"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.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!



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

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

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

A