On Aug 5, 12:33*pm, "Dr. Sunil" wrote:

On 4 Aug, 20:18, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 16:54:04 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Sunil"

wrote:

On 3 Aug, 20:35, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:53:18 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Sunil"
wrote:

scratching head quizzically
If the info is in the public domain why on earth would you get into
trouble for divulging said info here????

sigh

You raised two questions - platform 3a and then DLR. I have a good idea
about platform 3a but that is *not* in the public domain

Why not? It's hardly state secret - is it?

I can't work out if you're being deliberately obtuse or you just don't
understand. *We have a code of conduct at work - if you breach it you
can be sacked.

Surely you have a duty to your customers?

So now we know you are being deliberately obtuse then.

As you well know Paul doesn't post here in any official capacity, and
people hassling him like this on here are only likely to result in him
backing away from, or just opting out of, involvement in this group.


I've had two scrapes with the press people over Oyster stuff I posted
here. To be frank I'm not going through that experience again.

If it ain't a state secret then I'm sure you will be able to tell me
when it is going to open!

No it ain't a state secret then I'm sure you will be able to tell all
of us when it's going to open, given you work for LUL!

'Company confidential' is as good as a state secret when breaching it
means your meal ticket's on the line.

Why on earth do you need to know so desperately anyway? The second
platform will open sometime soon, when it does you'll be able to go
and put your feet on the hallowed surface and discover that it's much
like any other platform, i.e. made of pink bouncy rubber and stuck
together with treacle.

On 5 Aug, 13:02, Mizter T wrote:

Why on earth do you need to know so desperately anyway? The second
platform will open sometime soon, when it does you'll be able to go
and put your feet on the hallowed surface and discover that it's much
like any other platform, i.e. made of pink bouncy rubber and stuck
together with treacle.

I've emailed TfL directly, thank you.

On 5 Aug, 12:38, "Dr. Sunil" wrote:

I presume the DLR station, being in a separate building, will have its
own numbers/letters (probably the latter?).- Hide quoted text -

Separate building? Couldn't they have built the main station to take
the DLR as well?

wrote in message
...
On 5 Aug, 12:38, "Dr. Sunil" wrote:

I presume the DLR station, being in a separate building, will have its
own numbers/letters (probably the latter?).- Hide quoted text -

Separate building? Couldn't they have built the main station to take
the DLR as well?

The decision to run the DLR beyond Stratford had probably not been made when
the International station was being designed? The latter was finished about
3 years ago, when they had only just got round to the NLL closure for update
to DLR, and the DLR track's general direction was constrained by being where
the old low level NLL had been.

I'm not so sure about running the DLR into the same building either - as
most of it sits over the station box, and it has pedestrian access at both
ends?

Paul S

wrote in message
...
On 5 Aug, 12:38, "Dr. Sunil" wrote:

I presume the DLR station, being in a separate building, will have its
own numbers/letters (probably the latter?).- Hide quoted text -

Separate building? Couldn't they have built the main station to take
the DLR as well?

The decision to run the DLR beyond Stratford had probably not been made when
the International station was being designed? The latter was finished about
3 years ago, when they had only just got round to the NLL closure for update
to DLR, and the DLR track's general approach was constrained by being where
the old low level NLL had been.

AIUI an approach on the surface on the north side of the HS1 station box was
the only sensible option, as there are buildings on the south side, and
therefore the DLR also had to rise to the surface before crossing HS1

I'm not so sure about running the DLR into the same building either - as
most of it sits over the station box, and it has pedestrian access at both
ends? Also - is the DLR's primary role to feed the international station,
or the housing development to the north, ie the Olympic Village in legacy
mode?

Paul S

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:42:04 +0100
"Paul Scott" wrote:
The decision to run the DLR beyond Stratford had probably not been made when
the International station was being designed? The latter was finished about
3 years ago, when they had only just got round to the NLL closure for update
to DLR, and the DLR track's general direction was constrained by being where
the old low level NLL had been.

