For some years, a known issue with the station at Old Oak Common currently being built has been that the trains on the Elizabeth line will call, or terminate, there yet there would be no level boarding. This is despite the fact that, to date, all newly-built stations for the Elizabeth line have level boarding.
HS2 will have level boarding at dedicated HS2 platforms. Central London stations on the Elizabeth line have level boarding. All the three current Elizabeth line Heathrow stations also have level boarding. This means a traveller from Birmingham or further north may start their journey at a level-boarding platform, alight at Old Oak Common station at a level-boarding platform and complete their journey to either Heathrow or central London at a level-boarding platform but be subjected to having to step up into their Crossrail train when boarding at Old Oak Common. This would be a bit of an irritant to those with heavy luggage but much more of a problem for those in a wheelchair, with visual impairment or mobility issues meaning that using steps – even just one – is a major challenge.
Such a problem has long been recognised as unfortunate but the generally perceived wisdom is that there are good reasons for having to have the Crossrail platforms at Old Oak Common station built to standard National Rail standards. We have recently looked at the many advantages of level boarding in an earlier article which can be found here.
The Reason for the Problem
In simple terms, although the Crossrail platforms at Old Oak Common are intended to normally be for dedicated use for Crossrail, there will be occasions when other trains will need to pass through the Crossrail portion of the station so Crossrail platforms will need to be suitable for this. So, one might think this is a simple case of ‘nice idea – sorry, it can’t be done’ but the issue is not that simple and not so black & white.
Now or Never
Adapting an existing station for level boarding is very expensive. It might sound simple but usually it isn’t. Permanent Way engineers are loath to lower the track due to fear of creating ‘wet spots’ and other drainage issues and nowadays the accepted solution is to build up the platform. There are exceptions to this of course and platforms 6 and 7 at Paddington (Heathrow Express platforms where there is level boarding) are such an example. But at Paddington there is not much danger of ‘wet spots’ appearing!
Unfortunately, raising the platform level often generates knock-on issues such as ensuring that steps and lifts are flush with the platform, height clearances are sufficient and buildings on the platform are still step-free. Any coping stones at the edge of the platform will need to be relaid. Many platforms that could in theory be step-free for their entire length have a ‘Harrington Hump’ along a short length of the platform. Costs preclude the alternative of raising the level of the entire platform. So, level boarding throughout the platform length is usually something to get right from the outset or not bother doing.
Recent Publicity
The Evening Standard, amongst others, in a short article has recently reported on this unsatisfactory situation to bring the issue to more public exposure. The article headline is “New HS2 station could be redesigned to allow level boarding for Elizabeth line services”.
To quote from the Evening Standard article:
Andy Lord, Transport for London (TfL) commissioner, said it would be an “absolute failing” if the HS2 station at Old Oak Common was not fully accessible for all passengers – adding that he was in “direct dialogue” with the Government about the issue.
Evening Standard 5th September 2024
Before looking at the statement in detail note that Andy Lord does not refer to Elizabeth line passengers. He refers to “all” passengers. However, the article (and its headline) places great emphasis on Elizabeth line passengers.
Encompassing “all” passengers aside, the statement is highly significant for a couple of reasons. The first is that Andy Lord is hardly going to use strong words like “absolute failing” if he wasn’t reasonably confident that a solution could be found. The TfL commissioner is going to be wise enough not to make reckless statements that could come back to haunt him. The second is the fact that he is in “direct dialogue” with the government suggests that the issue is being taken seriously at a high level. And don’t forget that failure to provide level boarding will look bad for the government.
It is worth looking at the background of Andy Lord. For a start he is an engineer. It is inconceivable he doesn’t fully understand the issues involved including the bigger picture. Second, prior to being the transport commissioner he was the head of London Underground which means he would be familiar with the issues (including engineering ones) regarding provision for level boarding. Finally, he came to TfL from outside the transport industry so won’t have preconceived notions and would also be more likely to challenge existing dogma.
Despite the reference to all passengers, we will look at the Elizabeth line first to see if level boarding is achievable at the Crossrail platforms.
The Trains Causing the Issue
There are basically four types of trains (apart from Crossrail trains) that may need to use the Crossrail platforms at Old Oak Common or pass through them. They are:
- Freight trains
- Engineering trains
- GWR or Heathrow Express trains that have had to be diverted onto the relief lines due to operational issues or planned engineering works making the platforms on the main lines unavailable
- Special trains operated by a train operating company other than GWR e.g. steam charter specials
To understand how it may be possible to mitigate against the issues of these trains we need to look at gauge issues on the railway.
The Kinematic Envelope
Clearly, trains bumping into tunnels, platforms or trains on adjacent lines is highly undesirable. At the same time, it is highly desirable to use all the space available to maximise either for passenger comfort or to maximise freight load. In the situation at Old Oak Common, only width needs to be considered.
