[Tom Anderson]

On Wed, 25 May 2005, Boltar wrote:

Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being pushed
beyond what its really suited for?

I never thought i'd say this, but i agree with you.

Don't get me wrong - the DLR's a great thing, and has been and continues
to be instrumental in the development of Docklands and the littoral east
end. But ...

It was desinged to be a local tram-like service around the docks area.
Now it seems to be turning into an east london tube/train replacement
and I'm not sure its really up to the job.

That's true. The DLR is an excellent, well-run, reliable, forward-looking
light rail service, but it is ultimately only a light rail service, and as
such, will never be able to provide the speed and capacity of real trains,
or even tubes. During the early days of the Docklands, it was enough; in
the next couple of years, with the three-car trains and sundry other
improvements, it will be enough, but, provided the area continues to
develop according to plan, in twenty or thirty years' time, it will not be
enough. Transport planners have to think in terms of that sort of
timescale, if not more.

Now, the area is getting a dose of Crossrail, which will help, but that
only addresses a fairly narrow range of journeys. There are plans for
trams, or trolleybuses or something, in that general area of London, but
those are hardly going to fill the capacity gap. What the area needs is
proper heavy rail solutions; throwing out all sorts of short-termist
DLR-based solutions is ultimately failing to face up to this reality.

The trouble is that the DLR options are doable now. The long-term
solutions (about the details of which i'm pretty hazy) would be
exorbitantly expensive. The two options that spring to mind are extending
the Jubilee line from North Greenwich (not entirely sure where to,
though!) and reclaiming some of the old railway alignments from the DLR
and using them for proper trains.

tom

--
this place would be a paradise tomorrow if every department had a
supervisor with a sub-machine gun

[Dave Arquati]

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Boltar wrote:

Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being pushed
beyond what its really suited for?


I never thought i'd say this, but i agree with you.

Don't get me wrong - the DLR's a great thing, and has been and continues
to be instrumental in the development of Docklands and the littoral east
end. But ...

It was desinged to be a local tram-like service around the docks area.
Now it seems to be turning into an east london tube/train replacement
and I'm not sure its really up to the job.


That's true. The DLR is an excellent, well-run, reliable,
forward-looking light rail service, but it is ultimately only a light
rail service, and as such, will never be able to provide the speed and
capacity of real trains, or even tubes. During the early days of the
Docklands, it was enough; in the next couple of years, with the
three-car trains and sundry other improvements, it will be enough, but,
provided the area continues to develop according to plan, in twenty or
thirty years' time, it will not be enough. Transport planners have to
think in terms of that sort of timescale, if not more.

Now, the area is getting a dose of Crossrail, which will help, but that
only addresses a fairly narrow range of journeys. There are plans for
trams, or trolleybuses or something, in that general area of London, but
those are hardly going to fill the capacity gap. What the area needs is
proper heavy rail solutions; throwing out all sorts of short-termist
DLR-based solutions is ultimately failing to face up to this reality.

How are these DLR solutions "short-termist"? Obviously the DLR is a
light rail network for local journeys within an area; no-one is
suggesting that that role should change. The Jubilee line arrived to
provide a route for longer journeys to and from the area; Crossrail will
arrive in the future with quite high capacity for transporting people
from Stratford, Canary Wharf and Custom House into central London.

The vast majority of journeys are short journeys; that's why such an
emphasis has been placed on the bus system recently, and why
constructing DLR routes to serve regeneration areas around Docklands is
a good idea. Nobody is saying that East London Transit, the DLR or
Greenwich Waterfront Transit should be providing a high-capacity service
for travellers into central London; the whole point of the regeneration
areas around the Thames Gateway is to provide jobs as well as houses.

Yes, more people will be travelling into London; they will be fed into
enhanced Jubilee and Crossrail services via Stratford, West Ham, Canning
Town, Custom House, Abbey Wood, Romford etc. However, an awful lot of
people will just be travelling around the Thames Gateway area, and it's
vitally important that transit systems are in place to avoid them all
taking to their cars for the short trip into the town centre. Normal
buses provide part of the solution, but the main "capacity gap" you talk
about is for the increase in local trips which normal buses won't be
able to fulfil, and rail will not be able to fulfil cost-effectively -
hence we require intermediate modes like the Transits and the DLR.