Am I the only one who thinks the DLR is big enough already given its
limited design specifications? Its already one hell of a shlep from bank
to city airport on trains which barely seem to get above 25mph these days.
If it wants to become a proper metro it'll need proper trains and not
have stations almost as often as bus stops.

B2003

On 5 Aug, 15:56, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:42:04 +0100

"Paul Scott" wrote:
The decision to run the DLR beyond Stratford had probably not been made when
the International station was being designed? *The latter was finished about
3 years ago, when they had only just got round to the NLL closure for update
to DLR, and the DLR track's general direction was constrained by being where
the old low level NLL had been.

Space could be provided above the mainline tracks using a covered way,
but it'll be tight squeeze coming off the former NLL alignment.

Am I the only one who thinks the DLR is big enough already given its
limited design specifications? Its already one hell of a shlep from bank
to city airport on trains which barely seem to get above 25mph these days..
If it wants to become a proper metro it'll need proper trains and not
have stations almost as often as bus stops.

B2003

I cannot understand the close spacing between West India Quay*/Canary
Wharf/Heron Quays. One any other railway they'd have just built Canary
Wharf (longer platforms perhaps), with additional accesses north and
south across each Quay. (*even more so given the skip-stop service on
some Bank-Lewisham service (peaks?)).

On 5 Aug, 13:09, "Dr. Sunil" wrote:
On 5 Aug, 13:02, Mizter T wrote:

Why on earth do you need to know so desperately anyway? The second
platform will open sometime soon, when it does you'll be able to go
and put your feet on the hallowed surface and discover that it's much
like any other platform, i.e. made of pink bouncy rubber and stuck
together with treacle.

I've emailed TfL directly, thank you.

I commend TfL on their speed of response (~2 hours!):

It would appear that both the Central Line platform and the DLR
extension will be opening in mid to late September.

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
"Dr. Sunil" wrote:
I cannot understand the close spacing between West India Quay*/Canary
Wharf/Heron Quays. One any other railway they'd have just built Canary
Wharf (longer platforms perhaps), with additional accesses north and

I don't understand it either. Not only does it slow the service down
unnecessarily but those 2 extra stations must have cost a fortune over
the years.

B2003

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:17:56 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Sunil"
wrote:

I cannot understand the close spacing between West India Quay*/Canary
Wharf/Heron Quays.


There is so much that you "cannot understand". Perhaps you should do
a little more research rather than instantly jump to the conclusion
that you "cannot understand".


One any other railway they'd have just built Canary
Wharf (longer platforms perhaps), with additional accesses north and
south across each Quay.


When the line was built, Canary Wharf did not exist as anything other
than a disused wharf. Until the Reichmann brothers came along with
proposals to develop Canary Wharf into what it is today, there was no
need for a station at Canary Wharf at all.

The DLR was built as an ultra-low cost light railway, and anything
that wasn't needed was not included. Heron Quays and West India Quays
were both developed early and got stations.

When Canary Wharf station was built, it had to go between the two
existing stations. That's why the three are so close together. Once
again, the cost of making all three into one much larger station
spanning wide expanses of water would not have been economic.


(*even more so given the skip-stop service on
some Bank-Lewisham service (peaks?)).


In those days, the Lewisham extension hadn't even been planned, let
alone started. Once again, you seem to think that people designing
the DLR in the mid-1980s should have been able to predict the exact
future course of development decades ahead ...

The truth is that no-one could have foreseen what would eventually
happen at Canary Wharf. The idea came completely out of the blue. It
was quite out of keeping with the then-current plans for Docklands,
which were for low- and medium-rise, low density development with the
primary objective of providing jobs for local people who were made
redundant when the docks and other associated local businesses closed.
The DLR was designed to support this objective. So why on earth build
a grandiose station for a quay (Canary Wharf) which wasn't expected to
be developed?

No doubt you will have some smart-arse response to all this. But I
suggest you should do a little more research instead of sounding off
on the basis of zero knowledge of the subject, which seems to have
been your style so far.

By the way, you owe Paul Corfield an apology. Some serious grovelling
would be appropriate, but if you can't be sincere, don't bother.