A further major consideration is that railway carriages and freight wagons ‘sway’ as they travel. The amount may not be much but it is sufficient to mean that this needs to be considered. The important thing about this for our purposes is that the faster the speed travelled, the greater propensity for a carriage or wagon to sway.
Obviously, it is important that trains are not ‘out of gauge’. For this reason, routes on the railway are given a ‘Loading Gauge’ code for which there is a maximum kinematic envelope that rail vehicles on the route must not exceed. However, this can be looked at slightly differently and one can look at it from the perspective of the train and not the route. Given the shape of a cross-section of a rail vehicle, what must be done infrastructure-wise to accommodate it? The platforms will be straight so there would be no overhang issues due to curvature and, if a ‘foreign’ rail vehicle is to pass through the platform, the question may be whether or not there is a safe speed for the vehicle to pass through the station.
We look at the four types of train we have identified and what could be done to make level boarding on the Elizabeth line at Old Oak Common possible.
Freight trains
There are very few freight trains that run east of Acton Yard (adjacent to Acton Main Line station) which is to the west of the future Old Oak Common station. They generally either terminate at the yard or continue to Acton Wells Junction on the North London line. The only freight sidings east of Acton on the Great Western Main Line are close to Paddington where Tarmac has a concrete plant at Paddington New Yard just north of Crossrail Westbourne Park sidings. The trains are infrequent – probably around one per day.
So various questions need answering:
- Would it be reasonable to not permit freight trains to and from the Tarmac sidings (or any other freight train) to use the relief lines through Old Oak Common. Instead, they would use the main lines?
- Would the locomotives and wagons used by Tarmac fit the Crossrail platforms at Old Oak Common even if at slow speed?
- Would it be realistically possible to relocate Tarmac’s sidings?
Engineering Trains
We could perhaps look at the issue of engineering trains from a different, slightly philosophical, perspective and question whether it could be right that the operating railway needs to be designed around engineering vehicles rather than the engineering vehicles fit in with the gauge available?
Engineering trains fit into the Crossrail and Heathrow tunnels so couldn’t these be used, when necessary, at Old Oak Common? And, if ‘travelling through’, couldn’t an exception be made for them to use the main lines? From Old Oak Common (once open) to Paddington Network Rail are proposing a 50mph speed limit on all lines anyway so the disruption caused by using the main lines instead of the relief lines shouldn’t be that great.
The deep tube lines on the Underground with their 12-foot tunnels use engineering trains so there cannot be a fundamental problem. And with the opening of Old Oak Common station still a few years away there is plenty of time to plan ahead to ensure that engineering trains can use the tracks through the Crossrail platforms.
GWR trains
There would appear to be three types of trains to consider:
- Class 387 electric multiple unit trains. These are used on Heathrow Express which shares level boarding platforms with the Elizabeth line at Heathrow Terminals 2&3 as well as Heathrow Terminal 5 station. So, at some speed, these must be OK to use Crossrail platforms. There is some suspicion that the Heathrow platforms do not offer quite as small a gap between the train and the platform as the central London Crossrail platforms but it is still minimal and perfectly acceptable.
- Class 80x Hitachi InterCity Express Trains (IET). This, we must admit, is a bit of an unknown. What we do know is that the coaches are an incredible 26 metres long and they must stay in gauge even on curves. Given this and the need to stay in gauge suggests that there shouldn’t be too much of a problem if the platforms are straight and they are only passing through and not stopping. It does appear that there is already a considerable gap between these trains and the platforms overcome only by the step provided.
- The Cornish Riviera Night Sleeper. This consists of a Class 57 locomotive and Mark 3 coaches. It probably wouldn’t fit into level boarding Crossrail platforms. The question is then is running this service with Crossrail level-boarding on the relief lines, which is the alternative routing in the event of the main line being closed, a risk that rail managers are prepared to take? What contingency plans could be in place in the event of unplanned disruption on the main line? In the event of planned engineering works could a track possession be ‘given up’ for this train? As an alternative, could it run in and out of Euston when affected by engineering works thus bypassing Old Oak Common completely?
Of course, one cannot guarantee that these are the types of trains that GWR will be operating in future.
Trains Operated by a Different Train Operating Company
We have already stated the most likely scenario in this category is for a steam charter special train. However, conceivably, in the future open access could be granted to a train operator to run in and out of Paddington.
The issues here are the same. Basically, what would happen in the event of the main lines not being available? If the risk is not acceptable, would it be acceptable just to ban any train that cannot run on the relief lines should that be operationally necessary? If we are talking about the occasional steam charter train, would it be right for the need to run these to take priority over categories of people for whom level boarding is a critical issue?
