Stephen worheedatworheeddotf9dotcodotuk wrote the following in:
newspslyf6xh3wn44ge@stephen

On this subject I've read that all the
stations on the Lewisham extension were built so they could
either handle or be easily extended to handle 3 car trains. I
can't see how at Cutty Sark. It's only big enough for 2 car
trains and as is it's a deep level tunnel it is going to be quite
difficult to extend isn't it?

Are you sure it's not big enough? Last time I was there I think I had a
look and I seem to remember thinking that it probably was big enough
for three car trains.

--
message by Robin May.
Drinking Special Brew will get you drunk in much the same way that
going to prison will give you a roof over your head and free meals.

http://robinmay.fotopic.net

Robin May wrote:
Stephen worheedatworheeddotf9dotcodotuk wrote the following in:
newspslyf6xh3wn44ge@stephen


On this subject I've read that all the
stations on the Lewisham extension were built so they could
either handle or be easily extended to handle 3 car trains. I
can't see how at Cutty Sark. It's only big enough for 2 car
trains and as is it's a deep level tunnel it is going to be quite
difficult to extend isn't it?


Are you sure it's not big enough? Last time I was there I think I had a
look and I seem to remember thinking that it probably was big enough
for three car trains.

Whilst waiting for a DLR at Lewisham several months ago, I read a poster
that said that they planned to extend the service on that section to
three cars. It said that some stations would have to be extended to
cope with this but that one of the stations (South Quay IIRC) could not
be extended in situ and so would have to be relocated, albeit only
100-200 yds.

The thing that immediately struck me as odd was that, for a two car
service, some of the stations had been built unable to cope with
anything longer.

What struck me as even more odd was that, this lack of forethought
having already (5years) caused a problem, the new South Quay was only
going to be long enough to cater for three car trains.

Stephen Osborn wrote:
Robin May wrote:

Stephen worheedatworheeddotf9dotcodotuk wrote the following in:
newspslyf6xh3wn44ge@stephen

On this subject I've read that all the
stations on the Lewisham extension were built so they could
either handle or be easily extended to handle 3 car trains. I
can't see how at Cutty Sark. It's only big enough for 2 car
trains and as is it's a deep level tunnel it is going to be quite
difficult to extend isn't it?



Are you sure it's not big enough? Last time I was there I think I had
a look and I seem to remember thinking that it probably was big enough
for three car trains.


Whilst waiting for a DLR at Lewisham several months ago, I read a poster
that said that they planned to extend the service on that section to
three cars. It said that some stations would have to be extended to
cope with this but that one of the stations (South Quay IIRC) could not
be extended in situ and so would have to be relocated, albeit only
100-200 yds.

The thing that immediately struck me as odd was that, for a two car
service, some of the stations had been built unable to cope with
anything longer.

What struck me as even more odd was that, this lack of forethought
having already (5years) caused a problem, the new South Quay was only
going to be long enough to cater for three car trains.

Cutty Sark isn't long enough for three cars. Selective door opening will
be used to get around the problem at that particular station.
Lengthening platforms here would be very expensive (£30m), requiring
closure of the railway during construction and potentially needs some
buildings to be demolished at the surface, in a conservation area - so
it's a no-no.

It's relatively easy to extend all the other platforms on the Lewisham
extension.

Four-car trains were considered as part of the planning process but were
rejected at this stage as the infrastructure works would be
prohibitively disruptive. A light railway just isn't designed for the
sort of passenger numbers the DLR is now expected to deal with, and I
think these 3-car works are designed to plug the gap; the Woolwich
extension will make things worse, but hopefully the Jubilee signalling
upgrade and car addition will mitigate matters. Crossrail is needed.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

Stephen Osborn wrote:

What struck me as even more odd was that, this lack of forethought
having already (5years) caused a problem, the new South Quay was only
going to be long enough to cater for three car trains.

Four-car trains were considered as part of the planning process but were
rejected at this stage as the infrastructure works would be
prohibitively disruptive. A light railway just isn't designed for the
sort of passenger numbers the DLR is now expected to deal with, and I
think these 3-car works are designed to plug the gap;

This is the thing that really gets my goat about the DLR - complete and
utter lack of any foresight. Yes, at the time it was built, the area
didn't have a lot of traffic, and a light railway with two-car trains was
quite adequate. However, it was obvious that this wasn't going to be the
case forever, or even for very long. That this error is now being repeated
is utterly incomprehensible. Implementing three-car trains is a struggle,
four-car is going to be a nightmare, and the inevitable eventual
conversion (in places, reversion!) to heavy rail is going to be
apocalyptic.

