On Apr 30, 6:23*pm, E27002 wrote:

On Apr 30, 10:14*am, Mizter T wrote:

On Apr 30, 4:09*pm, E27002 wrote:
[snip]
To this day I question if DLR was an appropriate system for London.

Oh, I'm in no doubt at all, the DLR is great news. The initial system
was of course designed to service a rather different future vision of
the Docklands - a sort of large business park - then Olympia & York
came along and decided to do something a bit different...

Given Dockland's proximity to the City, and the need for a modern
"functional" London alongside the existing jewel that, IMHO, should
not be spoiled, I would say the original vision for Docklands was
pitiful.

A lot of what you say appears to be said with the benefit of
hindsight. Through the 70's there were various thoughts as to what to
do with the Docklands, including plans from the GLC, but in the end
the Docklands was designated an "Enterprise Zone" in early 1982, the
LDDC having been set up in 1981. But there was never really a demand
for a new "CBD" at that time - received wisdom suggests that the big
change that really prompted the development of Canary Whaf was the
sudden Big Bang in the City in 1986 (the mass deregulation of
markets). The world of finance was expanding rapidly, outgrowing
cramped City offices, and additionally old offices were ill suited to
new technologies (wiring and so forth), plus there was the growing
move towards open-plan offices - it was in this context that the
developers, O&Y, were looking east to the Isle of Dogs, especially
given the constrains of developing new sites in the square mile.

When the 'original vision' for Docklands regeneration was being drawn
up, no one really foresaw this happening - a new mass of modern
offices outwith the square mile just wasn't on anyone's agenda.

Additionally the notion that the City and beyond might be preserved in
some kind of stasis, whilst all modernity moved east, is a bit
unrealistic and simplistic - I could even suggest that you have a
touch of the Stalinist central planner about you!


HMG's job was to lay out a grid system of streets, and about three
heavy rail routes. *These could have been the original Fleet Line, the
Jubilee but thru to North Woolwich, and the NLL extended under the
Thames the Angerstein Wharf and Southern Region. *Add to that Water,
Power, Gas and Lots of Fiber Optics. *The forces of Capitalism would
take care of the rest (as they have).

A little confused by the double appearance of the Fleet/ Jubilee line
above, considering they are one and teh same, but that's by the by...

There was of course already some infrastructure in the Docklands - it
wasn't a totally barren and uninhabited land! (Though some parts don't
seem to have been far off!) But the basic utilities - electricity,
gas, water, drainage and sewerage (vital!) - were all extended and
expanded by the LDDC. Additionally new roads were built - notably the
'highways' of Aspen Way, the Lower Lea Crossing and Royal Albert Way,
and the Limehouse Link tunnel (the most expensive road per mile in
Europe, or something like that!). New local roads were laid out as
well - they were often paved with red brick, part of the idea being
that they'd be easy to dig up to allow for utilities work (in
particular telco stuff) to take place.

The LDDC History Pages (on the web) are an interesting read - always
worth remembering they're written from the perspective of the
'victor', as it were, and that the regeneration was far from being
uncontroversial, but nonetheless it's all still good stuff:
http://www.lddc-history.org.uk/

As for the "forces of Capitalism [taking] care of the rest", well, one
might well say the mighty forces of Capitalism have needed a bit of
TLC lately, as they didn't always seem take a great deal of care of
themselves or others, but I digress...

On Apr 30, 11:03*am, Basil Jet wrote:
Having visited all the new stations by car at about 11pm, I think all
four of them could benefit from Maida-Vale style signs up on Kingsland
Road. Hoxton and Haggerston seem unsafe late at night too.

Can you explain "Maida-Vale style signs" please? In the early 1970s I
lived close to Maida Vale station, no signposting stands out in my
memory as exceptional. Did I miss something? Or, is it new(er).

Thanks

On 30/04/2010 19:29, maggie wrote:
On Apr 30, 11:03 am, Basil wrote:
Having visited all the new stations by car at about 11pm, I think all
four of them could benefit from Maida-Vale style signs up on Kingsland
Road. Hoxton and Haggerston seem unsafe late at night too.

Can you explain "Maida-Vale style signs" please? In the early 1970s I
lived close to Maida Vale station, no signposting stands out in my
memory as exceptional. Did I miss something? Or, is it new(er).

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&sour.... 92,,0,10.41

On Apr 30, 7:03*pm, Basil Jet wrote:
Having visited all the new stations by car at about 11pm, I think all
four of them could benefit from Maida-Vale style signs up on Kingsland
Road.

I quite agree on that, and had though much the same myself - some
pointers as to the existence of these stations (particularly Hoxton
and Haggerston) is needed on the 'main drag', as it's not obvious
otherwise. I imagine some signs are in the pipeline, but proper Maida
Vale-esque signs would be good - or otherwise some roundels on sticks
(the LU roundel on the end of Bernard Street that alerts one to the
presence of Russell Square tube station is something that came to
mind).

Hoxton and Haggerston seem unsafe late at night too.

That's quite a broad brush statement - you didn't even see them when
they open for business.

On Apr 30, 7:29*pm, maggie wrote:

On Apr 30, 11:03*am, Basil Jet wrote:
Having visited all the new stations by car at about 11pm, I think all
four of them could benefit from Maida-Vale style signs up on Kingsland
Road. Hoxton and Haggerston seem unsafe late at night too.

Can you explain "Maida-Vale style signs" please? *In the early 1970s I
lived close to Maida Vale station, no signposting stands out in my
memory as exceptional. *Did I miss something? *Or, is it new(er).

Date from the 1920's, recently restored - it's on the corner of Maida
Vale and Abercorn Place, pointing the way to the tube station- see:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24772733@N05/3364677049/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24772733@N05/3364671755/

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:05:15 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:

Since they are both rail systems I don't think it matters a whole
lot. I still have mixed feelings about a separate "Overground"
Identity. Much of the Metropolitan Line is on the surface. There are
parts of the Overground that run in tunnel.

Not really any different to having U- and S-Bahnen in Germany. That
said, the Met is far more of an S-Bahn than an U-Bahn.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:09:17 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:

To this day I question if DLR was an apprpriate system for London.

Why? Many German cities have similar light rail "U-Bahnen". The
biggest problem with it is a lack of capacity, which to some extent[1]
is being addressed.

[1] I can't help but think it'd have been better to extend platforms
for 4 "cars" rather than 3, as it might be cheaper than doing it
later.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:09:17 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:

To this day I question if DLR was an apprpriate system for London.

Why? Many German cities have similar light rail "U-Bahnen". The
biggest problem with it is a lack of capacity, which to some extent[1]
is being addressed.

[1] I can't help but think it'd have been better to extend platforms
for 4 "cars" rather than 3, as it might be cheaper than doing it
later.

I think 3 is the upper limit (think Bank...). In any case, after
Crossrail, will the DLR loads keep growing?

On Apr 30, 9:11*pm, "Recliner" wrote:

"Neil Williams" wrote:

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:09:17 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:

To this day I question if DLR was an apprpriate system for London.

Why? *Many German cities have similar light rail "U-Bahnen". *The
biggest problem with it is a lack of capacity, which to some extent[1]
is being addressed.

[1] I can't help but think it'd have been better to extend platforms
for 4 "cars" rather than 3, as it might be cheaper than doing it
later.

I think 3 is the upper limit (think Bank...). In any case, after
Crossrail, will the DLR loads keep growing?

....after Crossrail...

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:11:03 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:

I think 3 is the upper limit (think Bank...). In any case, after
Crossrail, will the DLR loads keep growing?

Good point.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.