In article
,
(E27002) wrote:

On Apr 30, 2:15*am, Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:44*am, wrote:

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:16:27 +0100
"Kipling" wrote:

And the colours or rings are too simmilar.

Yeah , I'm of the same opinion. I said in another post the other
week that there are plenty of 2 colour combinations they could have
chosen - choosing something so similar to the Underground colours
was just daft and will lead to confusion.

But does it matter if the service is Tube-esque?

With their Victoria Line style seating, the 378s are more
"Underground" in feel than the subsurface fleet. At least that is how
it appears from the pictures I have seen.

Not just from photos. On my one trip on them so far (from West Brompton to
Shepherd's Bush) I thought the seats set new standards of discomfort.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Apr 30, 11:28*am, Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 30, 6:23*pm, E27002 wrote:

On Apr 30, 10:14*am, Mizter T wrote:

On Apr 30, 4:09*pm, E27002 wrote:
[snip]
To this day I question if DLR was an appropriate system for London.

Oh, I'm in no doubt at all, the DLR is great news. The initial system
was of course designed to service a rather different future vision of
the Docklands - a sort of large business park - then Olympia & York
came along and decided to do something a bit different...

Given Dockland's proximity to the City, and the need for a modern
"functional" London alongside the existing jewel that, IMHO, should
not be spoiled, I would say the original vision for Docklands was
pitiful.

A lot of what you say appears to be said with the benefit of
hindsight. Through the 70's there were various thoughts as to what to
do with the Docklands, including plans from the GLC, but in the end
the Docklands was designated an "Enterprise Zone" in early 1982, the
LDDC having been set up in 1981. But there was never really a demand
for a new "CBD" at that time - received wisdom suggests that the big
change that really prompted the development of Canary Whaf was the
sudden Big Bang in the City in 1986 (the mass deregulation of
markets). The world of finance was expanding rapidly, outgrowing
cramped City offices, and additionally old offices were ill suited to
new technologies (wiring and so forth), plus there was the growing
move towards open-plan offices - it was in this context that the
developers, O&Y, were looking east to the Isle of Dogs, especially
given the constrains of developing new sites in the square mile.

When the 'original vision' for Docklands regeneration was being drawn
up, no one really foresaw this happening - a new mass of modern
offices outwith the square mile just wasn't on anyone's agenda.

Additionally the notion that the City and beyond might be preserved in
some kind of stasis, whilst all modernity moved east, is a bit
unrealistic and simplistic - I could even suggest that you have a
touch of the Stalinist central planner about you!

How could you? You will ruin my conservative credentials.

In point of fact I take the view that there are some planning and
regulatory functions that only government can do. In this instance I
take back "HMG" below. Local planning is much better handled by the
county and/or municipality. I am aware that Mrs. Thatcher's
government abolished the GLC, a move with which I profoundly
disagreed.

Moreover, I believe that preserving the best from the past is
infinitely worthwhile. A people should be reminded of who they are,
and from whence they came. Stand in Trafalgar Square one day, look
around, and absorb its greatness. That heritage is vital.
Objectively, think how French is the Arc de Triumph, or American the
Washington Mall and so on. These things matter.



HMG's job was to lay out a grid system of streets, and about three
heavy rail routes. *These could have been the original Fleet Line, the
Jubilee but thru to North Woolwich, and the NLL extended under the
Thames the Angerstein Wharf and Southern Region. *Add to that Water,
Power, Gas and Lots of Fiber Optics. *The forces of Capitalism would
take care of the rest (as they have).

A little confused by the double appearance of the Fleet/ Jubilee line
above, considering they are one and teh same, but that's by the by...

The original Fleet Line was to continue east by way of Fenchurch
Street and then take a straight shot under the bendy Thames, crossing
it several times. I think that plan was useful. OTOH having a route
from Westminster, Waterloo and London Bridge is also useful. Although
I think that the Jubilee should have taken over the NLL to North
Woolwich rather than Stratford. The Stratford link could have been
achieved with a beefed up NLL which could have been extended south to
give yet another Thames crossing.

There was of course already some infrastructure in the Docklands - it
wasn't a totally barren and uninhabited land! (Though some parts don't
seem to have been far off!) But the basic utilities - electricity,
gas, water, drainage and sewerage (vital!) - were all extended and
expanded by the LDDC. Additionally new roads were built - notably the
'highways' of Aspen Way, the Lower Lea Crossing and Royal Albert Way,
and the Limehouse Link tunnel (the most expensive road per mile in
Europe, or something like that!). New local roads were laid out as
well - they were often paved with red brick, part of the idea being
that they'd be easy to dig up to allow for utilities work (in
particular telco stuff) to take place.

The LDDC History Pages (on the web) are an interesting read - always
worth remembering they're written from the perspective of the
'victor', as it were, and that the regeneration was far from being
uncontroversial, but nonetheless it's all still good stuff:
http://www.lddc-history.org.uk/

When I have a few, I will take a look at them.

As for the "forces of Capitalism [taking] care of the rest", well, one
might well say the mighty forces of Capitalism have needed a bit of
TLC lately, as they didn't always seem take a great deal of care of
themselves or others, but I digress...

That was due to poor regulation, mainly on the western side of the
Atlantic. Arguably, in time, the forces of Capitalism took care of
Canary Wharf very well. Digression! This is uk.railway (plus uk.t.l
& m.t.u-t) thread drift is the only way we know.

On Apr 30, 4:14*pm, E27002 wrote:

The original Fleet Line was to continue east by way of Fenchurch
Street and then take a straight shot under the bendy Thames, crossing
it several times. *I think that plan was useful. *OTOH having a route
from Westminster, Waterloo and London Bridge is also useful. *Although
I think that the Jubilee should have taken over the NLL to North
Woolwich rather than Stratford. *The Stratford link could have been
achieved with a beefed up NLL which could have been extended south to
give yet another Thames crossing.

Correction

My aging memory is playing tricks. The original Fleet line was to
take over a small part of the East London Line.

Later, their was a short lived plan to extend the Fleet Line as the
"River Line". That is the one I had in mind. See the extract below
from Wikipedia.

An alternative plan was devised in the 1970s to extend the Jubilee
line parallel to the River Thames: this would have taken the line from
Fenchurch Street to Thamesmead via St Katharine Docks, Wapping, Surrey
Docks North, Canary Wharf, North Greenwich, Custom House, Silvertown,
Woolwich Arsenal, thence to Thamesmead. However the 'River Line', as
this extension was called, was deemed too expensive and construction
of the extension never proceeded.