Mumble typical Thatcherite short-termism mumble. Or perhaps it was
actually a sensible decision in the context of that government's plans to
depopulate the metropolis.

tom

--
Don't trust the laws of men. Trust the laws of mathematics.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:27:54 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

and the inevitable eventual
conversion (in places, reversion!) to heavy rail is going to be
apocalyptic.

Why convert to heavy rail? You can build a light rail system for long
trains and high capacity - look at many of the German U-Bahnen
(specifically Hamburg, which is a superb system) for an example.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Tom Anderson wrote in
:


This is the thing that really gets my goat about the DLR - complete and
utter lack of any foresight. Yes, at the time it was built, the area
didn't have a lot of traffic, and a light railway with two-car trains
was quite adequate. However, it was obvious that this wasn't going to
be the case forever, or even for very long. ...

I agree, though the area has come along a very, very long way since the DLR
opened (remember Canary Wharf on day 1 - it had no buildings on it atall).

BUT building the DLR cheaply meant that it did get built and without the
DLR Docklands would have remained an isolated backwater.

Other transport proposals can learn from this.

David

"Dave Arquati" a écrit dans le message de
...

big SNIP

Four-car trains were considered as part of the planning process but were
rejected at this stage as the infrastructure works would be
prohibitively disruptive. A light railway just isn't designed for the
sort of passenger numbers the DLR is now expected to deal with, and I
think these 3-car works are designed to plug the gap; the Woolwich
extension will make things worse, but hopefully the Jubilee signalling
upgrade and car addition will mitigate matters. Crossrail is needed.


Just why do you think "the Woolwich extension will make things worse"?
Surely, by providing another cross-river route further downstream, that
extension of the LCY branch will reduce the curent traffic demand on the
Lewisham extension, especially that coming from potential Crossrail
passengers. But, needless to say (?), all the station sites on the Woolwich
extension must be suitable for expansion to accommodate four-car trains,
even if fitted out for only two-car or three-car trains initially.

Regards,

- Alan (in Brussels)

Alan (in Brussels) wrote:
"Dave Arquati" a écrit dans le message de
...

big SNIP

Four-car trains were considered as part of the planning process but were
rejected at this stage as the infrastructure works would be
prohibitively disruptive. A light railway just isn't designed for the
sort of passenger numbers the DLR is now expected to deal with, and I
think these 3-car works are designed to plug the gap; the Woolwich
extension will make things worse, but hopefully the Jubilee signalling
upgrade and car addition will mitigate matters. Crossrail is needed.


Just why do you think "the Woolwich extension will make things worse"?
Surely, by providing another cross-river route further downstream, that
extension of the LCY branch will reduce the curent traffic demand on the
Lewisham extension, especially that coming from potential Crossrail
passengers. But, needless to say (?), all the station sites on the Woolwich
extension must be suitable for expansion to accommodate four-car trains,
even if fitted out for only two-car or three-car trains initially.

DLR passenger numbers are expected to soar once the Woolwich extension
opens; passengers won't just transfer from the Lewisham branch,
otherwise there wouldn't be much point building the Woolwich one.
The new passengers generated by the Woolwich branch will add to
congestion in the central area around Canary Wharf - although many may
opt to change to the Jubilee at Canning Town rather than use DLR all the
way.

All of the viaduct stations can probably be expanded easily; Woolwich
Arsenal is underground so that's a bit more risky. However, half of the
Woolwich trains will not be running through North Quay or Royal Mint
Street junctions - initially half will terminate at Canning Town, but in
future they will be extended via West Ham to Stratford International.
The signalling has been designed to accommodate 30tph which should
provide the necessary capacity for the near future solely using two-car
trains.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...

What struck me as even more odd was that, this lack
of forethought having already (5years) caused a problem,
the new South Quay was only
going to be long enough to cater for three car trains.

Extending non-tunnel platforms is cheap and easy. While the new South Quay
will be only long enough for three cars, I suspect it will be in a location
where it can be subsequenly extended.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"Robin May" wrote in message
...
Stephen worheedatworheeddotf9dotcodotuk wrote the following in:
newspslyf6xh3wn44ge@stephen

On this subject I've read that all the
stations on the Lewisham extension were built so they could
either handle or be easily extended to handle 3 car trains. I
can't see how at Cutty Sark. It's only big enough for 2 car
trains and as is it's a deep level tunnel it is going to be quite
difficult to extend isn't it?

Are you sure it's not big enough? Last time I was there I think I had a
look and I seem to remember thinking that it probably was big enough
for three car trains.

--
message by Robin May.

Is it the case that the accessible platform area is shorter than the actual
tunnelled length?

That was the technique used in some of the Tyne & Wear Metro tunnelled
stations, the decorative linings end about a car length from the true
platform end, presumably saves fitting out costs, and ensuring that
passengers don't wait where the train isn't going to stop, if you see what I
mean..

Paul