London TravelWatch Have Their Say
Not entirely surprisingly, London TravelWatch, who declare themselves as “ London’s independent transport watchdog” are reported as having an opinion on all this.
According to an article in New Civil Engineer (unfortunately, limited access depending on number of articles browsed) a London TravelWatch spokesperson said:
It would be scandalous if the new station at Old Oak Common isn’t fully accessible to all rail passengers, particularly given the billions of pounds being spent on HS2.
It’s vital that Old Oak Common and all new stations have step-free access and level boarding for all services that stop there.
Accessibility is a necessity, and needs to be built into schemes from the outset to make sure everyone can use these vital public transport services.
New Civil Engineer 12 September, 2024
So basically, London TravelWatch are also saying that just providing level boarding for Elizabeth line services is not good enough. It should apply to all services. In practice this means GWR and Heathrow Express. In a sense, we can ignore Heathrow Express because, even if they are still in existence by the time Old Oak Common is opened (which is far from certain), their trains are Class 387 operated for them by GWR. As GWR have their own Class 387 trains, if you fix it for GWR you automatically fix it for Heathrow Express.
While the aspiration to provide level boarding for all trains is desirable, it introduces a new level of complexity because the option of diverting trains from the problem level-boarding platform no longer exists.
Winners and Losers?
Perhaps a further pertinent question could be ‘who loses out if we have level boarding?’ Possibly freight companies. Possibly heritage train operators. Maybe it adds some complexity to the logistics of railway engineering departments. The obvious beneficiary is passengers.
We would argue that Train Operating Companies are also beneficiaries of level boarding. There is the fairly obvious benefit of reduced risk to passengers when boarding or alighting which could be beneficial in reducing passenger claims and the possible distraction of being involved in a Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) investigation. Less obvious is faster boarding and alighting which means a more resilient timetable. More accurately, more predictable boarding and alighting times less affected by delay caused by the need to provide essential assistance to passengers for whom a step up or down may not be feasible.
Opening the Floodgates?
Let us assume, hypothetically, that a solution is found for level access – at least for the Elizabeth line. It would be almost inevitable that after that London TravelWatch and others are going to look at existing stations and ask why could they not be level boarding as well. In most cases cost would rule out the practicality of changing platform heights. But supposing the platform height has to be changed anyway?
The Ealing Broadway Issue
There have been multiple highly-publicised serious incidents when boarding or alighting Crossrail trains at Ealing Broadway with the Mayor, Sadiq Khan, promising that something will be done about it. Network Rail, who are responsible for the station infrastructure say that the platforms comply with standards. This is a bit disingenuous. There are current standards and Ealing Broadway’s platforms most definitely do not comply and the step up is far too great which is what allegedly led to the serious incidents. Ealing Broadway’s platforms do in a sense comply with standards because they are subject to grandfather rights but basically this only amounts to being required not to scrape the sides of trains.
If, as is likely, some raising of the platform at Ealing Broadway is planned, what is to stop people arguing that since you need to change the platform height anyway you might as well provide level boarding and, because it is planned at Old Oak Common, two stops down the line, then it must be possible? And if Ealing Broadway, what next?
Wait and See
We will have to wait and see if the level boarding issue is resolved at Old Oak Common and which platforms would be beneficially affected. Old Oak Common is due to become the 42nd station on the Crossrail network. If level boarding does become possible at the Crossrail platforms at Old Oak Common station, then it would join 13 existing stations with level boarding making 1 in 3 Crossrail stations having level-boarding provision which, in some people’s eyes, would be quite impressive.
If, however, no solution is found then the railways and the politicians will probably be criticised for years to come, whether that criticism is justified or not.
I’m a little confused. The plan was to build the platforms at Old Oak Common to Network Rail standards? But this standard is not compatible with level-boarding for the Elizabeth line?
Why was the rest of the Elizabeth line not designed with Network Rail standard platform heights (and trains to match)?
If no standard exists then I can understand why you might design around some kind of compromise – to minimise the step across all existing stations, but given the existence of a standard then should we not be pushing towards that standard in all cases? Existing trains will be replaced eventually and platform heights can be modified to the standard when that happens meaning eventually all platforms will be the same height and level boarding everywhere (I’m only talking about the main network here, not the deep level tube!)
“But in the meantime the gap is worse” well yes, but if you don’t make any effort to move towards the standard then the problem will persist forever…
DJL,
Maybe I should have clarified. The Heathrow tunnels are owned by British Airports Authority so Network Rail standards don’t come into it. Similarly Paddington to Abbey Wood is a TfL asset. There is also level boarding on much of the East London line (basically Whitechapel to Dalston Junction and Canada Water). But the East London line is a TfL asset. Similarly there is no obligation for the Underground or preserved railways to follow these Network Rail standards.