Heavy rail is suited to heavy flows to and from large centres; the NLL
is wasted on the Royal Docks area, which needs a frequent, reliable,
*local* service where you don't have to walk 15 minutes to get to the
station for a two-stop journey, and where easy through journeys are
possible within the local area - that's Stratford via Canning Town to
Beckton or Woolwich.

The trouble is that the DLR options are doable now. The long-term
solutions (about the details of which i'm pretty hazy) would be
exorbitantly expensive. The two options that spring to mind are
extending the Jubilee line from North Greenwich (not entirely sure where
to, though!) and reclaiming some of the old railway alignments from the
DLR and using them for proper trains.

This is the problem; people who "don't like" the use of the DLR here
aren't really sure what the alternatives are, apart from increasing the
frequency of the NLL - which might help if you want to travel from the
vicinity of Canning Town or West Ham stations, but will be pretty
useless otherwise.

Which old railway alignments would you "reclaim" from the DLR and use
for "proper trains"? What services currently provided by the DLR should
be provided by heavy rail, and which DLR stations would you close to
provide that heavy rail service? Is this abstract concept of "proper
trains" to do with higher capacity?

The Thames Gateway doesn't need hazy possibilities for 15 years' time,
it needs definite probabilities now, before development starts, so that
people can get around their new local areas.

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

[Tom Anderson]

On Wed, 25 May 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Boltar wrote:

Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being pushed
beyond what its really suited for?

What the area needs is proper heavy rail solutions; throwing out all
sorts of short-termist DLR-based solutions is ultimately failing to
face up to this reality.

How are these DLR solutions "short-termist"?

Because they fail to address the long-term needs of the area.

Obviously the DLR is a light rail network for local journeys within an
area;

Like the Circle line, then.

I'm not talking about shipping people between the east end and central
London; i really do think Crossrail plus the Jubilee and District lines
(and the North Kent line) can handle that. Rather, it's a question of
handling the movement of commuters into the area. As Docklands and the
Thames Gateway (which, incidentally, is an absolutely horrible name)
continue to develop, they'll be the destination for an increasing number
of commuters. The Isle of Dogs alone is about the same area as the City
(although it does have rather more of its area underwater); the City has
five mainline termini (six if you count London Bridge, plus Thameslink),
more tube stations than you can doff a bowler hat at, and is still
creaking under the strain. How on earth will light rail be able to cope if
the area develops to even a quarter of the density of the City?

Heavy rail is suited to heavy flows to and from large centres;

Couldn't have put it better myself.

The trouble is that the DLR options are doable now. The long-term
solutions (about the details of which i'm pretty hazy) would be
exorbitantly expensive. The two options that spring to mind are
extending the Jubilee line from North Greenwich (not entirely sure
where to, though!) and reclaiming some of the old railway alignments
from the DLR and using them for proper trains.

This is the problem; people who "don't like" the use of the DLR here
aren't really sure what the alternatives are,

Absence of evidence etc!

apart from increasing the frequency of the NLL - which might help if you
want to travel from the vicinity of Canning Town or West Ham stations,
but will be pretty useless otherwise.

I'm not proposing that - i like the NLL even less than i like the DLR.

Which old railway alignments would you "reclaim" from the DLR and use for
"proper trains"?

I'm lamentably badly-informed of the history of the "railway alignments"
which were recycled by the "DLR", so i have to confess that it was a
purely speculative remark. A quick look at CULG suggests that a Stratford
- Bow - Isle of Dogs route could be liberated for heavy rail. That could
link into the Lea Valley line to the north, the Great Eastern to the east,
the NLL to the west, lines through the Royal Docks via a Canning Town -
Poplar alignment,and via a new tunnel to Greenwich and Lewisham, and on to
the inner SLL, Croydon, the Ravensbourne valley lines, Metropolitan Kent
lines, etc. The whole thing could be like a sort of Outer ELL.

What services currently provided by the DLR should be provided by heavy
rail,

As many as possible.

and which DLR stations would you close to provide that heavy rail
service?

Convert rather than close. In places, the spacing is too close for heavy
rail, i admit, and there, stations would have to close, unless there was
room for DLR and heavy rail to run side by side or interwork. That would
be a tough decision.

Is this abstract concept of "proper trains" to do with higher capacity?

Yes.

The Thames Gateway doesn't need hazy possibilities for 15 years' time,
it needs definite probabilities now, before development starts, so that
people can get around their new local areas.

