thing, but building a whole new stattion from scratch and then building in issues such as the step down is not neccesarily anywhere near as acceptable neccesarily.

The bakerloo line does set a precedent, absolutely, but would you desin it in for a new station, even if it was a new station between two exisitng stations on that line? I suspect there would be a fairly strong push to make any new station a 4-platform one, with one high and one low each way.

As for the standards, yes, 915 almost came about because it was the most sensible number at the time, but that is now the standard to be aspired to. JHaving higher platforms makes clearance management all the harder, so having low floor train with footstes coming out to meet the lower platform seems the best way forward IMO, for most stations.

 

[zwk500]

Having higher platforms makes clearance management all the harder, so having low floor train with footstes coming out to meet the lower platform seems the best way forward IMO, for most stations.

If this is the way forward, I wonder if it will ever be seen as viable to have the gap fillers able to extend far enough to make it worth starting to rebuild platforms to UIC profile.

 

[mr_moo]

Gap fillers are themselves prblemattic though.

If you are talking about mechanical gap fillers that extend from the platform, fab, but:
- How do they interface with different trains?
- How do you know they have retracted before allowing the train to leave and tell the driver this?
- If the platform sees almost exclusively one type of train, placement locations are easy to determine, but if it' sserved by multiple trains (as at Old Oak Common) with differing dor positons and layouts, you probably just need to do the whole platform, or have some very clever and carfully planned set of stopping locations. And if you are doing all of it, how close can you get the separate units?
- How does the train know the gap filler has deployed and the doors can be safely opened?
- How are failures managed?


etc etc...

Or, if you are talking flexible gap fillers - Are you into negative clearances? If no, why bother with them? If yes, what risk does this actually pose to trains and/or people? How about maintenance? Will a train operator accept these risks?
Fun things.. .

 

[Bletchleyite]

- How do you know they have retracted before allowing the train to leave and tell the driver this?

Interestingly on the New York Subway they are just pushed back by the train as it departs.

 

[Benjwri]

make any new station a 4-platform one, with one high and one low each way.

Old Oak Common is already 4 platforms, but the Elizabeth Line needs to use all 4 and it isn't at all practical to have one one level and the other another.

 

[zwk500]

Gap fillers are themselves prblemattic though.

If you are talking about mechanical gap fillers that extend from the platform, fab, but:
- How do they interface with different trains?
- How do you know they have retracted before allowing the train to leave and tell the driver this?
- If the platform sees almost exclusively one type of train, placement locations are easy to determine, but if it' sserved by multiple trains (as at Old Oak Common) with differing dor positons and layouts, you probably just need to do the whole platform, or have some very clever and carfully planned set of stopping locations. And if you are doing all of it, how close can you get the separate units?
- How does the train know the gap filler has deployed and the doors can be safely opened?
- How are failures managed?


etc etc...

Or, if you are talking flexible gap fillers - Are you into negative clearances? If no, why bother with them? If yes, what risk does this actually pose to trains and/or people? How about maintenance? Will a train operator accept these risks?
Fun things.. .

I was talking about train mounted ones, as per Merseyrail - because that's what I thought you were talking about with the footsteps coming out!

 

[wanderingriver]

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

Just attended this meeting and it was quite interesting.

THE FOLLOWING ISN'T FINAL AND MAY CHANGE AND MAY NOT BE APPROVED BY DfT AFTER SUBMISSION
The current consideration is to have the track on a tilt on slab track and to use gap fillers. They seem to currently have the clearances very close for most trains but they are going to do their best to make sure every operator can have level boarding. They will have to lower the track on the step free platforms too for it to fit and have level boarding.
PWI will release the video of the meeting and documents in the meeting in a few days, they stated.

 

[BRX]

I watched it too & found it very interesting. Thanks @mr_moo for starting this thread & providing the link.