On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article , Peter Goodland
writes

there are abandoned platforms at Charing Cross and some tunnel east of
there towards Aldwych.

DLR trains are almost certainly too big to fit.

I'm confused. Are DLR trains bigger than tube trains?

tom

--
It's almost over now.

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article ,
Peter Goodland writes

there are abandoned platforms at Charing Cross and some tunnel
east of there towards Aldwych.

DLR trains are almost certainly too big to fit.

I'm confused. Are DLR trains bigger than tube trains?

Yes. In particular, DLR stock is about half a metre taller than tube
stock.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article , Peter
Goodland writes

there are abandoned platforms at Charing Cross and some tunnel east
of there towards Aldwych.

DLR trains are almost certainly too big to fit.

I'm confused. Are DLR trains bigger than tube trains?

Yes, in terms of the diameter tube tunnel they will fit in, at least.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Richard J. wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article ,
Peter Goodland writes

there are abandoned platforms at Charing Cross and some tunnel
east of there towards Aldwych.

DLR trains are almost certainly too big to fit.

I'm confused. Are DLR trains bigger than tube trains?

Yes. In particular, DLR stock is about half a metre taller than tube
stock.

Okay, didn't realise that. I suppose i think of DLR stock as wee little
midget trains. Thinking about it, though, given that tunnels weren't
really part of the original plan, there was no reason to make them any
shorter than the mainline trains whose alignments they inherited!

tom

--
Oh no - I've just turned my arse into a hand grenade!

Tom Anderson wrote:

Just how deep is the DLR at Bank?

According to this http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/company/facts.asp , 41.4
metres, and they ought to know.

ISTR that the DLR is capable of climbing
relatively steep gradients - steeper than the 1:30 that's the
rule-of-thumb limit on heavy rail. It's almost 600 metres from Bank to
Moorgate, and more along the looping route that a tunnel would have to
take - even at 1:30, that would allow 20 metres of climbing. Is that not
enough?

I think you'd need to make the DLR a rack railway to get up the
gradient that would be required! The tracks really are a long way down
at Bank.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Just how deep is the DLR at Bank?

According to this http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/company/facts.asp , 41.4
metres, and they ought to know.

Cripes! That *is* deep. Aren't most tubes around the 20 metre mark? I
suppose there's already the Central and Northern lines at Bank, so the DLR
had to tuck in under those.

ISTR that the DLR is capable of climbing relatively steep gradients -
steeper than the 1:30 that's the rule-of-thumb limit on heavy rail.
It's almost 600 metres from Bank to Moorgate, and more along the
looping route that a tunnel would have to take - even at 1:30, that
would allow 20 metres of climbing. Is that not enough?

I think you'd need to make the DLR a rack railway to get up the gradient
that would be required! The tracks really are a long way down at Bank.

Indeed - since there's about 40 metres of climb rather than 20, it would
have to be more like 1:15. I'm not sure the world is yet ready for the
Docklands Light Funicular ...

tom

--
I know you wanna try and get away, but it's the hardest thing you'll ever know

Tom Anderson wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 30 Jun 2005:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 wrote:

I think you'd need to make the DLR a rack railway to get up the
gradient that would be required! The tracks really are a long way
down at Bank.

Indeed - since there's about 40 metres of climb rather than 20, it would
have to be more like 1:15. I'm not sure the world is yet ready for the
Docklands Light Funicular ...

What is its gradient as it comes to the surface now?
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 23 May 2005

Bow Road District line is 1:28, IIRC?

In terms of a westbound extension though should consider going to
Waterloo and taking part off the Waterloo and City. A new station
could be provided in between at Blackfriars, improving links further
with Thameslink and Waterloo. Although a large proportion of the line
would have to be in new tunnel, it would slot in nicely to the existing
platforms at Waterloo. In terms of capacity it would provide a great
deal extra as a three car DLR train could provide as much capacity as
Waterloo and City train and provide a higher frequency.

Maybe longer term the line could then be projected to Victoria with
stops at Lambeth Bridge on the southside and Horseferry Road(an area
with poor transport). From Victoria the line could then go to Hyde Park
Corner, Park Lane with a new Mayfair stop, Marble Arch and on to
Paddington it could then surface where the Hammersmith and City line
platforms are and continue to Hammersmith.

Very blue sky thinking but then again I bet the cost would be half of
what Crossrail is projected to be and create many new links in the
process. Very wishful thinking but food for thought and the links would
be very well used.

Martin

Mark Etherington wrote:
Stevie wrote:
Peter Goodland wrote:

Modern Railways mentions that the DLR are considering possible
extensions to Farringdon and/or Charing Cross.
Both of these could be very interesting.


The Wharf mentioned a few weeks ago that they're currently got a
shortlist of 10 possible DLR extensions that they're now whittling down
to just 3 or 4.

The one that they particular mentioned was Lewisham to Catford which
they say scores quite favourably and they've got the support of Lewisham
council for.

Any idea what the route might be? They wouldn't take over the South
Eastern Trains service via Ladywell, would they?

--
Mark Etherington