While TfL prepares to re-study East Putney, there’s a better approach that could deliver step-free access for approximately £4 million – saving roughly £16 million compared to the traditional design in the 2019 feasibility study we published today.
The solution uses inclined lift technology, proven at Greenford station in 2015 and at two Elizabeth Line stations in 2022. The technology didn’t exist in London when East Putney was last studied. It does now.
This isn’t theoretical. It’s a proven playbook that another London council followed to deliver step-free access at a fraction of the expected cost. East Putney could do exactly the same.
Here’s how.
The Greenford Breakthrough
In 2015, Greenford station on the Central Line faced a familiar problem. TfL’s initial estimates for traditional vertical lifts came to £10 million. Too expensive for the available budget. The station would remain inaccessible. Case closed.
Ealing Council refused to accept that outcome. They commissioned independent research into an alternative approach: an inclined lift that would travel diagonally through the existing escalator shaft rather than requiring new vertical shafts to be constructed.
The research proved it could work. At a fraction of the cost.
The final delivery came in at £2.2 million. This wasn’t just the lift – it included a new escalator, an accessible toilet, lighting upgrades, and various station improvements. Everything bundled together for less than a quarter of the original vertical lift estimate.
Not £10 million. £2.2 million.
The UK’s first inclined lift became operational in 2015. It carries up to 17 people at a 30-degree angle through the existing infrastructure. It works reliably. Residents use it daily. The technology that was once experimental is now proven.
It’s validated across London now
Since Greenford demonstrated the concept, inclined lifts have been installed at two Elizabeth Line stations. Farringdon got two inclined lifts when it opened in 2022. Liverpool Street also received two inclined lifts the same year.
That’s five inclined lifts operating across three major London stations. Up to ten years of service at Greenford. Fully validated within TfL safety and accessibility standards. Integration with modern signaling and control systems proven. Passenger acceptance confirmed.
This is not experimental technology being proposed for East Putney. This is proven infrastructure that’s been carrying passengers across London for years.
Why East Putney is suited for this approach
The 2019 feasibility study we’ve published today shows that East Putney has existing infrastructure that could potentially accommodate an inclined lift.
The study identifies disused staircase passages between the ticket hall and platform level. These passages, if they have a consistent gradient, could be retrofitted with an inclined lift system—exactly the approach that worked at Greenford’s disused escalator shaft.
The 2019 study proposed a different solution: vertical lift shafts requiring deep excavation, a footbridge spanning the tracks to connect the two platforms, major structural interventions including work on the railway embankment, and prefabricated components that would need to be craned over live railway lines. The cost was estimated at £15.9 million in 2019 prices, approximately £20-22 million today with inflation.
An inclined lift approach would use the existing staircase infrastructure, require minimal excavation, avoid the complex bridge construction entirely, and reduce construction disruption significantly. The estimated cost, based on the Greenford precedent and adjusted for site-specific factors at East Putney, would be approximately £3.5-4.0 million.
The potential saving: £16-18 million.
The 2019 study didn’t consider this option because the technology wasn’t proven in London at that time. That’s completely reasonable – you don’t propose untested solutions in professional feasibility studies. But it’s 2025 now. The technology has been proven for a decade. The precedent exists. The cost savings are documented.
The cost breakdown
Based on the Greenford precedent and adjusted for East Putney’s specific requirements, here’s how the costs would likely break down:
The inclined lift system itself—the car, rails, and mechanical and electrical components—cost £670,000 at Greenford in 2015. Adjusted for inflation and the specific requirements at East Putney, this would likely be £900,000 to £1.2 million today.
The glass enclosure and side panels at Greenford cost £300,000. At East Putney, accounting for the specific architectural requirements and heritage considerations identified in the 2019 study, this would likely be £350,000 to £500,000.
Structural works—platform openings, reinforcements, and integration with existing structures—cost approximately £300,000 at Greenford. At East Putney, with its specific structural challenges, this might be around £500,000.
Civil works, access modifications, and site preparation cost £200,000 at Greenford. At East Putney, this would likely be approximately £300,000.
Design, project management, and contingency at Greenford came to roughly £700,000. At East Putney, with a higher risk allowance reflecting the site complexity and heritage constraints, this would likely be around £1.5 million.
The total at Greenford was £2.2 million. The total at East Putney, accounting for site-specific factors and inflation, would likely be £3.5-4.0 million.
Compare this to the traditional vertical lift and footbridge design: £20-22 million at today’s prices.
The potential saving is £16-18 million—enough to fund step-free access at three to four additional stations using the same innovative approach.
The Ealing playbook
This isn’t guesswork about what might work. There’s a documented process that Ealing Council followed to make Greenford happen. Every step is recorded. The precedent is clear. East Putney could follow this exact template.
Ealing Council commissioned independent research demonstrating that an inclined lift was feasible and would deliver massive cost savings compared to traditional vertical lifts. This research provided the evidence base that TfL needed to consider an alternative to their standard approach.
