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.<\/p>\n
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 \u2013 even just one \u2013 is a major challenge.<\/p>\n
Such a problem has long been recognised and 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n 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 \u2018nice idea \u2013 sorry, it can\u2019t be done\u2019 but the issue is not that simple and not so black & white.<\/p>\n Adapting an existing station for level boarding is very expensive. It might sound simple but usually it isn\u2019t. Permanent Way engineers are loath to lower the track due to fear of creating \u2018wet spots\u2019 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 \u2018wet spots\u2019 appearing!<\/p>\n 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 \u2018Harrington Hump\u2019 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.<\/p>\n The Evening Standard, amongst others, in a short article<\/a> has recently reported on this unsatisfactory situation to bring the issue to more public exposure. The article headline is \u201cNew HS2 station could be redesigned to allow level boarding for Elizabeth line services\u201d.<\/p>\n To quote from the Evening Standard article:<\/p>\n Andy Lord,\u00a0Transport for London\u00a0(TfL) commissioner, said it would be an \u201cabsolute failing\u201d if the\u00a0HS2\u00a0station at\u00a0Old Oak Common\u00a0was not fully accessible for all passengers \u2013 adding that he was in \u201cdirect dialogue\u201d with the Government about the issue.<\/p>\n Evening Standard 5th September 2024<\/p>\n Before looking at the statement in detail note that Andy Lord does not refer to Elizabeth line passengers. He refers to \u201call\u201d passengers. However, the article (and its headline) places great emphasis on Elizabeth line passengers.<\/p>\n Encompassing \u201call\u201d 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 \u201cabsolute failing\u201d if he wasn\u2019t 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 \u201cdirect dialogue\u201d with the government suggests that the issue is being taken seriously at a high level. And don\u2019t forget that failure to provide level boarding will look bad for the government.<\/p>\n It is worth looking at the background of Andy Lord. For a start he is an engineer. It is inconceivable he doesn\u2019t 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\u2019t have preconceived notions and would also be more likely to challenge existing dogma.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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:<\/p>\n Freight trains<\/p>\n Engineering trains<\/p>\n 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<\/p>\n Special trains operated by a train operating company other than GWR e.g. steam charter specials<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n A further major consideration is that railway carriages and freight wagons \u2018sway\u2019 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.<\/p>\n Obviously, it is important that trains are not \u2018out of gauge\u2019. For this reason, routes on the railway are given a \u2018Route Availability\u2019 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 \u2018foreign\u2019 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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 west 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 \u2013 probably around one per day.<\/p>\n So various questions need answering:<\/p>\n 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?<\/p>\n Would the locomotives and wagons used by Tarmac fit the Crossrail platforms at Old Oak Common even if at slow speed?<\/p>\n Would it be realistically possible to relocate Tarmac\u2019s sidings?<\/p>\n 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?<\/p>\n Engineering trains fit into the Crossrail and Heathrow tunnels so couldn\u2019t these be used, when necessary, at Old Oak Common? And, if \u2018travelling through\u2019, couldn\u2019t 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\u2019t be that great.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n There would appear to be three types of trains to consider:<\/p>\n Class 387 electric multiple unit trains<\/strong>. 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.<\/p>\n Class 80x Hitachi InterCity Express Trains<\/strong> (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\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n The Cornish Riviera Night Sleeper<\/strong>. This consists of a Class 57 locomotive and Mark 3 coaches. It probably wouldn\u2019t 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 \u2018given up\u2019 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?<\/p>\n Of course, one cannot guarantee that these are the types of trains that GWR will be operating in future.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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?<\/p>\n Not entirely surprisingly, London TravelWatch, who declare themselves as \u201c\u00a0London\u2019s independent transport watchdog\u201d are reported as having an opinion on all this.<\/p>\n According to an article in New Civil Engineer<\/a> (unfortunately, limited access depending on number of articles browsed) a London TravelWatch spokesperson said:<\/p>\n It would be scandalous if the new station at Old Oak Common isn\u2019t fully accessible to all rail passengers, particularly given the billions of pounds being spent on HS2.<\/p>\n It\u2019s vital that Old Oak Common and all new stations have step-free access and level boarding for all services that stop there.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n New Civil Engineer 12 September, 2024<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Perhaps a further pertinent question could be \u2018who loses out if we have level boarding?\u2019 Possibly freight companies. Possibly heritage train operators. Maybe it adds some complexity to the logistics of railway engineering departments. The obvious beneficiary is passengers. <\/p>\n 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 Accidents Investigation Board (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.<\/p>\n Let us assume, hypothetically, that a solution is found for level access \u2013 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?<\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 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?<\/p>\n 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\u2019s eyes, would be quite impressive.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The post Liz Line Level-Boarding at Old Oak Common?<\/a> appeared first on London Reconnections<\/a>.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":8371,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[60],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8370","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-camcab"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/camcab.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8370"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/camcab.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/camcab.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/camcab.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8370"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/camcab.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8370\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/camcab.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8371"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/camcab.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8370"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/camcab.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8370"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/camcab.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8370"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}The Reason for the Problem<\/h2>\n
Now or Never<\/h2>\n
Recent Publicity<\/h2>\n
The Trains Causing the Issue<\/h2>\n
The Kinematic Envelope<\/h2>\n
Freight trains<\/h2>\n
Engineering Trains<\/h2>\n
GWR trains<\/h2>\n
Trains Operated by a Different Train Operating Company<\/h2>\n
London TravelWatch Have Their Say<\/h2>\n
Winners and Losers?<\/h2>\n
Opening the Floodgates?<\/h2>\n
The Ealing Broadway Issue<\/h2>\n
Wait and See<\/h2>\n