No, it needs realistic plans for how people will move around in 30 or more
years' time. Now is temporary; the future is for ever.

tom

--
The revolution will not be televised. The revolution will be live.

[Rupert Candy]

Tom Anderson wrote:

What services currently provided by the DLR should be provided by heavy
rail,

As many as possible.

and which DLR stations would you close to provide that heavy rail
service?

Convert rather than close. In places, the spacing is too close for heavy
rail, i admit, and there, stations would have to close, unless there was
room for DLR and heavy rail to run side by side or interwork. That would
be a tough decision.

Is this abstract concept of "proper trains" to do with higher capacity?

Yes.

Tom - by 'heavy rail', what do you have in mind - something like the
JLE, or 'heavy rail' as we understand it in South London (widely-spaced
and unpleasant stations, no more than 4 tph, inappropriately designed
trains for inner-suburban services, poor penetration of zone 1 beyond a
few peripheral termini)? It strikes me that the reason the DLR has
proved popular with the huge numbers of people moving to Docklands is
because it's perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a 'pretend Tube' -
something which that area of London was previously notably lacking.
(Even if it doesn't get any further into Central London than your
average suburban rail service.)

I think that's the same reason people are getting so excited about the
ELLX [1] - because it's perceived as 'something different' from the
despised heavy rail services we already have. You only have to compare
the DLR and NR stations at (say) Deptford and Deptford Bridge to see
which of the two presents more of a modern, safe, clean rapid
transit-type image. Of course that's not entirely the fault of the
railway - its stations are 80-100 years older than those of the DLR
(though that's no excuse for the lamentable state of most
inner-suburban stations compared to their Tube equivalents).

I'm not sure what conclusion I was going to draw from that. Ah well.


[1] well, that and a chronic misunderstanding of what it will actually
involve - I still giggle every time I see a "TUBE COMING TO BROMLEY!"
headline on a local paper...

[Tom Anderson]

On Thu, 26 May 2005, Rupert Candy wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Is this abstract concept of "proper trains" to do with higher capacity?

Yes.

Tom - by 'heavy rail', what do you have in mind

Trains bigger than light rail - for example, the tube or mainline
railways.

something like the JLE, or 'heavy rail' as we understand it in South
London (widely-spaced and unpleasant stations, no more than 4 tph,
inappropriately designed trains for inner-suburban services, poor
penetration of zone 1 beyond a few peripheral termini)?

Less like that!

Sorry for not making myself clearer. I was thinking of things like the
tube, or WAGN services from Chingford, or Crossrail.

What's this about widely-spaced stations in the south, though? From
looking at maps, i get the general impression that spacings are comparable
to those on north London tube lines at equivalent distances out from town.

It strikes me that the reason the DLR has proved popular with the huge
numbers of people moving to Docklands is because it's perceived (rightly
or wrongly) as a 'pretend Tube' - something which that area of London
was previously notably lacking. (Even if it doesn't get any further into
Central London than your average suburban rail service.)

I think that's the same reason people are getting so excited about the
ELLX [1] - because it's perceived as 'something different' from the
despised heavy rail services we already have.

True. I'd never thought of it like that. To be fair, it does also have
much better frequencies, which makes a huge difference in the way you can
use the service. I guess the southern reaches of the ELL won't get a great
frequency, though.

You only have to compare the DLR and NR stations at (say) Deptford and
Deptford Bridge to see which of the two presents more of a modern, safe,
clean rapid transit-type image. Of course that's not entirely the fault
of the railway - its stations are 80-100 years older than those of the
DLR (though that's no excuse for the lamentable state of most
inner-suburban stations compared to their Tube equivalents).

True. The DLR does have the advantage of being very modern, but the
neglect of suburban NR stations is awful. Roll on London Rail!

[1] well, that and a chronic misunderstanding of what it will actually
involve - I still giggle every time I see a "TUBE COMING TO BROMLEY!"
headline on a local paper...

I get the same with "TUBE COMING TO DALSTON!" headlines.

tom

--
Punk's not sexual, it's just aggression.

[Dave Arquati]

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 25 May 2005, Boltar wrote:

Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being
pushed beyond what its really suited for?

What the area needs is proper heavy rail solutions; throwing out all
sorts of short-termist DLR-based solutions is ultimately failing to
face up to this reality.

How are these DLR solutions "short-termist"?

Because they fail to address the long-term needs of the area.

