Paul Scott wrote:
Recliner wrote:

And which other UK railway is 100% MIP accessible?

Tyne Wear Metro - but it predates the DLR, and isn't in London, so you
mustn't mention it...

The Chesham shuttle?

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

"Paul Scott" wrote in message

Recliner wrote:

And which other UK railway is 100% MIP accessible?

Tyne Wear Metro - but it predates the DLR, and isn't in London, so you
mustn't mention it...

I must admit I've never travelled on it, and didn't realise. I'm
impressed to hear it, though.

Recliner wrote:
"Paul Scott" wrote in message

Recliner wrote:

And which other UK railway is 100% MIP accessible?

Tyne Wear Metro - but it predates the DLR, and isn't in London, so
you mustn't mention it...

I must admit I've never travelled on it, and didn't realise. I'm
impressed to hear it, though.

There are some caveats though, in that some of the ramped access to original
BR platforms is steeper than current standards, and some access between
platforms requires use of local roads/pavements. But given that they had to
make do with some pretty dilapidated buildings outside the central area,
they made a pretty good job of it generally.

Paul S

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 15:54:27 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

wrote in message
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:05:42 +0100
Jarle H Knudsen wrote:


Why didn't they plan for this when they built it the first time?

The DLR was initially built on the cheap so lots of patch and mend
has been done in the meantime. If they'd built it properly to start
with then it would no doubt have cost far less in total by now but I
suppose back in 1987 there was no guarantee that docklands would take
off as a business centre so I guess they didn't want to invest huge
amounts in a system that might have turned out to be a train to
nowhere.

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.


Exactly right.

The winning contractor (John Mowlem) lost a huge amount of money on
the job. I was involved in the tender that came second place. There
was a £20 million margin between the two bids, and that is
approximately the figure that Mowlem lost.

Mowlem also developed London City Airport, and they lost a lot of
money on that project too. The firm has since been taken over.

"Bruce" wrote in message

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 15:54:27 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

wrote in message
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:05:42 +0100
Jarle H Knudsen wrote:


Why didn't they plan for this when they built it the first time?

The DLR was initially built on the cheap so lots of patch and mend
has been done in the meantime. If they'd built it properly to start
with then it would no doubt have cost far less in total by now but I
suppose back in 1987 there was no guarantee that docklands would
take off as a business centre so I guess they didn't want to invest
huge amounts in a system that might have turned out to be a train to
nowhere.

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.


Exactly right.

The winning contractor (John Mowlem) lost a huge amount of money on
the job. I was involved in the tender that came second place. There
was a £20 million margin between the two bids, and that is
approximately the figure that Mowlem lost.

Yes, it's amazing that the original fixed-price contract was a minuscule
£77m. Every one of the many extension projects must have cost far more
than that.

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 18:57:51 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 15:54:27 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

wrote in message
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:05:42 +0100
Jarle H Knudsen wrote:


Why didn't they plan for this when they built it the first time?

The DLR was initially built on the cheap so lots of patch and mend
has been done in the meantime. If they'd built it properly to start
with then it would no doubt have cost far less in total by now but I
suppose back in 1987 there was no guarantee that docklands would
take off as a business centre so I guess they didn't want to invest
huge amounts in a system that might have turned out to be a train to
nowhere.

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.


Exactly right.

The winning contractor (John Mowlem) lost a huge amount of money on
the job. I was involved in the tender that came second place. There
was a £20 million margin between the two bids, and that is
approximately the figure that Mowlem lost.

Yes, it's amazing that the original fixed-price contract was a minuscule
£77m. Every one of the many extension projects must have cost far more
than that.


I couldn't remember the exact value of Mowlem's bid, so thanks for
that. Our bid was £102 million, so the difference was all of £25
million.

It was important for Mowlem to get that job. They were known as
"London John" and there was an assumption that when it came to
projects in Docklands, they would get most of the work. So there was
probably an element of discounting to get the work.

