Ok, this is probably nothing more than just internet gossip and rumour,
but what else is the internet really for?

Anyway, the rumour is that a decision on an extension of the DLR to
Charing Cross will be made on 30th Oct with a projected completion date
of 'before 2020'.

And I've absolutely no sources to show you - like I said, it's just
complete rumour ('man in the pub said..'). Someone else here may know
more about it?

Stevie wrote:
Ok, this is probably nothing more than just internet gossip and rumour,
but what else is the internet really for?

Anyway, the rumour is that a decision on an extension of the DLR to
Charing Cross will be made on 30th Oct with a projected completion date
of 'before 2020'.

And I've absolutely no sources to show you - like I said, it's just
complete rumour ('man in the pub said..'). Someone else here may know
more about it?

Rumours are around as that corridor has always had a line of sorts.
Called the Fleet line if I remember.

It was rumoured at some point to be the extension to the Jubilee line
before the Docklands took off and they decided to run it through there.

But. What use is an extension to Charing Cross. The District line from
either Monument or Tower Gateway fulfils that brief quite adequately.
DLR is far better off being extended elsewhere.

However I wouldn't put it passed Ken to spend millions putting back old
railway lines. ;-)

A.

Londoncityslicker wrote:


Rumours are around as that corridor has always had a line of sorts.
Called the Fleet line if I remember.


However I wouldn't put it passed Ken to spend millions putting back old
railway lines. ;-)


The Fleet Line was the original name of the Jubilee Line. The intention
was to extend the Jubilee Line via Aldwych rather than via Waterloo but
apart from tunnels extending from the now-disused platforms at Charing
Cross none of it actually exsists. There's no 'old railway line' to open.

There was a discussion here a while back about the pros and cons of the
DLR extension to Charing X. The use of the jubilee line platforms at
charing cross and the lift shafts at Aldwych would lower the cost of
doing it from scratch, but AIUI the platform at Bank points north
instead of west

Londoncityslicker wrote:
Stevie wrote:
Ok, this is probably nothing more than just internet gossip and rumour,
but what else is the internet really for?

Anyway, the rumour is that a decision on an extension of the DLR to
Charing Cross will be made on 30th Oct with a projected completion date
of 'before 2020'.

And I've absolutely no sources to show you - like I said, it's just
complete rumour ('man in the pub said..'). Someone else here may know
more about it?

Rumours are around as that corridor has always had a line of sorts.
Called the Fleet line if I remember.

It was rumoured at some point to be the extension to the Jubilee line
before the Docklands took off and they decided to run it through there.

But. What use is an extension to Charing Cross. The District line from
either Monument or Tower Gateway fulfils that brief quite adequately.
DLR is far better off being extended elsewhere.

However I wouldn't put it passed Ken to spend millions putting back old
railway lines. ;-)



The the extension of the DLR will assist with creeping privatisation I
suspect, since the DLR isn't run by LU.

But my problem with it is that there would then be stumps at both Tower
Gateway and Bank. Various unpleasant possibilities a

1) One of the stumps closes.

2) There are infrequent or irregular services to each branch.

3) There are truncated journeys with limited patterns.

I know it's a bit like that already, but this could result in an
increased number of changes for existing journeys, despite it
apparently being a new through service. The DLR will effectively be
divided into a number of separate lines, even more than it currently is.

Stuart wrote:
Londoncityslicker wrote:


Rumours are around as that corridor has always had a line of sorts.
Called the Fleet line if I remember.


However I wouldn't put it passed Ken to spend millions putting back old
railway lines. ;-)


The Fleet Line was the original name of the Jubilee Line. The intention
was to extend the Jubilee Line via Aldwych rather than via Waterloo but
apart from tunnels extending from the now-disused platforms at Charing
Cross none of it actually exsists. There's no 'old railway line' to open.

There was a discussion here a while back about the pros and cons of the
DLR extension to Charing X. The use of the jubilee line platforms at
charing cross and the lift shafts at Aldwych would lower the cost of
doing it from scratch, but AIUI the platform at Bank points north
instead of west


It definitely wouldn't be extended from Bank, it would be a new branch.

Stuart wrote:
Londoncityslicker wrote:


Rumours are around as that corridor has always had a line of sorts.
Called the Fleet line if I remember.

However I wouldn't put it passed Ken to spend millions putting back
old railway lines. ;-)


The Fleet Line was the original name of the Jubilee Line. The
intention was to extend the Jubilee Line via Aldwych rather than via
Waterloo but apart from tunnels extending from the now-disused
platforms at Charing Cross none of it actually exsists. There's no
'old railway line' to open.

Because of deep foundations, few alignments for railways in the city are now
possible. The alignment from Fenchurch Street to Charing Cross was
safeguarded for the River/Fleet line, and so survived development for
decades. The office block on Cannon Street station was even built with a
hole through the foundations for the railway to fit through. The alignment
might even still be safeguarded, for all I know. So you could say that the
"old railway line" is still there on paper waiting to be opened.

MIG wrote:

The the extension of the DLR will assist with creeping privatisation I
suspect, since the DLR isn't run by LU.

But my problem with it is that there would then be stumps at both Tower
Gateway and Bank. Various unpleasant possibilities a

1) One of the stumps closes.

2) There are infrequent or irregular services to each branch.

3) There are truncated journeys with limited patterns.

I know it's a bit like that already, but this could result in an
increased number of changes for existing journeys, despite it
apparently being a new through service. The DLR will effectively be
divided into a number of separate lines, even more than it currently is.

Maybe they could close Tower Gateway and have an station below ground
at Tower Hill on the new Charing X branch? That way the
Circle/District would get a decent connection with the DLR at long last.

wrote:
MIG wrote:

The the extension of the DLR will assist with creeping privatisation I
suspect, since the DLR isn't run by LU.

But my problem with it is that there would then be stumps at both Tower
Gateway and Bank. Various unpleasant possibilities a

1) One of the stumps closes.

2) There are infrequent or irregular services to each branch.

3) There are truncated journeys with limited patterns.

I know it's a bit like that already, but this could result in an
increased number of changes for existing journeys, despite it
apparently being a new through service. The DLR will effectively be
divided into a number of separate lines, even more than it currently is.

Maybe they could close Tower Gateway and have an station below ground
at Tower Hill on the new Charing X branch? That way the
Circle/District would get a decent connection with the DLR at long last.

The interchange between DLR and tube at Tower is far faster and less
hassle than most other big interchanges in town.

Stuart wrote:
doing it from scratch, but AIUI the platform at Bank points north
instead of west

That doesn't matter. DLR trains can go around some pretty severe curves
so what might be an issue for a tube line is a no brainer for the DLR.
Judging by the curves in the docklands area they could have the train
running west again in as little as 50 metres.

B2003

Stuart wrote:
apart from tunnels extending from the now-disused platforms at Charing
Cross

Disused for passengers but probably a little goldmine for LU judging by
the number of times they keep popping up in adverts and films. And
then theres to useful stabling and reversing facilities they provide.
My guess is LU would be somewhat reluctant to lose them.

B2003