[Stevie]

Surprised that no-one seems to have mentioned this (unless they have -
and I've just missed it in which case sorry for repeating this).

18/05/2005
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
http://developments.dlr.co.uk/extens...ails.asp?id=19

The planned extension of the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) to Stratford
International took an important step forward today as the TfL Board
approved plans for DLR to submit an application for a Transport and
Works Act (TWA) Order.

The TWA would secure the powers needed to build the extension, which
will run from Canning Town to integrate with the CTRL station at
Stratford International, due to be finished by late 2009 in good time
for a successful London 2012 Olympics. The £110m project is funded as
part of Transport for London’s five year £10bn Investment Programme.

Welcoming the Board’s decision, Jonathan Fox, DLR’s Director said:

“This is an important step forward in bringing further transport
improvements to east London. This extension will help meet the growing
demand for quality public transport in the Lower Lea Valley, bringing
vital regeneration benefits to the area. We will continue to push this
project forward and have it up and running by the end of 2009.”

The 5km extension – which is the conversion of the North London Line
between Canning Town and Stratford, will link with DLR’s Beckton and
London City Airport routes. There will be new stations built at Star
Lane (formerly designated as Cody Road), Abbey Road and Stratford High
Street (formerly designated as Stratford Market). Existing North London
line stations at Canning Town, West Ham and Stratford would be modified
and a new station will be opened at Stratford International, which will
be the main rail interchange from Eurostar into the TfL network.

[Boltar]

Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being pushed
beyond
what its really suited for? 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. The
trains
are not very comfortable for long journeys and just don't have the
capacity.

B2003

[Brimstone]

Boltar wrote:
Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being pushed
beyond
what its really suited for? 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. The
trains
are not very comfortable for long journeys and just don't have the
capacity.


I couldn't disagree with that. It does continue a long tradition of public
transport policies in the UK. Too little too late and on the cheap.

[Dave Arquati]

Boltar wrote:
Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being pushed
beyond
what its really suited for? 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. The
trains
are not very comfortable for long journeys and just don't have the
capacity.

B2003

I disagree. You said it was designed to be a local tram-like service for
the docks area; it's still being a local tram-like service, just now for
a wider area of east London, which is hardly surprising given the
increase in importance of the Docks.

The Stratford International extension is not really a Tube/train
replacement; it provides a local tram-like (i.e. light rail) service
along a corridor which is being targeted for regeneration. If people
want to get to central London, they can still connect into the
Underground or rail services at Stratford, West Ham or Canning Town; but
now people will find it easier to travel around the lower Lea valley.

Nobody is expecting people to use the DLR for long journeys. Even the
Dagenham Dock extension services will only run between Canning Town and
Dagenham Dock - they are designed for people to connect into other
transport services like the Jubilee line or Crossrail, or to get to
local centres at Beckton or the future centres in the Thames Gateway
like Dagenham Dock.

I find it odd that people are complaining about this; for once,
infrastructure is being provided AHEAD of development.

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

[Boltar]

The Stratford International extension is not really a Tube/train
replacement; it provides a local tram-like (i.e. light rail) service
along a corridor which is being targeted for regeneration.

Of course it is , its replacing the NLL which has proper trains. I'm
not really sure what they're trying to achieve that they couldn;t
have achieved far cheaper by simply upping the frequency of NLL
train services.

B2003

[Paul Corfield]

On 25 May 2005 02:56:49 -0700, "Boltar" wrote:

Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being pushed
beyond
what its really suited for? 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. The
trains
are not very comfortable for long journeys and just don't have the
capacity.

I sort of understand your comments but I'm not sure I agree. I think
Docklands is a valuable addition to the transport network and although
it has been "reworked" several times I am pleased that we have got
momentum behind the development both of Docklands / East London and the
DLR itself. If we had waited for a tube line or heavy rail options then
nothing new would be being built to City Airport or Woolwich and we
certainly would not have the Beckton or Lewisham lines. If the choice
is between having a light rail system or nothing then please give me a
light rail system. It's no different to the Tyne and Wear Metro in a lot
of respects and I dread to think what the old Tyneside loop line service
would be like if it was a National Rail franchised service.