The aim of the Thames Gateway area is primarily to provide extra housing
to cope with the demand in the southeast housing market, which is
primarily driven by central London. Some jobs will be created in the
area with new local centres being forged at places like Dagenham Dock
and Ebbsfleet, but the majority of job generation will be in existing
nearby local centres like Barking or Woolwich. The DLR and Transits
provide medium capacity from what will be large, low-to-medium density
housing areas into the medium density centres. The Underground and heavy
rail are for providing high capacity into high density centres; there
are no plans for any high density centres in the area other than Canary
Wharf, and the Underground link has been provided, with the heavy rail
link being provided within 10 years.

Obviously the DLR is a light rail network for local journeys within an
area;


Like the Circle line, then.

Nope. The Circle line provides a high capacity link for the vast numbers
of people travelling from rail terminals to and from the City, which is
a completely different market to the DLR and Transit proposals.

I'm not talking about shipping people between the east end and central
London; i really do think Crossrail plus the Jubilee and District lines
(and the North Kent line) can handle that. Rather, it's a question of
handling the movement of commuters into the area. As Docklands and the
Thames Gateway (which, incidentally, is an absolutely horrible name)
continue to develop, they'll be the destination for an increasing number
of commuters.

Yes, an increasing number, but not anywhere approaching the numbers
currently travelling into the West End and City; the numbers it does
generate will either be in Canary Wharf or spread across a number of
local centres.

The Isle of Dogs alone is about the same area as the City
(although it does have rather more of its area underwater); the City has
five mainline termini (six if you count London Bridge, plus Thameslink),
more tube stations than you can doff a bowler hat at, and is still
creaking under the strain. How on earth will light rail be able to cope
if the area develops to even a quarter of the density of the City?

The Isle of Dogs is getting Crossrail, which will provide a
high-capacity link to the appropriate area for commuters to the south
east. The Jubilee line has a fair amount of capacity (compared to other
lines) between Stratford and London Bridge, and as this capacity is
being filled up, new carriages will be added to increase that capacity
(Jan 2006) and moving block signalling will provide a further capacity
increase (by 2009), bringing it up to the standards provided by other
Underground lines to the central area.

The Isle of Dogs just won't be developing to the levels of the City
within the next 30 years; the City has been developing to its current
levels for a few hundred years.

Heavy rail is suited to heavy flows to and from large centres;

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Large centres - of which Canary Wharf will be the only truly large
centre in the Thames Gateway, and even so will be considerably smaller
than the City.

The trouble is that the DLR options are doable now. The long-term
solutions (about the details of which i'm pretty hazy) would be
exorbitantly expensive. The two options that spring to mind are
extending the Jubilee line from North Greenwich (not entirely sure
where to, though!) and reclaiming some of the old railway alignments
from the DLR and using them for proper trains.


This is the problem; people who "don't like" the use of the DLR here
aren't really sure what the alternatives are,

Absence of evidence etc!

Quite!

apart from increasing the frequency of the NLL - which might help if
you want to travel from the vicinity of Canning Town or West Ham
stations, but will be pretty useless otherwise.


I'm not proposing that - i like the NLL even less than i like the DLR.

Which old railway alignments would you "reclaim" from the DLR and use
for "proper trains"?


I'm lamentably badly-informed of the history of the "railway alignments"
which were recycled by the "DLR", so i have to confess that it was a
purely speculative remark. A quick look at CULG suggests that a
Stratford - Bow - Isle of Dogs route could be liberated for heavy rail.

....although the Jubilee line has spare and increasing capacity between
Stratford and Canary Wharf?

The last thing the denizens of Bow need is for their local DLR service
to be ripped up in favour of a heavy rail service which will serve them
more poorly in favour of commuters who haven't appeared yet. The people
in Bow want *more* stations (i.e. Langdon Park), not fewer.

That could link into the Lea Valley line to the north, the Great Eastern
to the east, the NLL to the west, lines through the Royal Docks via a
Canning Town - Poplar alignment,and via a new tunnel to Greenwich and
Lewisham, and on to the inner SLL, Croydon, the Ravensbourne valley
lines, Metropolitan Kent lines, etc. The whole thing could be like a
sort of Outer ELL.