It worked, to an extent. Mowlem set up a Docklands office right next
to the DLR and benefitted from being there when Olympia and York came
alone and the Canary Wharf development exploded into life. From then
on, the amount of work on offer went up by at least a factor of 10,
and Mowlem were well placed to win a lot of it.

They were always the firm to beat, and I took great pride that several
of my own tenders came in below Mowlem's. The difference was, we
never lost money on any of our Docklands projects, while Mowlem lost a
fortune on the DLR and again on City Airport.

To be fair to Mowlem, while they may have lost money, the standard of
work did not suffer and both the DLR and airport were built to a high
standard for such a low price. The DLR in particular has stood both
the test of time and an increase in traffic to something like ten
times what it was originally designed for.

In message , Paul Terry
writes
In message
,
PhilD writes

I've read that South Quay station was "moved" recently (OK, not
actually moved, but replaced, but you know what I mean).

What I haven't ascertained though is which way? Towards Canary Wharf,
or towards Lewisham?

About 125 yards east, towards Canary Wharf. It was done because the
reverse curves on the track prevented the original platforms being
extended for three-car units. It's now on the straight section south of
Admirals Way.

Yes east, but that is away from Canary Wharf, not to it.

--
Paul G
Typing from Barking

In message , Paul G
writes
In message , Paul Terry
writes
In message
,
PhilD writes

I've read that South Quay station was "moved" recently (OK, not
actually moved, but replaced, but you know what I mean).

What I haven't ascertained though is which way? Towards Canary Wharf,
or towards Lewisham?

About 125 yards east, towards Canary Wharf. It was done because the
reverse curves on the track prevented the original platforms being
extended for three-car units. It's now on the straight section south
of Admirals Way.

Yes east, but that is away from Canary Wharf, not to it.
Apologies, west (not east!, late-night-ness error detected), away from
Canary Wharf.

--
Paul G
Typing from Barking

On Dec 5, 10:37*am, Paul G wrote:
In message , Paul G
writes

In message , Paul Terry
writes
In message
,
PhilD writes

I've read that South Quay station was "moved" recently (OK, not
actually moved, but replaced, but you know what I mean).

What I haven't ascertained though is which way? *Towards Canary Wharf,
or towards Lewisham?

About 125 yards east, towards Canary Wharf. It was done because the
reverse curves on the track prevented the original platforms being
extended for three-car units. It's now on the straight section south
of Admirals Way.

Yes east, but that is away from Canary Wharf, not to it.

Apologies, west (not east!, late-night-ness error detected), away from
Canary Wharf.

--
Paul G
Typing from Barking

No, east, away from Canary Wharf! This has all got rather confusing.
It's further along towards Crossharbour, anyway

On 5 Dec, 18:05, SamB wrote:
On Dec 5, 10:37*am, Paul G wrote:





In message , Paul G
writes

In message , Paul Terry
writes
In message
,
PhilD writes

I've read that South Quay station was "moved" recently (OK, not
actually moved, but replaced, but you know what I mean).

What I haven't ascertained though is which way? *Towards Canary Wharf,
or towards Lewisham?

About 125 yards east, towards Canary Wharf. It was done because the
reverse curves on the track prevented the original platforms being
extended for three-car units. It's now on the straight section south
of Admirals Way.

Yes east, but that is away from Canary Wharf, not to it.

Apologies, west (not east!, late-night-ness error detected), away from
Canary Wharf.

--
Paul G
Typing from Barking

No, east, away from Canary Wharf! This has all got rather confusing.
It's further along towards Crossharbour, anyway

I'm surprised that no one has been along to say "it's a north-south
railway, and therefore it's to the south". (Like leaving Cockfosters,
initially heading east and then heading south, both of which have to
be referred to as west, apparently.)

Talking of things further along, the stopping positions of the trains
are gradually changing. At Limehouse and West India Quay, the
positions changed some time ago, but strangely they seem to be
stopping further from the buffers at Lewisham as well. Presumably the
platforms have been extended by more than at other stations, or else
they'll have to move back when the trains get longer.