The March 2006 Modern Railways mentions yet another plan to extend the
DLR, this time from Bank to CX. I'd have treated it with the usual
bucket of salt had it appeared in RAIL, but such a story in MR must
surely be afforded more credibility, no?

I'd be interested to hear what other posters think about this...

THC

THC wrote:
The March 2006 Modern Railways mentions yet another plan to extend the
DLR, this time from Bank to CX. I'd have treated it with the usual
bucket of salt had it appeared in RAIL, but such a story in MR must
surely be afforded more credibility, no?


One would have thought so, though it seems a bit fanciful to me,
especially as the suggestion only takes up a few sentences of a very
long article and doesn't seem to be much more than a vague aspiration.
My guess is that a sub-editor spotted the mention of a CX extension and
decided to splash it on the cover.

The MR article suggests that such a scheme "would make commuting to
Canary Wharf a more feasible prospect for thousands of Kent and Sussex
residents."

How? Wouldn't it be much quicker for Canary Wharf workers commuting on
the Kent lines to change to the Jubilee at London Bridge (or even
Waterloo East) than remain on the train and change to the DLR at
Charing X?

PaulO

What about simply pushing the Tower Gateway direction a bit further
until it reaches London Bridge?

Ian Tindale wrote:
What about simply pushing the Tower Gateway direction a bit further
until it reaches London Bridge?

Does "simply" mean just carrying on at the same level from Tower
Gateway? I think there might be a few problems getting planning
permission for an elevated line right by the Tower of London.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Having now read the article in Captain Deltic's Monthly, I've got to
say that some comments here are perhaps a little too critical of MR's
crucading editorial staff.

They are, yes a little vague in what they are saying, but it is clear
that they are not saying that the DLR is proposing to build onwards
from the existing Bank Terminus to CX. What they are saying is that
DLR are floating the proposal of an additional terminus at CX,
utilising where possible the protected Fleet line tunnel wayleve, and
the unused ex Jubilee station at CX.

Now hell knows what the issue is here with structure gauge, but MR are
only making the point that the cost of underground lines tends to be in
the stations, there is therefor the suggestion that this new branch
would have no intermediate stations. Ie the trains would run non-stop
from Shadwell to CX.

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, TedJrr wrote:

Now hell knows what the issue is here with structure gauge,

AIUI, DLR trains are narrower but taller than tube trains; i would guess
that means that a tube-gauge safeguarded route would be usable for the
DLR. Not sure how you'd actually dig the tunnel, though.

but MR are only making the point that the cost of underground lines
tends to be in the stations, there is therefor the suggestion that this
new branch would have no intermediate stations. Ie the trains would run
non-stop from Shadwell to CX.

Oh, now *that* is taking the ****.

tom

--
agriculture, animal husbandry, and plains-like landscape

"THC" wrote in message
oups.com...
The March 2006 Modern Railways mentions yet another plan to extend the
DLR, this time from Bank to CX. I'd have treated it with the usual
bucket of salt had it appeared in RAIL, but such a story in MR must
surely be afforded more credibility, no?

I'd be interested to hear what other posters think about this...

Bearing in mind the District/Circle lines already go from Monument to
Embankment, I am not sure what the point would be of a parallel DLR route.

Peter Smyth

Peter Smyth wrote:
"THC" wrote in message
oups.com...
The March 2006 Modern Railways mentions yet another plan to extend the
DLR, this time from Bank to CX. I'd have treated it with the usual
bucket of salt had it appeared in RAIL, but such a story in MR must
surely be afforded more credibility, no?

I'd be interested to hear what other posters think about this...

Bearing in mind the District/Circle lines already go from Monument to
Embankment, I am not sure what the point would be of a parallel DLR route.

Don't forget that the Fleet Line (aka Jubilee) was originally planned in
two phases - the first was Baker St to Charing Cross, and the second was
Charing Cross to Fenchurch Street via Aldwych, Ludgate Circus and Cannon
Street - which is presumably very similar to any mooted DLR route.

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

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Peter Smyth wrote:

Bearing in mind the District/Circle lines already go
from Monument to Embankment, I am not sure
what the point would be of a parallel DLR route.

Don't forget that the Fleet Line (aka Jubilee) was originally
planned in two phases - the first was Baker St to Charing
Cross, and the second was Charing Cross to Fenchurch
Street via Aldwych, Ludgate Circus and Cannon Street -
which is presumably very similar to any mooted DLR route.

And the route might even still be safeguarded. A certain amount of reusable
infrastructure exists along the route, such as holes through the foundations
of the office block at Cannon Street station, and nearly-large-enough
tunnels from Aldwych to Charing Cross, lift shaft at Aldwych, escalator
shaft with escalators at Charing Cross. The WWII bomb site at Blackfriars,
which was kept for Fleet/Jubilee construction access, was built on in the
last few years.

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...


And the route might even still be safeguarded. A certain
amount of reusable infrastructure exists along the route,
such as holes through the foundations of the office block at Cannon Street
station,

..... (which I now realise the algnment could not possibly reach )...

and nearly-large-enough tunnels from Aldwych to Charing Cross,
lift shaft at Aldwych, escalator shaft with escalators at Charing
Cross. The WWII bomb site at Blackfriars, which was kept
for Fleet/Jubilee construction access, was built on in the last few years.