The demand for these services within the next 30 years is never going to
approach the level at which their construction can be justified. Perhaps
some will be necessary in a longer time period, but that's no reason to
deny people a local DLR service now, and it's probably not even reason
to substitute the DLR for them in the future. The DLR provides an
extremely valuable local service which should only be supplemented in
the future, not replaced. If new lines are required from the Lea Valley
via Stratford and Canary Wharf to Lewisham or Croydon or wherever, those
should be provided by new infrastructure.

Besides, we should be encouraging people to live closer to work with
high quality local transport, rather than inconveniencing those who do
live close, in favour of providing services from further away. That's
not to say that the latter service shouldn't be provided, it's to say
that they shouldn't be provided at the expense of the former.

What services currently provided by the DLR should be provided by
heavy rail,

As many as possible.

That's a rather poor goal. If you were going to propose substitution of
DLR services for heavy rail ones, then you should consider each and
every substitution on its merits and problems. I think the the
disadvantages of killing a reliable, high quality, high frequency DLR
service will be quite high compared to the benefits gained.

and which DLR stations would you close to provide that heavy rail
service?

Convert rather than close. In places, the spacing is too close for heavy
rail, i admit, and there, stations would have to close, unless there was
room for DLR and heavy rail to run side by side or interwork. That would
be a tough decision.

Is this abstract concept of "proper trains" to do with higher capacity?

Yes.

As I discussed before, I think your desire for high capacity to Canary
Wharf by replacing DLR alignments is misplaced. Admittedly, the DLR
cannot provide the capacity afforded by a Crossrail-style heavy rail
service - but such services are *extremely* expensive, and face a very
tough time stacking up against any benefits gained. The DLR can provide
2-unit (i.e. 4-car) trains with extremely short headways at 98%
reliability, with 3-unit/6-car trains in the pipeline.

The Thames Gateway doesn't need hazy possibilities for 15 years' time,
it needs definite probabilities now, before development starts, so
that people can get around their new local areas.


No, it needs realistic plans for how people will move around in 30 or
more years' time. Now is temporary; the future is for ever.

The DLR is not temporary; it's no use providing "future" transport for
possible people at the expense of transport now for definite people.
People need to move locally around East London, not just into and out of
it from further afield, and the DLR fulfils that role easily, relatively
cheaply and extremely well. For the future, we should continue to ensure
that people can still move around their local areas easily, so we can
create sustainable communities where people can live a reasonably short
distance from their places of work - not sprawling non-communities where
people are forced to live further away to have access to decent transport.

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

[David Splett]

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...
I'm lamentably badly-informed of the history of the "railway alignments"
which were recycled by the "DLR", so i have to confess that it was a
purely speculative remark.

The DLR is a bit of a mix of lines, and doesn't really use any great length
of any route. Sections are as follows:-

- Tower Gateway (near Christian Street Junction) to Limehouse, which uses
two tracks of the former four-track LTS alignment at this point.

- Limehouse to Westferry - uses part of the former route from Limehouse to
Blackwall.

All of the DLR in the Poplar area is on new alignment, partly using old
goods yards. IIRC Aspen Way occupied part of the Blackwall route at this
point.

- Poplar to Bow Church uses the southern end of the North London Line's
Victoria Park to Poplar route.

- Bow Church to Stratford uses a former track used by trains travelling
from Bow Junction via Bow Road to Limehouse.

- Prince Regent to Cyprus and the immediate approach to Beckton uses parts
of the branches to Gallions and Beckton respectively.

- Crossharbour to Mudchute uses part of the route of the Millwall Extension
Railway, which ran from the Poplar area (Millwall Junction station) to North
Greenwich (actually Island Gardens).

So really the amount of old railway used by the DLR is quite small, and in
any event it tends to use off bits of line rather than any great length -
leading to sharp curves and steep gradients.


A quick look at CULG suggests that a Stratford
- Bow - Isle of Dogs route could be liberated for heavy rail.

The curves in the Poplar and South Quay areas would be a problem. The
original route ran "straight ahead" north of Crossharbour. I suspect forging
a railway through that area would be quite difficult due to subsequent
building on the alignment.


Convert rather than close. In places, the spacing is too close for heavy
rail, i admit, and there, stations would have to close, unless there was
room for DLR and heavy rail to run side by side or interwork. That would
be a tough decision.

I would like to see one of Heron Quays or West India Quay closed, plus
perhaps one or two stations on the Beckton line. The DLR has to be the
slowest rail service I've ever been on.