More difficult to explain is why it is possible to have level boarding at platforms 6 and 7 at Paddington which are the dedicated Heathrow Express platforms and (presumably) Network Rail managed. But a large point of the article is that these Network Rail standards are being challenged.
The technically probably best but absolutely impossible fiscally and politically would be to replace all Crossrail trains and rebuild all stations to comply with national rail standards.
Perhaps add a paragraph in this article about the history why Crossrail wasn’t built to National Rail standards even though it was obvious that the trains would use platforms shared by other trains?
=======================
Here is a really far out suggestion, that might actually work:
Since some maintenance facilities have lifts capable of lifting a full length EMU, it should technically be possible to have lifts that can rise and lower the tracks. It needs to be connected with “bridges” that either slope slightly upwards or downwards. Expansion joints would make the connections feasible. If the track is locked and not just held up by lifts at it’s high level, it could likely handle the weight of the heaviest freight trains with no problem. Compare with that there are railway bridges over canals that lift up and that can handle all types of trains with no issues.
As a bonus, most failure modes of something like this would likely end up with the platform height suitable for Crossrail trains, so TfL doesn’t have any interest in that the solution actually works, just that it satisfies whatever needs others have for running their trains at the stage of station design.
I fully agree with the engineering trains. That could also apply to the freight trains. A concrete plant uses afaik gravel and cement. For sure there are aggregate wagons used for ballasting works on metros, tramways and whatnot that could be used here. It might be a bit more work to transport cement, but worst case just put cement containers intended for road vehicles onto any rail wagon that fits at Crossrail platforms. It would be an extra cost to have a special type of wagons just for one concrete plant, but on the other hand the cost of having those wagons would be really low.
Do TfL have any aggregate wagons for ballast and whatnot on the underground? If so the concrete plant could use the same type of wagons for aggregate, and modify a few of that wagon type to carry cement. That way those wagons could be maintained and serviced the same way as TfL underground aggregate wagons.
Another solution would be to have a foldable platform edge, and just not allow entry/exit on any other trains than Crossrail trains. Make the edge fold upwards as that ensures that it can’t fall down due to malfunctioning mechanics under the load of lots of passengers. (When fully upwards all load ends up on the hinges anyways so no real risk of mechanical failure in that position either).
The Night Riviera Sleeper departs at 23:45 or 23:50, and arrives at 05:03-05:08 (depending on day of week and whatnot). In particular the departure right before midnight is at a time where engineering works on the fast tracks could simply be restricted to one of the two tracks when the sleeper departs, and I think this seems reasonable for arrival too even though 05 is not that far from the morning rush hour peak.
Also, the freight trains to the concrete plant could for sure use the mainline tracks and simply not be allowed to run when there are engineering works. Don’t know what consumption rate of materials the concrete plant has, but if the owner first fill all storage’s and then park an additional train filled with materials I assume it lasts during whatever the longest reasonable engineering works on the mainline might be. (Also, engineering works could be on one of the tracks and the other allow trains to the concrete plant).
A bonus question is if it’s even desirable to divert GWR mainline trains over the Crossrail/slow lines? Sure, when this appens Crossrail can turn their trains underground at Paddington but that seems less than ideal. How about just terminating GWR trains elsewhere? A few can terminate at Acton Main Line if the disused platform edge is reinstated/refurbished/opened, more can terminate if another platform would be built where there isn’t a platform on the westbound mainline track (both these would need a diamond crossing close to the platforms). Some can be rerouted via the freight tracks to Willesden Juncrion, either on the upper level Overground tracks where there is a track beyond the platforms suitable for terminating trains, or continue to for example Old Oak Common, or they could continue on the Dudding Hill freight line, or run through Willesden Juncrion low level (no platforms) and reverse at for example Kensington Olympia or even either Clapham Junction or Wandsworth Road or Victoria or Waterloo. I get that many of these options won’t work with trains that run on overhead power, and almost all of them would require more trains and more staff, but still.
A bit more realistic re diversion: Would it be reasonably possible to add a connection between the Overground route from Willesden Junction to Clapham Junction, that allows trains from the Willesden direction to go to Paddington? That way trains could be diverted via Willesden Junction low level onto Paddington, on what I think is mostly tracks that don’t get that much usage (except of course the actual Overground routes involved). It looks like Willesden Juncrion have a short section that would be a single track bottle neck, but if this would be a “designated” diversion route that could be resolved with some extra switches.
Or for that sake, what about running the trains through what is normally depot tracks?
In North America, gauntlet track is used to provide extra clearance around high-level platforms. It means adding two switch points and signalling, but otherwise allows out-of-gauge trains to clear the platform.
@Fbfree: Good point! It’s used in Germany too, for the lines where dual mode trams run on the mainline railway network.
Btw the station is supposed to have 8 platform tracks for mainline trains and crossrail. How much engineering works are they planning on to do at the same time if they can’t run the non-crossrail trains on the non-crossrail platforms?
Btw seems like a missed opportunity to not add a 9th platform at about the point that’s marked as the HS2 and NR boundary at the cross section on the IanVisits blog post. Not having a platform there seems like specification/feature requirement driven development. That’s generally a good thing, but a piece of what looks like equipment rooms, offices or whatnot could for a very low additional cost be turned into another platform+track. Also funny that they measure the roof size in equivalent football fields, but the solar panels in m2. The only thing missing is banana for scale 😀
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/see-inside-h2s-new-old-oak-common-railway-station-60166/
(first picture in the slide show)
https://www.hs2.org.uk/building-hs2/stations/old-oak-common/
Freights – specifically the “Tarmac” ones … impose a speed limit through OOC for these, so that they sway less ( The Kinematic Envelope is smaller, in other words ) – problem solved?
Come to that, could that also be a practical solution for special ( e.g. steam-powered ) trains?
MiaM
We have only just built Crossrail & you want to rebuild it now?
Um, err ….
I think it would be worth adding an explanation about how we got to this position.
Trains in the UK have generally had a floor height around 1100mm, and platforms are nominally 915mm (3 feet exactly). For various reasons level boarding was never a consideration historically. For level boarding, therefore you need higher platforms or lower floors. In order to fit the bogies in, lowering the floors is tricky, so HEX and Crossrail went with higher platforms. Stadler trains in East Anglia have lower floors but they have steps inside to get over the bogies to get around the problem. S-stock has lower floors and smaller wheels, but that is ok because the speeds are lower.
@MiaM Is HS2 PR reliable? That link includes “Further works have included demolishing the redundant Wycombe Line bridge over Old Oak Common Lane and starting to build new bridges to take the Great Western Main Line and Central Line into the station.”
Quick correction to your comment about Andy Lord’s background in the “Recent Publicity” section – prior to TfL the bulk of his career was at British Airways, most notably as a very effective and pragmatic head of Flight Operations, so most definitely inside the transport industry albeit a part with different but equally difficult challenges.
B&T,
According to Wikipedia:
…joining British Airways as an Engineering undergraduate in 1989. He then worked at the airline in a variety of roles, becoming Director of Operations in 2008.
The extra information is interesting but I don’t think anything I wrote was incorrect.
I seem to remember Gareth Dennis having a frustrated rant that level access on Crossrail had been ‘fudged’ by TfL and that the core platforms and trains should have been built to National Rail platform standards but were instead built to a much higher (1100mm?) stepping height. I’m sure TfL/Crossrail Ltd had their reasons but nevertheless the issues at OOC, Ealing Broadway and elsewhere outside the core section feel like a direct result of this.
With a new-build station you have the option of providing a platform either side of the line and using selective door opening to open the doors on the correct side. Could accommodate Liz line one side and GWR the other.
@RogerB
That’s not the issue here, which is that any platform high enough for level boarding with the Elizabeth Line trains would get physically struck by some of the other trains passing through.
The infrastructure solution, as others have suggested, is an additional track to bypass the platforms, either in between them or to one side. But there may not be space for that.
Back to FOI requests.
With fairly regular monotony, people put in a request to TfL asking about which doors don’t open at which stations. If TfL were sensible they would include this information in their ‘publications and reports’ section so they don’t have to waste time with these FOIs. This is why the tube working timetables are there.
The latest known relevant FOI request can be found here.
“For this reason, routes on the railway are given a ‘Route Availability’ code for which there is a maximum kinematic envelope …”
Are you sure? My understanding is that Route Availability is about weight. Clearance from structures is Loading Gauge.
[A complete senior moment. Of course you are correct. Now corrected in text. Thank you for pointing this out. PoP]
The only freight sidings west of Acton on the Great Western Main Line are close to Paddington …” should read “… east of Acton …”
[Another of those moments. Corrected. PoP]
“There are very few freight trains that run east of Acton Yard”
There are a hell of a lot of freight trains that run East of Acton Mainline, just not very many that run East of Acton Mainline on the Great Western Main Line.
Incidentally, very few of them enter, or otherwise have anything to do with, Acton Yard.
This is an awful lot of words when three diagrams would suffice: Wagon Gauge, the loading gauge in the Crossrail Central Section, and the loading gauge Ealing Broadway.
@Chasworth Bottingly:
Side track: Speaking of freight, an actual functional rail ring outside London would be really great. IMHO I think it would be worth reconsidering the green belt legislation, and allow swapping land in some cases. I.E. a ring railroad and possibly development along said line, and also allow development along existing railway corridors (where worst case additional tracks could be added to allow for more commuter trains).
