On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:17:56 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Sunil"
wrote:

I cannot understand the close spacing between West India Quay*/Canary
Wharf/Heron Quays.


There is so much that you "cannot understand". Perhaps you should do
a little more research rather than instantly jump to the conclusion
that you "cannot understand".


One any other railway they'd have just built Canary
Wharf (longer platforms perhaps), with additional accesses north and
south across each Quay.


When the line was built, Canary Wharf did not exist as anything other
than a disused wharf. Until the Reichmann brothers came along with
proposals to develop Canary Wharf into what it is today, there was no
need for a station at Canary Wharf at all.

The DLR was built as an ultra-low cost light railway, and anything
that wasn't needed was not included. Heron Quays and West India Quays
were both developed early and got stations.

When Canary Wharf station was built, it had to go between the two
existing stations. That's why the three are so close together. Once
again, the cost of making all three into one much larger station
spanning wide expanses of water would not have been economic.


(*even more so given the skip-stop service on
some Bank-Lewisham service (peaks?)).


In those days, the Lewisham extension hadn't even been planned, let
alone started. Once again, you seem to think that people designing
the DLR in the mid-1980s should have been able to predict the exact
future course of development decades ahead ...

The truth is that no-one could have foreseen what would eventually
happen at Canary Wharf. The idea came completely out of the blue. It
was quite out of keeping with the then-current plans for Docklands,
which were for low- and medium-rise, low density development with the
primary objective of providing jobs for local people who were made
redundant when the docks and other associated local businesses closed.
The DLR was designed to support this objective. So why on earth build
a grandiose station for a quay (Canary Wharf) which wasn't expected to
be developed?

No doubt you will have some smart-arse response to all this. But I
suggest you should do a little more research instead of sounding off
on the basis of zero knowledge of the subject, which seems to have
been your style so far.

By the way, you owe Paul Corfield an apology. Some serious grovelling
would be appropriate, but if you can't be sincere, don't bother.