[Dave Arquati]

londoncityslicker wrote:
"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.


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.

The loss is actually Stratford to North Woolwich, although Canning Town
to North Woolwich is being lost in favour of Crossrail, a vastly more
useful service than the NLL provides to the Royal Docks.

(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.

What huge future potential use is there that neither the DLR nor
Crossrail provides?

The City Airport extension will no doubt take the brunt of the traffic.

....making the NLL even less useful, and making it more useful to provide
DLR services between Canning Town and Stratford to maintain and enhance
local connections in the area. The DLR services will be more useful
because they will run as far as Beckton and Woolwich Arsenal.

Much easier would be to increase the frequency of the NLL (one of the
reasons why it is underused)

Not necessarily easier - new turnback facilities will need to be
provided at Canning Town in order to provide an increased frequency
service to two stations already served at high frequency by the Jubilee
line. The NLL is partly underused because it is low frequency; it is
also underused because the DLR and Jubilee line provide the appropriate
roles in the area more attractively.

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.

The DLR will have great interchange opportunities at Canning Town, West
Ham and Stratford too, and will provide them to more people than the NLL
can. DLR and Jubilee services already provide interchange with the ELL
at Shadwell and Canada Water, better than the interchange at Dalston
with the NLL will.

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

Someone wants to provide a more useful local service to the residents of
the Royal Docks, whilst recognising the NLL provides an extremely useful
service outside the Royal Docks and planning to enhance its frequency
where it is needed. Shocking! At this rate, we might even get the Olympics.

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

[Tom Anderson]

On Wed, 25 May 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

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?

Capacity.

tom

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

[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...

[Boltar]

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

I'll wager that within a decade city airport will have grown to the
point
where a branch line from the jubilee line is required. They should have
done that at the start , in fact IMO the jubilee line should have
terminated at the airport just like the picc does at heathrow instead
of stratford which was already well served anyway and didn't need
a tube service that just duplicated the DLR. Anyone suggesting the
piccadilly line should terminate at hounslow and a light rail line run
to heathrow would be considered mad , yet for some reason this
seems setup seems to be seen to be ok for city airport. British
short sightedness at its most stunningly thickwitted I would say.

B2003

[James Farrar]

Boltar wrote:
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


I'll wager that within a decade city airport will have grown to the
point
where a branch line from the jubilee line is required. They should have
done that at the start , in fact IMO the jubilee line should have
terminated at the airport just like the picc does at heathrow instead
of stratford which was already well served anyway and didn't need
a tube service that just duplicated the DLR. Anyone suggesting the
piccadilly line should terminate at hounslow and a light rail line run
to heathrow would be considered mad

How do passenger numbers at LCY now compare with those at LHR when the
Piccadilly Line extension was approved?

[Dave Arquati]

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

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?


Capacity.

Only useful when it will actually be filled. DLR can operate on
extremely short headways compared to heavy rail trains anyway, providing
quite good capacity; however, this is a bit moot when we're talking
about Stratford to North Woolwich. Even if traffic warranted the
capacity planned for the rest of the NLL (IIRC 6-car trains every 10
minutes), the DLR could still provide that capacity (with 2-unit trains
every 3-4 mins) whilst still fulfilling the local role it is designed for.

However, the Jubilee line already provides a high-capacity service
between Stratford and Canning Town, and increasing the NLL frequency
there just duplicates that; yes, the trains run beyond Stratford to
Hackney, but I think the majority of passengers along that corridor will
be making local trips to Stratford or West Ham to connect into radial
services or reach local centres.


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

[Dave Arquati]

Boltar wrote:
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


I'll wager that within a decade city airport will have grown to the
point
where a branch line from the jubilee line is required. They should have
done that at the start , in fact IMO the jubilee line should have
terminated at the airport just like the picc does at heathrow instead
of stratford which was already well served anyway and didn't need
a tube service that just duplicated the DLR. Anyone suggesting the
piccadilly line should terminate at hounslow and a light rail line run
to heathrow would be considered mad , yet for some reason this
seems setup seems to be seen to be ok for city airport. British
short sightedness at its most stunningly thickwitted I would say.

Even if City Airport grew significantly enough to warrant services
beyond the DLR, a Crossrail station could be constructed at Silvertown
relatively easily. I don't think those levels of growth are likely
anytime soon though.


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

[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

[Clive D. W. Feather]

In article .com,
Boltar writes
I'll wager that within a decade city airport will have grown to the
point
where a branch line from the jubilee line is required. They should have
done that at the start

The junction is already in place at North Greenwich, so it can be done
if required.

in fact IMO the jubilee line should have
terminated at the airport just like the picc does at heathrow instead
of stratford which was already well served anyway and didn't need
a tube service that just duplicated the DLR.

It doesn't duplicate the DLR. It serves a different area further east,
as well as providing fast direct connection to Southwark.

for some reason this
seems setup seems to be seen to be ok for city airport

Because it's a toy airport.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: