[[email protected]]

Boltar wrote:
London City is and always will be quite a small airport. It currently
handles about 1.7 mppa (million passengers per annum). Assuming 50
weeks of 5 days, that's 6800 passengers per day. According to Newham

And you don't think thats a lot?

If half of all the passengers going to and from to the airport used the
Jubilee line that would average 7 passengers per train. Given that
virtually all the flights are business orientated that proportion is
optimistic.

Council, Stratford station (all lines) currently handles 52,000
passengers per day. I fail to see the logic behind "clear target" and
"rather pointless terminus"

Airport = clear target (and obviously someone in tfl has finally
noticed or else the DLR wouldn't be going there).

An airport is not a 'clear target' simply because it's an airport. It's
because of the figures above that only the DLR is going there - and
more importantly, serving the airport as only as an intermediate
station, not a terminus (Woolwich is the ultimate terminus).

Rather pointless terminus = area that is already served by mainline
trains to liverpool street, NLL, central line & DLR. I'm trying to
think of a reason that a run down tip like stratford would need yet
another tube line to go there.

Very Margaret Thatcher like thinking. Perhaps the fact that the area is
being redeveloped will be aided by the presence of the Jubilee line.
The connections that the Jubilee line have greatly assist the creation
of an integrated transport system. By your logic British Museum would
still be open instead of Holborn on the Central line, "because the
Piccadilly line already goes there".

Will you now admit that the figures don't stack up for your case?

[Boltar]

f half of all the passengers going to and from to the airport used the
Jubilee line that would average 7 passengers per train. Given that
virtually all the flights are business orientated that proportion is
optimistic.

Yes , because you'll never get many business people travelling to
docklands from LCA will you. And i'd be interested to know just
how many extra people travel to stratford now the JLE goes there
who wouldn't have used the DLR previously.

An airport is not a 'clear target' simply because it's an airport. It's
because of the figures above that only the DLR is going there - and
more importantly, serving the airport as only as an intermediate
station, not a terminus (Woolwich is the ultimate terminus).

So an airport used by a large number of business people isn't a
clear target for a tube line that goes through a major business
district , but an area thats already got a surfeit of public transport
connections is. Hmm , well I'm sure theres logic in your argument
somewhere but I'm buggered if I can see it. Incidentaly , have a
think about whether the DLR would be having a new extension if
LCA didn't exist.

Very Margaret Thatcher like thinking. Perhaps the fact that the area is

Thank you, I'll take that as a complement.

being redeveloped will be aided by the presence of the Jubilee line.

So the jubilee line will somehow magically transform all the chavs
and other assorted dregs of humanity in that ******** of an area into
worthy upstanding citizens where the central line, NLL , DLR etc
failed?

of an integrated transport system. By your logic British Museum would
still be open instead of Holborn on the Central line, "because the
Piccadilly line already goes there".

Err no., Because the lines would cross anyway as they go to their
respective destinations. However I doubt someone would have come
along and said "ooo , I know , we won't send the piccadilly line to
finsbury park , we'll make it terminate at liverpool street even tho
the met, circle , H&C and central already go there."

Will you now admit that the figures don't stack up for your case?

Are you having a laugh? Your arguments are so full of holes they
would make a swiss cheese envious.

B2003

[[email protected]]

Boltar wrote:
f half of all the passengers going to and from to the airport used the
Jubilee line that would average 7 passengers per train. Given that
virtually all the flights are business orientated that proportion is
optimistic.

Yes , because you'll never get many business people travelling to
docklands from LCA will you. And i'd be interested to know just
how many extra people travel to stratford now the JLE goes there
who wouldn't have used the DLR previously.

I would guess you might get 35% maximum of the airport's passengers
using either DLR (or a hypothetical Jubilee line station). The others
will arrive by road. I would think that the business case for the DLR
extension has an accurate estimate, but I don't have the time to try
and locate this. Perhaps someone else could track it down.

Even if 100% of passengers used rail that would still be 14 passengers
per train, averaged out. And don't forget the airport closes Saturday
lunchtime to Sunday lunchtime.

An airport is not a 'clear target' simply because it's an airport. It's
because of the figures above that only the DLR is going there - and
more importantly, serving the airport as only as an intermediate
station, not a terminus (Woolwich is the ultimate terminus).

So an airport used by a large number of business people isn't a
clear target for a tube line that goes through a major business
district , but an area thats already got a surfeit of public transport
connections is. Hmm , well I'm sure theres logic in your argument
somewhere but I'm buggered if I can see it. Incidentaly , have a
think about whether the DLR would be having a new extension if
LCA didn't exist.

The LCA annual passenger numbers quoted above (facts) comprehensively
demolish any argument you might have IMHO. If you want to subsidise an
Underground line to a station that would provide such a meagre
passenger base go ahead and write to the ODPM and offer to do so.

As far as increased passenger numbers and airport expansion go, I can
only assume you don't know the footprint, layout and available
development space in and around London City Airport. Unless you wish to
demolish everything to the south of the Royal Docks to the riverbank
the airport is never going to provide any more passengers that a
10-minute frequency on the DLR can comfortably handle.

I've snipped the rest because I haven't got time to rationalise any
more with the irrational. Somebody else can try and deal with the rest
of the points if they want...

[Boltar]

only assume you don't know the footprint, layout and available
development space in and around London City Airport. Unless you wish to
demolish everything to the south of the Royal Docks to the riverbank
the airport is never going to provide any more passengers that a
10-minute frequency on the DLR can comfortably handle.

You mean almost the same as what they did to build Canary Wharf?
No , I'm sure that would never happen again. Never. Ever.

B2003

[Richard J.]

Boltar wrote:
only assume you don't know the footprint, layout and available
development space in and around London City Airport. Unless you
wish to demolish everything to the south of the Royal Docks to the
riverbank the airport is never going to provide any more
passengers that a 10-minute frequency on the DLR can comfortably
handle.

You mean almost the same as what they did to build Canary Wharf?
No , I'm sure that would never happen again. Never. Ever.

You've also got the airspace above it congested with the traffic to
exisiting airports. Why do you think that the government, desperately
trying to find somewhere to build new runways in the South East, ruled
out any major expansion of London City?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

[Mike Bristow]

In article .com,
Boltar wrote:
And i'd be interested to know just
how many extra people travel to stratford now the JLE goes there
who wouldn't have used the DLR previously.

Lots.

Mostly they get off a NR train and change onto the JLE (instead,
probably, of changing onto another line at Liverpool Street).

They couldn't have used the DLR previously because the DLR is still
packed leaving Stratford (because another bunch of people have piled
of the NR trains onto it)

--
Mike Bristow - really a very good driver

[Baffobear]

It is true to say the Docklands Area has outgrown the Docklands Light
Railway. Due to the mass movement of businesses from the city to the
docklands, the transport infrastructure has not grown with it. It may
not be understandable to some, but the city had it's railway stations,
(Kings Cross, Canon Street, Liverpool Street, Waterloo, etc) all
serving the city. However with such movement, these commuters have been
"forced" on to the jubilee line, which serves, London Bridge, Waterloo,
or have been "forced" on to the DLR at Bank). While for now this may be
fine, we have to remind ourselves that now the Thames Gateway Region is
being expanded, Regeneration of the lea valley is taking place,
Stansted is growing and Homes are being built in Essex and
Hertfordshire.

Crossrail, although a good scheme, in peak times is only likely to
benefit those to the west of Paddington, who have no direct access to
the docklands and subsequently cause overcrowing at Baker st. Great
Western commuters would be kept happier (in the short term) with a
clockface timetable, and longer trains, increasing ridership. Capacity
constraints and the prority of the Heathrow Express means that they
suffer. In the East, Great Eastern Services are frequent and fast and
crossrail's plans do nothing to improve the level of service already
offered, except to remove some fast Ilford peak time services to ensure
timetable simplicity.

Now where Docklands Transport fails is where the long distance and
outer suburban market is concerned. Pre-Lewisham Extension, the only
connection with outer suburban services was stratford. Along with
Central Line, Great Eastern, North London and One Anglian services,
alot of passengers must be accomodated on trains of two cars and on the
jubilee line. The Lewisham Extensions do well to accomodate those from
the South East. However, with the thames gateway region plans becoming
reality, major overcrowding will take place at Lewisham and Greenwich.
Now if the DLR was built to heavy rail guidelines, it would have been
possible to provide extra trains to the docklands via the south. It has
taken years to realise that Heavy Rail is better than smaller metro
systems.

Lets take an example of the Victoria Line in the 1960s. No doubt if it
was built today, it would have been built to a heavy rail gauge,
connected at Wood Street, Walthamstow - for chingford, Tottenham Hale -
for Cheshunt, Stansted and at Victoria or Herne Hill - for South London
Destinations. Knowing that there is no case for extension to the
victoria line, Crossrail 2 has been proposed.


The NLL Statford - North Woolich line should be seen as an important
line that has potential to serve both South and North of The River
similar in a "Thameslink" Style. If a thames tunnel was built between
North Woolwich and Woolwich Arsenal. and a connection was made from the
North London line to the Lea Valley line. A huge number of potential
routes would be available. Stansted - Dartford or Cheshunt to Abbey
Wood for example. Even complementary services from Enfield or Chingford
could be diverted into this route.

Where the DLR also fails is its catchment areas. Stations are too
close, so by the time the train as a change to accelerate, it has to
slow down again. Look at the Beckton Extension with Stations Royal
Albert, Beckton Park and Cyprus. If only one station was there, say
Cyprus, then more emphasis onto providing subsidary bus services would
have taken place, therefore having a bigger catchment area.

Honestly it would be best if DLR ceased operations north of West India
Quay. And heavy rail was reinstated from Fenchurch Street to a new
overground Isle of Dogs Station (probably around billingsgate market)
witin a good walking distance of Canary Wharf. A line would continue to
pass through Canning Town, and diverge into two, one diving under the
thames as crossrail envisages, and the other continuing to custom
house, Gallions Reach Barking Reach and following the C2C line to
Pitsea. Simple. It makes much more sense to provide longer 8 - 12 car
trains which can transport more people, and has the 'potential' to have
the same frequency of the DLR service. I would even continue to say
that Crossrail should be realigned to serve Fenchurch street as well as
Bank before connecting with the main alignment at Farringdon. However,
lets be realistic, that wont happen

And is it me? but with the jubilee line you have to walk miles to get
to the train. I suspect the same will happen with Crossrail. Happy
missing last Train!

[Baffobear]

It is true to say the Docklands Area has outgrown the Docklands Light
Railway. Due to the mass movement of businesses from the city to the
docklands, the transport infrastructure has not grown with it. It may
not be understandable to some, but the city had it's railway stations,
(Kings Cross, Canon Street, Liverpool Street, Waterloo, etc) all
serving the city. However with such movement, these commuters have been
"forced" on to the jubilee line, which serves, London Bridge, Waterloo,
or have been "forced" on to the DLR at Bank). While for now this may be
fine, we have to remind ourselves that now the Thames Gateway Region is
being expanded, Regeneration of the lea valley is taking place,
Stansted is growing and Homes are being built in Essex and
Hertfordshire.

Crossrail, although a good scheme, in peak times is only likely to
benefit those to the west of Paddington, who have no direct access to
the docklands and subsequently cause overcrowing at Baker st. Great
Western commuters would be kept happier (in the short term) with a
clockface timetable, and longer trains, increasing ridership. Capacity
constraints and the prority of the Heathrow Express means that they
suffer. In the East, Great Eastern Services are frequent and fast and
crossrail's plans do nothing to improve the level of service already
offered, except to remove some fast Ilford peak time services to ensure
timetable simplicity.

Now where Docklands Transport fails is where the long distance and
outer suburban market is concerned. Pre-Lewisham Extension, the only
connection with outer suburban services was stratford. Along with
Central Line, Great Eastern, North London and One Anglian services,
alot of passengers must be accomodated on trains of two cars and on the
jubilee line. The Lewisham Extensions do well to accomodate those from
the South East. However, with the thames gateway region plans becoming
reality, major overcrowding will take place at Lewisham and Greenwich.
Now if the DLR was built to heavy rail guidelines, it would have been
possible to provide extra trains to the docklands via the south. It has
taken years to realise that Heavy Rail is better than smaller metro
systems.

Lets take an example of the Victoria Line in the 1960s. No doubt if it
was built today, it would have been built to a heavy rail gauge,
connected at Wood Street, Walthamstow - for chingford, Tottenham Hale -
for Cheshunt, Stansted and at Victoria or Herne Hill - for South London
Destinations. Knowing that there is no case for extension to the
victoria line, Crossrail 2 has been proposed.


The NLL Statford - North Woolich line should be seen as an important
line that has potential to serve both South and North of The River
similar in a "Thameslink" Style. If a thames tunnel was built between
North Woolwich and Woolwich Arsenal. and a connection was made from the
North London line to the Lea Valley line. A huge number of potential
routes would be available. Stansted - Dartford or Cheshunt to Abbey
Wood for example. Even complementary services from Enfield or Chingford
could be diverted into this route.

Where the DLR also fails is its catchment areas. Stations are too
close, so by the time the train as a change to accelerate, it has to
slow down again. Look at the Beckton Extension with Stations Royal
Albert, Beckton Park and Cyprus. If only one station was there, say
Cyprus, then more emphasis onto providing subsidary bus services would
have taken place, therefore having a bigger catchment area.

