Tom Anderson wrote:
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.

The aim of the Thames Gateway area is primarily to provide extra housing
to cope with the demand in the southeast housing market, which is
primarily driven by central London. Some jobs will be created in the
area with new local centres being forged at places like Dagenham Dock
and Ebbsfleet, but the majority of job generation will be in existing
nearby local centres like Barking or Woolwich. The DLR and Transits
provide medium capacity from what will be large, low-to-medium density
housing areas into the medium density centres. The Underground and heavy
rail are for providing high capacity into high density centres; there
are no plans for any high density centres in the area other than Canary
Wharf, and the Underground link has been provided, with the heavy rail
link being provided within 10 years.

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


Like the Circle line, then.

Nope. The Circle line provides a high capacity link for the vast numbers
of people travelling from rail terminals to and from the City, which is
a completely different market to the DLR and Transit proposals.

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.

Yes, an increasing number, but not anywhere approaching the numbers
currently travelling into the West End and City; the numbers it does
generate will either be in Canary Wharf or spread across a number of
local centres.

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?

The Isle of Dogs is getting Crossrail, which will provide a
high-capacity link to the appropriate area for commuters to the south
east. The Jubilee line has a fair amount of capacity (compared to other
lines) between Stratford and London Bridge, and as this capacity is
being filled up, new carriages will be added to increase that capacity
(Jan 2006) and moving block signalling will provide a further capacity
increase (by 2009), bringing it up to the standards provided by other
Underground lines to the central area.

The Isle of Dogs just won't be developing to the levels of the City
within the next 30 years; the City has been developing to its current
levels for a few hundred years.

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

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Large centres - of which Canary Wharf will be the only truly large
centre in the Thames Gateway, and even so will be considerably smaller
than the City.

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!

Quite!

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.

....although the Jubilee line has spare and increasing capacity between
Stratford and Canary Wharf?

The last thing the denizens of Bow need is for their local DLR service
to be ripped up in favour of a heavy rail service which will serve them
more poorly in favour of commuters who haven't appeared yet. The people
in Bow want *more* stations (i.e. Langdon Park), not fewer.

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.

The demand for these services within the next 30 years is never going to
approach the level at which their construction can be justified. Perhaps
some will be necessary in a longer time period, but that's no reason to
deny people a local DLR service now, and it's probably not even reason
to substitute the DLR for them in the future. The DLR provides an
extremely valuable local service which should only be supplemented in
the future, not replaced. If new lines are required from the Lea Valley
via Stratford and Canary Wharf to Lewisham or Croydon or wherever, those
should be provided by new infrastructure.

Besides, we should be encouraging people to live closer to work with
high quality local transport, rather than inconveniencing those who do
live close, in favour of providing services from further away. That's
not to say that the latter service shouldn't be provided, it's to say
that they shouldn't be provided at the expense of the former.

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

As many as possible.

That's a rather poor goal. If you were going to propose substitution of
DLR services for heavy rail ones, then you should consider each and
every substitution on its merits and problems. I think the the
disadvantages of killing a reliable, high quality, high frequency DLR
service will be quite high compared to the benefits gained.

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.

As I discussed before, I think your desire for high capacity to Canary
Wharf by replacing DLR alignments is misplaced. Admittedly, the DLR
cannot provide the capacity afforded by a Crossrail-style heavy rail
service - but such services are *extremely* expensive, and face a very
tough time stacking up against any benefits gained. The DLR can provide
2-unit (i.e. 4-car) trains with extremely short headways at 98%
reliability, with 3-unit/6-car trains in the pipeline.

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.

The DLR is not temporary; it's no use providing "future" transport for
possible people at the expense of transport now for definite people.
People need to move locally around East London, not just into and out of
it from further afield, and the DLR fulfils that role easily, relatively
cheaply and extremely well. For the future, we should continue to ensure
that people can still move around their local areas easily, so we can
create sustainable communities where people can live a reasonably short
distance from their places of work - not sprawling non-communities where
people are forced to live further away to have access to decent transport.

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