Does anybody know which of the reasons was given for not making Blackfriars level boarding?
@herned. That’s very useful, I was struggling to understand why there isn’t a national standard train floor and platform height that matches I’ve thought about it a bit and this is what I’ve come up with. So one of the trickier problems for setting a national standard platform level which matches the height of the floor in the train is going to be achieving level boarding at curved stations where these are served by different types of train.
Parts of Clapham Junction, York, Newcastle, Bristol Temple Meads, Brighton are all curved stations and therefore difficult to alter for level boarding without active mechanically extending gap fillers on every train that serves these stations. The kinematic envelope is wider at the 1100mm train floor height and, on a curve, could oversail the 915mm high platform edge slightly; at 915mm high you are mostly concerned with the kinematic envelope of the bogies and various under frame gubbins which are narrower than the car body above. Therefore on a curve a higher platform has to be further away from the train to stay out of the kinematic envelope of the car body which means significantly bigger gaps between the train doors and the platform for commuter trains at ‘concave’ platforms and for trains with doors at vestibule ends at ‘convex’ platforms.
To solve this a gap filler needs to mechanically extend from under the train into a gap which will be wider at one end of the door than the other by a varying amount and detect the platform edge with proximity sensors so as to be able to extend up to it; quite a bit more complicated than a retractable step. It needs to be able to support a load equivalent to 7 people per m² and it needs to almost never break down when deployed because you would have to take a train and a platform or even a whole route out of service until the issue is resolved. Could it also slow station dwell times because if the gap is big enough there could be someone standing partially on it and you need to wait for the doors to close then detect if there is weight on it before you try to retract it so as not to drop somebody into the gap?
More generally, where the track geometry and vehicle car body specification is not strictly controlled, like with Crossrail concrete slab track and one type of EMU, even with a straight platform you need to leave a fair sized gap between the platform edge and the train to allow some tolerance for track movement, non stop trains and freight presumably. So a lower platform can be closer to the train with no wheelchair access and increased trip risk but reduced fall-into-the-gap risk.
Hence some reasons why the modern national rail standard is still for the platform to be 185mm lower than the finished floor level of the train because level boarding is a super tricky problem. Does that seem about right?
@W:
Given how few stations have platforms in curves, and how many trains serve them (at least for example Clapham Junction), it seems like it would be more efficient if the gap fillers were part of the station/platform rather than the trains. Sure, would be more of a challenge and would have “micro gaps” where say the pointy end of a classic umbrella or a thin high heel could get stuck, but I think that would to some extent apply to gap fillers attached to the trains too.
Also considering how many trains need gap fillers, and the cost in extra dwell time for every train to extend and protract them, it might actually be worth doing a feasibility study of “nuking Clapham”, and by that I mean some eminent domain on some nearby properties and/or allow tighter curves on the approach(es) to the station, in order to straighten the platforms. Officially this could be filed under safety and accessibility improvements (which Clapham Junction really needs anyways).
@MiaM
It would not, simply because on-board sliding step gap fillers are standard technology at this point, and useful even on straight platforms to reduce the gap even further. They do not significantly extend dwell times (as the time to extend and retract is more than compensated for by faster boarding due to level boarding, and the PRM TSI standards requiring door chimes before doors open in any case, during which time the gap filler can easily be extended).
Defective on-train gap fillers can usually still be manually retracted by staff with the door locket out of use until it can be fixed – and therefore will not cause delays beyond the time needed to do this (similar to a door fault currently) and the train can continue in service. In contrast, a platform-based gap filler would run the risk of taking an entire line out of use until it can be fixed (and likely requires a line block to do so, potentially including adjacent lines, so is potentially far more disruptive).
Here is one manufacturer’s website. Some of the pictures shown are of rolling stock that has been in operation for almost 20 years with this technology. It is anything but new.
https://www.ife-doors.com/en/our-products/access-devices/index-2.json
Not specifying level boarding at 915mm for all recent train orders, and not building the platforms in the EL core to standard height is nothing less than a regulatory failure and will reduce accessibility on the railways for decades to come.
In all seriousness.
From a budget (and feasibility) point of view would it be easier to buy a robotic exoskeleton for everyone who would need to use a level boarding.
I think the simplest solution I’ve seen here is gauntlet track, and “By-pass” rails laid 150 mm (6 “) further away from the platform would allow for trains of different loading gauge to run though at speed. With sufficient distance between the platforms it should be possible to allow the adjacent track to remain open.
On the other hand, gauntlet tracks require the same amount of track equipment as a full separate bypass track, so I think it’s worth studying the possibilities to have additional tracks.
