Tom Anderson wrote:

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.

Tom - by 'heavy rail', what do you have in mind - something like the
JLE, or 'heavy rail' as we understand it in South London (widely-spaced
and unpleasant stations, no more than 4 tph, inappropriately designed
trains for inner-suburban services, poor penetration of zone 1 beyond a
few peripheral termini)? It strikes me that the reason the DLR has
proved popular with the huge numbers of people moving to Docklands is
because it's perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a 'pretend Tube' -
something which that area of London was previously notably lacking.
(Even if it doesn't get any further into Central London than your
average suburban rail service.)

I think that's the same reason people are getting so excited about the
ELLX [1] - because it's perceived as 'something different' from the
despised heavy rail services we already have. You only have to compare
the DLR and NR stations at (say) Deptford and Deptford Bridge to see
which of the two presents more of a modern, safe, clean rapid
transit-type image. Of course that's not entirely the fault of the
railway - its stations are 80-100 years older than those of the DLR
(though that's no excuse for the lamentable state of most
inner-suburban stations compared to their Tube equivalents).

I'm not sure what conclusion I was going to draw from that. Ah well.


[1] well, that and a chronic misunderstanding of what it will actually
involve - I still giggle every time I see a "TUBE COMING TO BROMLEY!"
headline on a local paper...