wrote in message
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 09:56:26 -0800 (PST)
MIG wrote:
- The endless track remodelling at Poplar (how many times have they
done = that =A0 now?)
- The retro fitting of Pudding Mill Lane station
- The remodelling of the stratford terminus to take more than 1
train
- The knocking down of the original Mudchute and Island Gardens
sations =A0 only 15 years after they were built
- The moving of South Quay

Thats the sort of thing you'd expect to happen over the course of a
centu= ry on most railways, not in the space of 20 years so if
thats not a case of patch and mend due to lack of money/foresight
back in the 80s then I don'= t know what is.

B2003

You forgot to mention that the "well-engineered deep level station
under Bank" included escalators that had to be replaced after
seventeen years.

I didn't know about that. But I did forget to mention the first batch
of trains that weren't fire resitant enough to be used in tunnels and
had rather absurd cheapo bus style doors that caused endless issues
on crowded trains and eventually had to be replaced with sliding
doors.

I think the initial P86 vehicles were essentially trams rather than
proper underground trains, unlike the current trains. I think they were
sold unmodified within five years. It was the slightly newer P89 stock
that had sliding doors retrofitted, but they've gone too.

On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:00:11 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 15:54:27 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
There's no way that it would have been built at all had the original
plan been to build what's now there. It was only because it was so cheap
that the plan went ahead.

Well yes, as I said, they probably didn't want to take the risk to spend
a huge amount of money on a transport system to an undeveloped area. If they
really wanted to put proper transport links in first they'd have extended a
tube line to start with and the DLR would never have existed.


The whole point of DLR was that it was a very cheap method of
extending high quality public transport into Docklands.

At that time, the planned development consisted of low rise industrial
units that would have employed a total of 10-15,000 mainly local
people. There was no thought of building a massive financial centre
employing upwards of 100,000. So when Olympia and York came along,
with an idea for a US-style financial city office centre at Canary
Wharf with a landmark skyscraper, the vision just blew everyone away.

There is no doubt that the DLR made Canary Wharf possible. Had there
not been a high quality public transport link, the area would have
been only served by buses running on inadequate roads, and there is
absolutely no way that the Reichmann brothers (Olympia and York) would
even have looked at the area. Of course the Jubilee Line Extension
and the Limehouse Link road tunnel were part of the deal struck with
Olympia and York, but it was the DLR that attracted the Reichmann
brothers.

The original ambition of the Docklands development Corporation did not
extend anywhere beyond building new roads and bridges to improve
access to the redundant docksides. I worked on tenders for several of
those. The idea of the railway came about when it became apparent
that the surrounding road network, already heavily congested, did not
have a hope of delivering people and goods in and out of the Isle of
Dogs and something far better was needed.

So the DLR did its job of encouraging inward investment, for which its
promoters deserve the greatest praise. It just did it far better than
expected.


You're forgetting about:

- The endless track remodelling at Poplar (how many times have they done that
now?)
- The retro fitting of Pudding Mill Lane station
- The remodelling of the stratford terminus to take more than 1 train
- The knocking down of the original Mudchute and Island Gardens sations
only 15 years after they were built
- The moving of South Quay

Thats the sort of thing you'd expect to happen over the course of a century
on most railways, not in the space of 20 years so if thats not a case of
patch and mend due to lack of money/foresight back in the 80s then I don't
know what is.


The original concept was good and the simple design of the viaducts
and stations has made the various upgrades and extensions easy and
relatively cheap to achieve. The upgrades and extensions have only
been needed because of the success of the DLR in attracting massive
inward investment to the Isle of Dogs.

The DLR is a conspicuous success that, 20+ years on, only the
profoundly ignorant would deny. Unfortunately, that's you.

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 08:52:45 +0000
Bruce wrote:
The whole point of DLR was that it was a very cheap method of
extending high quality public transport into Docklands.

Quite. It was cheap. You get what you pay for. As for high quality, more
middling I would say for the original infrastructure and rolling stock,
though for the price it was good.

The DLR is a conspicuous success that, 20+ years on, only the
profoundly ignorant would deny. Unfortunately, that's you.

I'm not sure how the fact that I stated its been patched up over the years
somehow translates into it not being a success. The whole point of the constant
patching is that its been too much of a success for its own good and the
original system was woefully inadequate for the number of people who are now
using it. Why don't you try reading what I wrote instead of heading off on
your own little polemic.

