On 2015\09\04 10:08, wrote:

Certainly circumferential routes in East London across the river are poorly served, but is there really much demand for Kidbrooke to Becontree?

g No, I chose those two because the straight line route passes exactly
over the Woolwich tunnel. But Kidbrooke would have demand to Ilford and
Barking and Bromley, given the transport link.

There is the longstanding on again off again DLR extension along Barking
Reach, which if done sensibly could link Woolwich to the end of the
Beckton branch and east form there.

Every plan I've seen has had that connecting with the Beckton Branch,
not with the Woolwich branch, so you'd have to go via Canning Town.

I wonder just how much demand there is for north-south traffic that far out, though.

Enough for a tram, not enough for an underground line. Ilford, Barking
and Bromley are major shopping areas, and maybe Woolwich too.

I do wonder, though, how the traffic at Woolwich Arsenal will respond once crossrail to Abbey Wood opens. It will definitely provide a much better service between the south side of the river and the Isle of Dogs, so it may take a lot of the current DLR traffic away.

Thanks, I hadn't even thought of that.

On 04/09/2015 16:48, y wrote:

On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 16:24:47 +0100
Mizter T wrote:
TfL as such didn't exist when the Jubilee Line Extension was planned and

TfL is just a pointless rebranding of London Transport which not only had
history behind it but had a far less clunky name.


It's rather more than that IMO but I wouldn't seek to reason with you.

On 2015\09\04 16:47, y wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 15:32:44 +0100
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 11:07:14 +0000 (UTC), y wrote:

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 02:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
wrote:
Canning Town to Stratford DLR (taken over from NLL) provides useful connect=
ions northwards, and Stratford has tons of connections to all kinds of plac=
es.

Personally I think that link would have been far more useful as part of the
upgraded Overground NLL. I don't really understand the reasoning behind making
it part of the DLR. Instead of some nice 378s you have to ride on rattly
uncomfortable DLR trains and change at stratford if you wish to continue
further around the NLL.

IMHO It would have made more sense to have continued the NLL from
Canning Town under the Thames and on to North Greenwich and Maze Hill.

Useful but very expensive.

A surface alignment from North Greenwich to Blackheath Tunnel would be
cheaper and better. Platforms at Westcombe Park would have a footbridge
to the existing station on the other side of the former motorway. But I
suspect Lewisham is too crowded for more trains, so Blackheath would
probably have to lose some of its car park for a siding.

On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 17:23:01 +0100
Mizter T wrote:
On 04/09/2015 16:48, y wrote:

On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 16:24:47 +0100
Mizter T wrote:
TfL as such didn't exist when the Jubilee Line Extension was planned and

TfL is just a pointless rebranding of London Transport which not only had
history behind it but had a far less clunky name.


It's rather more than that IMO but I wouldn't seek to reason with you.

Any extra powers given to TfL could easily have been given to LT. It was
a rebranding, pure and simple.

--
Spud

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 15:32:44 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

The Jubilee would have been better continuing from North Greenwich to
North Woolwich and Thamesmead. But, TfL are awful fond of their DLR
toy train system.

See


http://www.londonreconnections.com/2...-look-at-londo
ns-lost-tube/

For the background to the Fleet / Jubilee Line route.

A few errors there. The GLC took over on 1st April 1965 and was Labour-run
until April 1967. Its Labour leader lived round the corner from me.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 23:29:40 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:48:52 +0000 (UTC), y wrote:

On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 16:24:47 +0100
Mizter T wrote:
TfL as such didn't exist when the Jubilee Line Extension was planned and

TfL is just a pointless rebranding of London Transport which not only had
history behind it but had a far less clunky name.

No it isn't. It's a different body with different responsibilities
and accountabilities and is a local authority body and not part of
national government as LRT was.

Irrelevant. LT could have been handed over to the GLA and given whatever
powers were required. The government can do whatever it wants to do with its
own organisations.

It. Was. A. Pointless. Rebranding.

Of an organisation known around the world. ****ing idiotic.

--
Spud

In message , e27002 aurora
wrote:
The Jubilee would have been better continuing from North Greenwich to
North Woolwich and Thamesmead. But, TfL are awful fond of their DLR
toy train system.

Provision has been made for this: there are junctions at the north end
of North Greenwich station, though without track on the east-facing
arms. It should be possible to build a branch that way without
disrupting the existing service during most of construction.

However, I suspect the demand for service to/from Stratford means you
couldn't afford to divert 1/2 or 1/3 of the trains elsewhere.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 00:15:40 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote:
I really suggest you investigate how TfL is controlled. It was handed
over to the Mayor and is run as part of the Greater London Authority.
The government therefore did exactly what you said.

Except the name was changed.

You also seem to fail to realise that LT ceased to exist in 1986 when
Maggie killed the GLC and also ended LT. It became London Regional
Transport at the point. Therefore LT was dead 14 years before TfL was
created via primary legislation.

Get your facts right. The London Transport brand was used until 2000 until
it was replaced by TfL.

Rant all you like but get the history right. The old "London
Transport" and all its heritage went a very long time ago regardless
of what name was stuck on the side of Tube trains and buses.

Whatever. It was a rebranding, pure and simple. End.

--
Spud

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

The Jubilee would have been better continuing from North Greenwich to
North Woolwich and Thamesmead. But, TfL are awful fond of their DLR
toy train system.

Provision has been made for this: there are junctions at the north end of
North Greenwich station, though without track on the east-facing arms. It
should be possible to build a branch that way without disrupting the
existing service during most of construction.

However, I suspect the demand for service to/from Stratford means you
couldn't afford to divert 1/2 or 1/3 of the trains elsewhere.

A number of services terminate at North Greenwich so they might become the
nucleus of a Thamesmead service. However I don't know how separated the
junctions would be. And I suspect the demand from such a branch would be too
heavy.

For such a modern station North Greenwich is badly laid out with the
terminal platform (which would become the Thamesmead bound one?) sharing an
island with the Stanmore bound platform. This makes it a bad station for
changing trains onto a Stratford through and announcements promote Canary
Wharf instead. Having the island on the other side or having a platform on
both sides (with the doors actually opening both sides *) would be much more
efficient.

(* Looking at you Barking and Norwood Junction.)

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

On Friday, 4 September 2015 17:48:02 UTC+2, wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 15:32:44 +0100
e27002 aurora wrote:

The Jubilee would have been better continuing from North Greenwich to
North Woolwich and Thamesmead. But, TfL are awful fond of their DLR

I always had the feeling that Stratford was chosen as a terminus because the
budget didn't stretch to going anywhere else. Definately Woolwich would have
been an obvious choice. A huge population centre. Still, the DLR is better
than nothing I suppose even if you could probably walk to the centre of
London faster.

In the not too distant future, there will be Crossrail running from Abbey Wood, with a station at Woolwich, on through Canary Wharf and across central London.

I can't imagine many of the residents take the DLR instead
of the mainline train when they're going into town.

The DLR is more set up for shorter distance local journeys.

toy train system.

They keep trying to upgrade it to a proper train but its a bit like a souped
up hatchback. It doesn't matter what noise it makes or how many go faster
stripe it has, it'll never be a ferrari.

They keep having to upgrade it because it was planned on the basis of "experts" ensuring the planners that the pointless short routes that don't serve "big" destinations will never attract much traffic, only to find the trains provided to match the "expert" predictions of traffic demands are woefully inadequate for the actual number of passengers who turn up.

Robin