Honestly it would be best if DLR ceased operations north of West India
Quay. And heavy rail was reinstated from Fenchurch Street to a new
overground Isle of Dogs Station (probably around billingsgate market)
witin a good walking distance of Canary Wharf. A line would continue to
pass through Canning Town, and diverge into two, one diving under the
thames as crossrail envisages, and the other continuing to custom
house, Gallions Reach Barking Reach and following the C2C line to
Pitsea. Simple. It makes much more sense to provide longer 8 - 12 car
trains which can transport more people, and has the 'potential' to have
the same frequency of the DLR service. I would even continue to say
that Crossrail should be realigned to serve Fenchurch street as well as
Bank before connecting with the main alignment at Farringdon. However,
lets be realistic, that wont happen

And is it me? but with the jubilee line you have to walk miles to get
to the train. I suspect the same will happen with Crossrail. Happy
missing last Train!

[Tom Anderson]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Baffobear wrote:

It may not be understandable to some, but the city had it's railway
stations, (Kings Cross, Canon Street, Liverpool Street, Waterloo, etc)
all serving the city. However with such movement, these commuters have
been "forced" on to the jubilee line, which serves, London Bridge,
Waterloo, or have been "forced" on to the DLR at Bank).

Or Stratford, if they're coming from the east.

Not sure i'd describe King's Cross as a City station, though!

In the East, Great Eastern Services are frequent and fast and
crossrail's plans do nothing to improve the level of service already
offered, except to remove some fast Ilford peak time services to ensure
timetable simplicity.

That's not true - the current service is something like 16 tph with 8-car
trains, or 128 cars per hour (cph); Crossrail will be 12 tph with 10-car
trains, which is only 120 cph, but there will also be a rump GE service, 6
tph @ 8 cars, whose 48 cph make for a total of 168 cph, 30% more than at
present. If Crossrail gets 12-car trains, the Crossrail part will be 144
cph, more than the current service just by itself.

(info and working shamelessly nicked from alwaystouchout.com!)

Lets take an example of the Victoria Line in the 1960s. No doubt if it
was built today, it would have been built to a heavy rail gauge,
connected at Wood Street, Walthamstow - for chingford, Tottenham Hale -
for Cheshunt, Stansted and at Victoria or Herne Hill - for South London
Destinations.

Hang on - the Victoria line *is* heavy rail; it has reasonably big trains,
travelling at high speed and high frequency. Of course, they're smaller
(shorter and narrower) than mainline trains, but they're still very
significantly bigger than light rail (eg DLR) trains. Moreover, the track
specifications are compatible with NR lines: very similar trains share
tracks with mainline trains on the Bakerloo / Watford DC joint line
between Queens Park and Harrow & Wealdstone. Thus, if the connections were
built, and suitable power and signals provided, Victoria line trains
could, on a technical level, do exactly that.

The reason they don't, as was kindly explained to me a few days ago, is
that there isn't capacity on the central section of the line - traffic
from the existing stations is already enough to saturate it, so adding
more stations at the ends would overload it. If the frequency of service
can be improved, then yes, more stations could perhaps be added, but at
present, that wouldn't be sensible.

The NLL Statford - North Woolich line should be seen as an important
line that has potential to serve both South and North of The River
similar in a "Thameslink" Style. If a thames tunnel was built between
North Woolwich and Woolwich Arsenal. and a connection was made from the
North London line to the Lea Valley line. A huge number of potential
routes would be available. Stansted - Dartford or Cheshunt to Abbey Wood
for example. Even complementary services from Enfield or Chingford could
be diverted into this route.

Honestly it would be best if DLR ceased operations north of West India
Quay. And heavy rail was reinstated from Fenchurch Street to a new
overground Isle of Dogs Station (probably around billingsgate market)
witin a good walking distance of Canary Wharf. A line would continue to
pass through Canning Town, and diverge into two, one diving under the
thames as crossrail envisages, and the other continuing to custom house,
Gallions Reach Barking Reach and following the C2C line to Pitsea.
Simple.

That makes a lot of sense. It's similar in spirit to what i was
suggesting, although more practical - provide a heavy rail cross-river
suburban metro service focused on Docklands. A sort of
'Thamesgatewaylink', if you will.

It makes much more sense to provide longer 8 - 12 car
trains which can transport more people, and has the 'potential' to have
the same frequency of the DLR service.

Bingo.

tom

--
:-( bad :-) bad :-| good