B2003

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:29:27 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 08:52:45 +0000
Bruce wrote:
The whole point of DLR was that it was a very cheap method of
extending high quality public transport into Docklands.

Quite. It was cheap. You get what you pay for. As for high quality, more
middling I would say for the original infrastructure and rolling stock,
though for the price it was good.

The DLR is a conspicuous success that, 20+ years on, only the
profoundly ignorant would deny. Unfortunately, that's you.

I'm not sure how the fact that I stated its been patched up over the years
somehow translates into it not being a success. The whole point of the constant
patching is that its been too much of a success for its own good and the
original system was woefully inadequate for the number of people who are now
using it. Why don't you try reading what I wrote instead of heading off on
your own little polemic.


Why don't you stop attacking people just because they point out that
you're wrong?

Your criticism of DLR is misplaced and wholly unjustified. You base
it on the fact that the initial DLR did not have the capacity for the
massive Docklands development that it spawned. Well, so what?

The development wouldn't have happened without the DLR. The much
extended and enhanced DLR that we see today would not have been built
in the 1980s because it would have been far too expensive and no-one
could possibly have imagined that anything on that scale would ever be
needed. Indeed, the original DLR almost didn't go ahead because
people at the time thought it was overly expensive and probably
completely unnecessary.

So guess what? Despite the opposition, some people had the courage
and vision to build the DLR, and it did a truly magnificent job of
encouraging the largest urban development in Western Europe. It was
such a success, and carried so many more people than expected, that it
had to be extended and enhanced far beyond its original scope.

That's a spectacular success by any standards. The DLR has in no way
been a failure. But 20-odd years later, some ignorant so-and-so
decides to criticise it on the basis of hindsight, and on a basis that
is completely invalid.

Shame on you, Boltar.

MIG wrote:
On 4 Dec, 10:41, "Paul Scott" wrote:

London Reconnections have a post about this. The first picture shows
the curves preventing extension quite well.

http://londonreconnections.blogspot....ures-new-south...

The first picture is "The Old South Quay station viewed from the new".

Well, it doesn't look like that today. It may not look totally
temporary in that picture, but it's gone.

I would imagine it's gone to Star Lane, Stratford International or somewhere
in between.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:30:23 +0000
Bruce wrote:
Why don't you stop attacking people just because they point out that
you're wrong?

I'm not attacking you you poor delicate little flower. Its call disagreeing.

Your criticism of DLR is misplaced and wholly unjustified. You base

No it isn't. It could have easily been futureproofed far better than it was
and some design decisions (eg bus style doors folding doors on the early
trains) were just absurd.

So guess what? Despite the opposition, some people had the courage
and vision to build the DLR, and it did a truly magnificent job of

Courage and vision? Is this a shareholder powerpoint presentation?

encouraging the largest urban development in Western Europe. It was

Largest in britain you mean. La Defense in paris is larger and I'm pretty
sure there were some hefty developments going on in Berlin in the 80s.

That's a spectacular success by any standards. The DLR has in no way
been a failure. But 20-odd years later, some ignorant so-and-so
decides to criticise it on the basis of hindsight, and on a basis that
is completely invalid.

Right , so foresight isn't required in large scale projects then?

Shame on you, Boltar.

Oh get your head our your arse. You've obviously worked on the project or
you wouldn't be so defensive about it and blind to its faults.

B2003

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 14:59:54 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

You've obviously worked on the project


No, I haven't. Don't you ever get tired of always being wrong?

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:30:49 +0000
Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 14:59:54 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

You've obviously worked on the project


No, I haven't. Don't you ever get tired of always being wrong?

When it happens I'll let you know.

So no other comments then?

B2003

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:06:24 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:30:49 +0000
Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 14:59:54 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

You've obviously worked on the project


No, I haven't. Don't you ever get tired of always being wrong?

When it happens I'll let you know.

So no other comments then?


No, you've bored me completely to death.

Are you Roland Perry's long lost brother?

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:21:20 +0000
Bruce wrote:
When it happens I'll let you know.

So no other comments then?


No, you've bored me completely to death.

Reading your posts I thought you were dead from the neck up already.

Are you Roland Perry's long lost brother?

Are you Mr Bean's love child?

B2003