Armed with that evidence, Ealing presented the case to TfL, showing that the innovative solution could deliver the same accessibility outcome at a fraction of the cost. The business case was compelling because it was backed by professional engineering analysis.
Ealing Council then committed £200,000 in partnership funding. This wasn’t the majority of the project cost, but it demonstrated commitment and skin in the game. It showed TfL that the local authority was serious about making this happen, not just campaigning from the sidelines.
With the evidence base established and partnership funding committed, TfL agreed to adopt the innovative approach. The project moved forward with clear accountability and delivery timelines.
The result: step-free access delivered at £2.2 million total cost instead of the £10 million originally estimated for vertical lifts.
The key figure in making this happen was Councillor Bassam Mahfouz, who championed the project alongside local disability campaigners. They worked together to build the case, secure the research, and persuade TfL that innovation was worth trying.
East Putney has the same opportunity. Every element of the Ealing playbook is replicable. The question is whether Wandsworth Council and local MPs have the vision to follow it.
The Roadmap Forward
Here’s what could/should happen if our representatives are serious about making East Putney step-free.
| Timeline | Wandsworth Council | TfL | MP Anderson | GLA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct-Dec 2025 | Commission inclined lift assessment (8-12 weeks) Contact Ealing Council/Cllr Mahfouz |
Include inclined option in feasibility scope | Champion inclined lift publicly Demand accountability for 2019 study |
Facilitate council-TfL partnership |
| Q1 2026 | Commit £200-300k partnership funding Present business case |
Commit: “If feasible, we fund concept design” | Coordinate stakeholders | Identify accessibility funding streams |
| Q2-Q3 2026 | Support planning process | Fund concept design Include in capital budget |
Monitor delivery milestones | Provide funding where appropriate |
| 2027 | Continue partnership support | Issue construction tender | Hold officials accountable | Support delivery |
| 2028-2030 | Monitor construction | Deliver project | Celebrate completion (not announcements) | Document for other stations |
Why This Matters Beyond East Putney
If East Putney successfully adopts the inclined lift approach, the implications extend far beyond one station.
A template gets created for other stations currently dismissed as “too expensive” for traditional step-free access. Putney Bridge is the obvious next candidate – TfL previously concluded that step-free access there would cost more than £10 million with “very significant construction challenges.” With the inclined lift approach proven at East Putney, Putney Bridge could be reassessed. So could dozens of other stations across the network.
The £16 million saved at East Putney could fund step-free access at three to four additional stations using the same innovative approach. The accessibility gains multiply. The return on innovation becomes clear.
Proof of concept gets established that innovation beats repetition. That looking at what’s worked elsewhere – at Greenford, at Farringdon, at Liverpool Street – delivers better outcomes than simply repeating the same expensive approaches that have left stations inaccessible for decades.
The barrier to accessibility isn’t always engineering complexity or impossible site constraints. Sometimes it’s just unwillingness to learn from what already works. Unwillingness to try something proven elsewhere because it’s not the standard approach. Unwillingness to follow the evidence when it points to a better way.
What’s missing is leadership willing to follow what works rather than repeat what doesn’t. The 2019 study gave us the baseline understanding of the station. Greenford gave us the innovative solution. The Elizabeth Line installations gave us further proof. Now someone needs to decide to actually build something instead of studying it again.
| Station | Year Opened | Technology | Cost | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greenford | 2015 | Inclined lift in former escalator shaft | £2.2m total project (vs £10m estimate for vertical lifts) |
UK’s first; 10 years reliable service |
| Farringdon (Elizabeth Line) |
2022 | Two inclined lifts | Part of £15m station upgrade | Proven in deep-level station |
| Liverpool Street (Elizabeth Line) |
2022 | Two inclined lifts | Part of major station works | Validated in complex interchange |
| East Putney (potential) |
2030 | Inclined lift in existing staircase passage | £3.5-4.0m estimated | Could save £16-18m vs traditional design |
Groundhog Day ends with a choice
East Putney doesn’t need another feasibility study duplicating work already done. It needs an assessment of the inclined lift option that didn’t exist six years ago – an assessment that could be completed in 8-12 weeks. It needs partnership funding commitment from Wandsworth Council following Ealing’s £200,000 precedent. It needs TfL capital budget inclusion if the feasibility assessment confirms what the precedent strongly suggests. It needs actual construction beginning in 2028, not another round of announcements.
The tools exist. The precedent exists. The potential savings are proven. The pathway is documented. Someone just needs to choose to do it. Stop playing games with the electorate. Stop announcing studies of what’s already been studied. Stop celebrating lists and shortlists and consideration lists.
Start building.
Download the 2019 East Putney Feasibility Study – Full Report
What You Can Do:
Contact Wandsworth councillors and demand they commission the inclined lift assessment by December 2025, following Ealing’s proven playbook. Contact MP Fleur Anderson and ask her to champion this specific £4 million solution instead of celebrating £20 million study announcements. Share this analysis with disability rights organisations and accessibility campaigners so they know a better option exists. Demand that decision-makers follow the evidence, not just repeat the same expensive approaches.
