On Wed, 25 May 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Boltar wrote:

Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being pushed
beyond what its really suited for?

What the area needs is proper heavy rail solutions; throwing out all
sorts of short-termist DLR-based solutions is ultimately failing to
face up to this reality.

How are these DLR solutions "short-termist"?

Because they fail to address the long-term needs of the area.

Obviously the DLR is a light rail network for local journeys within an
area;

Like the Circle line, then.

I'm not talking about shipping people between the east end and central
London; i really do think Crossrail plus the Jubilee and District lines
(and the North Kent line) can handle that. Rather, it's a question of
handling the movement of commuters into the area. As Docklands and the
Thames Gateway (which, incidentally, is an absolutely horrible name)
continue to develop, they'll be the destination for an increasing number
of commuters. The Isle of Dogs alone is about the same area as the City
(although it does have rather more of its area underwater); the City has
five mainline termini (six if you count London Bridge, plus Thameslink),
more tube stations than you can doff a bowler hat at, and is still
creaking under the strain. How on earth will light rail be able to cope if
the area develops to even a quarter of the density of the City?

Heavy rail is suited to heavy flows to and from large centres;

Couldn't have put it better myself.

The trouble is that the DLR options are doable now. The long-term
solutions (about the details of which i'm pretty hazy) would be
exorbitantly expensive. The two options that spring to mind are
extending the Jubilee line from North Greenwich (not entirely sure
where to, though!) and reclaiming some of the old railway alignments
from the DLR and using them for proper trains.

This is the problem; people who "don't like" the use of the DLR here
aren't really sure what the alternatives are,

Absence of evidence etc!

apart from increasing the frequency of the NLL - which might help if you
want to travel from the vicinity of Canning Town or West Ham stations,
but will be pretty useless otherwise.

I'm not proposing that - i like the NLL even less than i like the DLR.

Which old railway alignments would you "reclaim" from the DLR and use for
"proper trains"?

I'm lamentably badly-informed of the history of the "railway alignments"
which were recycled by the "DLR", so i have to confess that it was a
purely speculative remark. A quick look at CULG suggests that a Stratford
- Bow - Isle of Dogs route could be liberated for heavy rail. That could
link into the Lea Valley line to the north, the Great Eastern to the east,
the NLL to the west, lines through the Royal Docks via a Canning Town -
Poplar alignment,and via a new tunnel to Greenwich and Lewisham, and on to
the inner SLL, Croydon, the Ravensbourne valley lines, Metropolitan Kent
lines, etc. The whole thing could be like a sort of Outer ELL.

What services currently provided by the DLR should be provided by heavy
rail,

As many as possible.

and which DLR stations would you close to provide that heavy rail
service?

Convert rather than close. In places, the spacing is too close for heavy
rail, i admit, and there, stations would have to close, unless there was
room for DLR and heavy rail to run side by side or interwork. That would
be a tough decision.

Is this abstract concept of "proper trains" to do with higher capacity?

Yes.

The Thames Gateway doesn't need hazy possibilities for 15 years' time,
it needs definite probabilities now, before development starts, so that
people can get around their new local areas.

No, it needs realistic plans for how people will move around in 30 or more
years' time. Now is temporary; the future is for ever.

tom

--
The revolution will not be televised. The revolution will be live.