The DLR has clearly shown it can provide a good and reliable service -
having learnt a lot of hard lessons - and it is now reaping the rewards.
There are no arguments about PFIs or private sector subcontracting from
Ken Livingstone or Bob Kiley when it comes to the DLR. TfL and the Mayor
are clearly delighted to keep pursuing a path that involves the private
sector in building and owning the infrastructure with the private sector
running the system. Quite a contrast to LU and PPP!

DLR clearly know what they are doing when it comes to developing
projects and they are skillful enough to keep ahead of traffic trends
and to secure the capacity enhancement that is needed. I dread to think
what the Jubilee Line would be like in the peaks if there was no DLR
network. At the height of the peak then DLR is very busy and overcrowded
but show me a half useful transport service in London that isn't like
that - it's the nature of the beast. As for comfort - well it's not that
bad and is certainly on a par with the modern seat designs on low floor
buses and new trains / tube stocks. You won't get Inter City type
comfort on any urban transport system that has to carry a lot of people.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

[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

[londoncityslicker]

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On 25 May 2005 02:56:49 -0700, "Boltar" wrote:

Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being pushed
beyond
what its really suited for? 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. The
trains
are not very comfortable for long journeys and just don't have the
capacity.

I sort of understand your comments but I'm not sure I agree. I think
Docklands is a valuable addition to the transport network and although
it has been "reworked" several times I am pleased that we have got
momentum behind the development both of Docklands / East London and the
DLR itself. If we had waited for a tube line or heavy rail options then
nothing new would be being built to City Airport or Woolwich and we
certainly would not have the Beckton or Lewisham lines. If the choice
is between having a light rail system or nothing then please give me a
light rail system. It's no different to the Tyne and Wear Metro in a lot
of respects and I dread to think what the old Tyneside loop line service
would be like if it was a National Rail franchised service.

The DLR has clearly shown it can provide a good and reliable service -
having learnt a lot of hard lessons - and it is now reaping the rewards.
There are no arguments about PFIs or private sector subcontracting from
Ken Livingstone or Bob Kiley when it comes to the DLR. TfL and the Mayor
are clearly delighted to keep pursuing a path that involves the private
sector in building and owning the infrastructure with the private sector
running the system. Quite a contrast to LU and PPP!

DLR clearly know what they are doing when it comes to developing
projects and they are skillful enough to keep ahead of traffic trends
and to secure the capacity enhancement that is needed. I dread to think
what the Jubilee Line would be like in the peaks if there was no DLR
network. At the height of the peak then DLR is very busy and overcrowded
but show me a half useful transport service in London that isn't like
that - it's the nature of the beast. As for comfort - well it's not that
bad and is certainly on a par with the modern seat designs on low floor
buses and new trains / tube stocks. You won't get Inter City type
comfort on any urban transport system that has to carry a lot of people.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!



I agree with the previous poster.

All they are doing is replacing the NLL section with a more frequent (and by
that I mean 6-10 minute peak time services)
It's hardly radical. Sure we get a few more stations but then we lose the
Canning Town to North Woolwich section.
(an area which is due for huge regeneration in the coming years) Why they
want to scrap a railway which has a huge future potential use is beyond me.
The City Airport extension will no doubt take the brunt of the traffic.

Much easier would be to increase the frequency of the NLL (one of the
reasons why it is underused)
Plus give it a rebranding and a refurb.
the NLL already has some great interchange possbilities at Canning Town,
Stratford and further on at Highbury and soon Dalston with the ELL.
And that just in the East.

But as we know, someone has it in for the NLL.

A

[Dave Arquati]

Boltar wrote:
The Stratford International extension is not really a Tube/train
replacement; it provides a local tram-like (i.e. light rail) service
along a corridor which is being targeted for regeneration.


Of course it is , its replacing the NLL which has proper trains. I'm
not really sure what they're trying to achieve that they couldn;t
have achieved far cheaper by simply upping the frequency of NLL
train services.

Why are those "proper trains" automatically better than DLR trains?

By replacing NLL services they're achieving:
1. Increased catchment area with more useful station locations
2. Improved reliability
3. More economically-achieved increased frequency (I'm sure the DLR can
run the proposed frequency levels far more efficiently and cheaply than
the NLL ever could)
4. More, useful local destinations (Stratford - Canning Town - Beckton
and Stratford - Canning Town - Woolwich Arsenal)
5. A useful service between Stratford and North Woolwich maintained once
the Canning Town - North Woolwich NLL service closes for Crossrail
6. An economical way of directly serving Stratford International station

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

[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