(The simplest would be if a study concludes that there is no need to close as many tracks at the same time that other trains that don’t fit the profile would need to use the Elizabeth tracks).
A thought: in central Amsterdam where the space is limited both direction of tram track are placed 10cm apart – which provides for a simple track layout, but trams can run in both directions over these section, like the DLR does in places, but without having to share the actual track
Google “Trams sharing the same track in both directions – getting stuck”
Brian Butterworth. A more local example of interlaced track (gauntlet track to those who prefer American terms to British ones) is on Croydon Tramlink at Mitcham.
See https://cartometro.com/cartes/metro-tram-london/index.php?station=mitcham
OOC design & site does not allow a segregated third way. Interlaced rails could block both paths and seems to invite operational risk. Can the same result not be achieved with a speed limit through the platform say 15mph virtually eliminating dynamic sway? Most traffic will be calling here so anything following will not be at speed.
There are 4 Elizy platforms, could 2 not be level boarding, the northern pair for Shenfield terminators?
alek:by the time the station opens all the line’s routes will have GSM-R and ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System) and ETCS (European Train Control System).
The DLR does this all the time (a similar Train Control System) such as layout issue is sortable with existing hardware and software.
I worked on a GPS-based Guidance system back in 1987. It not a “hard problem”
It’s “unfortunate” that the width of trains are larger than double the track gauge, otherwise two adjacent platform tracks could be used in a “gauntlet-ish” style configuration where one rail for each track is used as a bypass track for oversize load trains 😀 😀 😀
Unfortunately doing this would end up with regular trains being too close to each other on the adjacent tracks, unless you use rails with super wide heads 🙂
Btw, @Greg: I’m not suggesting actually replacing all Crossrail trains and rebuilding all stations. What I am suggesting though is to do a simple study to find a ballpark figure of how big the mistake of using a non-standard platform height is.
I don’t know what the situation is in the UK re accessibility rights now, but I have a hunch that were EU regulations apply it might be possible for some disability rights organization to sue the decision makes over this. Maybe, perhaps. Maybe not.
In general, what did the rough plans for operations look like when the platform height for Crossrail was decided? Were there some idea that Crossrail would be the only trains operating on the slow/stopping tracks both on the GWR and the Shenfield route?
Liz Line platforms should 100% have been built to Network Rail standard height with low floors and gap fillers to allow level boarding. It’s of course way too late for this now, but many industry commentators said as much at the time. As a result of this failing we’re now saddled with a completely ridiculous legacy of level boarding basically being impossible to achieve for the whole of the Elizabeth line for the foreseeable future.
Dear Muzer, the NR platforms standards only became a thing after Crossrail was proposed and approved. There is talks to change the standard to reflect the higher floor trains as it is found it is more space efficient. It could be said the XR platform height was already chosen in the 1990s with Heathrow Airport. The original plan for XR would have seen level boarding done for the whole line, also the W6 loading gauge and other W loading gauges are the same size at the XR platform height.
How about this:
Modify the existing crossrail trains to either add gap fillers, or if they already have gap fillers (I admit that I’m not sure about this) modify them to be able to protrude further.
Change the NR standard to have crossrail platform height but with a wider loading gauge, for existing trains to fit. Long term specify NR trains to standardize to fit this loading gauge/envelope. The end result would be that Crossrail trains would be slightly narrower than future NR standard trains, but that won’t be much of a problem.
This can be done incrementally. First modify the Crossrail trains. Then modify NR platforms that are only served by Crossrail. After that, replace/modify other trains that share platforms with Crossrail, and last modify the platforms that are shared by Crossrail and other trains.
A question is what would happen if an existing non-crossrail train were to use a platform with Crossrail height but wide enough loading gauge to allow other trains? Would there be a dangerous step/gap that any existing gap fillers and whatnot wouldn’t handle well?
(For Old Oak common I think that the simplest solution would be able to fold up the platform edge to allow other trains to pass through without stopping in the rare circumstances that this would be necessary)
GWR 387s do the very late night XR services on the GWML. The XR and HS2 platforms are a very similar offset.
Articles written by PoP I find mostly well researched and informative, with the issues well defined and discussed. This applies even to subjects where I have a lot of knowledge, due to having spent time during my career working on railway projects as a permanent way design engineer. The excellent series of articles on the various Brighton Main Line Capacity upgrades being a case in point. I put this down to PoP sourcing relevant reference material and more importantly, speaking to the right people who understand the problems and are involved with providing solutions in a professional capacity.
Sadly this article, for me, barely rises above the equivalent of attempting to justify connecting the Waterloo and City at Bank with the Great Northern at Moorgate, to provide a through service to Waterloo. You only have to read a few of the comments to appreciate that a whole new world of crayonista-ism has been born!
Firstly, gauging, for the uninitiated is a complex subject and mathematical. You need data and cross section profiles to illustrate what is going on. Words just get in the way.
A picture equals a thousand words and all that…
Level access is a brilliant thing in the right place, but only suits one type of passenger vehicle or others that have very similar characteristics to the first.
The Elizabeth Line platform at Old Oak will be located on the Great Western Relief Lines first and foremost. These will be Network Rail and not Elizabeth Line infrastructure and therefore have to meet the operational requirements of the GW mainline, even if a high proportion of the trains serving or passing through them are Elizabeth Line trains.
The Network Rail standard for platforms is an offset of 730mm and a height of 915mm, with tolerances, and applies to straight, uncanted track. This usually requires a step up into the vehicle. The DfT has set limits in horizontal, vertical and diagonal directions between the platform edge and the vehicle footstep to limit the step and gap.
Applying level access, which would be determined by the vehicle characteristics, including suspension characteristics and component wear limits, will result in an increased offset and height. And a derogation to the NR Standard, signed off by the RSSB.
The Wales and Western Sectional Appendix will list all the stock that is permitted to operate on the Relief Lines through Old Oak. This will list all the current operating passenger and freight vehicles and locomotives and a good number of historic vehicles (ie. Mk 1 coaches). The NR Gauging Engineer may also request aspirational vehicles and steam locos to be considered in any gauging assessment. These vehicles have the right to operate on the lines stated and any change will require industry agreement via NR’s Network Change process, which is designed to protect the interests of the affected parties.
At present the Relief Lines at Old Oak accommodate services (and hence vehicles) operated by the passenger and freight train operators that run trains through the area. The Main and Relief Lines need to be interchangeable to facilitate operations during times of perturbation or when either the Mains or Reliefs are blocked for Engineering works to keep a basic timetable running. It is not unusual for the Main lines to be blocked between say, Paddington and Slough at a weekend for engineering works, with traffic, including the longer distance GW services, diverted on to the Relief lines.
Provision of level access at Old Oak may preclude some of these vehicles operating on the Relief Lines and hence further restrict services during perturbation or engineering works, or prevent certain freight trains running. This is likely to disrupt far more journeys for more people than would be affected significantly by non-provision of level access at Old Oak.
In my opinion, level access is a nice to have on a multi vehicle railway, but the operability of the railway, without significant constraint, should be sacrosanct.
Of course, a novel solution may provide an answer. I believe rubber straps fitted to the platform edge to reduce the gap were considered for the new station at Brent Cross West. Brent Cross West is a very similar problem to Old Oak, but with some curved and possibly canted track (I think, from memory), to maintain the line speed. I don’t know what the final solution was, whether proper level access has been provided, or just a reduction in the horizontal gap to provide a limited improvement.
As ever, an Engineering problem requires an engineering solution. It will be interesting to see what the outcome is.
Hopefully PoP can, in time, speak to the right people and enlighten us all. Including some pictures, please!
Richard B,
I am not at liberty to identify sources but please believe me that within the inner LR team there is at least one person who is currently well connected with the issues and who was feeding me information. There is also another who is/was a rolling stock engineer with a considerable grasp of technical detail. That said, it was somewhat frustrating that a FOI request that someone made (presumably to Network Rail) reference 3512-2324 which elicited the response of providing Old Oak Common Strategic Steering Group Level Boarding Update dated 31st October 2023 contains numerous redactions which rather diminishes the value of the document.
I deliberately did not go into too much technical detail. This is partly because a lot of it went over my head but mainly because I was trying to make the point (and obviously failing) that we have a set of standards that seem inviolate and seem to be unchallengeable. From my biased view there seems to be too much response along the lines of ‘you can’t do this because of RSSB regulation x paragraph y’ without questioning why these regulations are necessary. Your comment about steam locomotives rather emphasises the point I am trying to make. Yes, there are technical issues about steam locomotives but no-one seems to be challenging why we should consider running the occasional steam locomotive to be more important than providing level access on a daily basis at a station that will be heavily used. If steam locomotives need to be banned from the eastern extremity of the Great Western Main Line, why cannot that option be considered instead of looking at the engineering implications of allowing them?
The well-connected person has looked at some of the industry responses on another forum, looks frustrated and exclaims ‘but the platforms at Old Oak Common will be straight’. I have not seen any gauge regulation that takes into account lack of curvature.
I also reiterate the point that I do not believe Andy Lord would have made the comment he did if he did not believe level boarding (or something closer to it) would be possible with the will to do it. If that involves lobbying the rail minister to get some of the rules changed, I am sure he will do that.
If you wish to write to me personally at pedantic [at] londonreconnections.com, I could maybe reveal slightly more of my resources and put to other people any specific issues on which you think I have been misinformed.