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

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 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.

On 5 Aug, 19:24, Bruce wrote:

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. *

But a station was indeed built at Canary Wharf, of similar design to
the others on that stretch of line. It was complete, and even had
signs in the original style, but never opened and I think was at least
partially demolished by the time the line opened. Certainly, it had
completely gone soon afterwards.

Trains actually stopped at the location of this never opened station
for some time because it was still programmed into the control
system. Obviously, the doors did not open. Parts, e,g, canopies,
from the original station were stored nearby, and I think some were
later used when other stations were extended.

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.

It was indeed built between West India Quay and Heron Quays, in
exactly the same location as the original, never-opened, station. I
suppose the extension of all of the stations to accept longer trains
brings their platform ends even closer than they would originally have
been.

Heron quays station was also in the middle of nowhere, and then a
building site. This station was almost totally unused when the line
first opened; there was nothing there. I remember an event, food-
related I think, taking place in a tent there, and that was the first
time that I got off there. West India Quay did see rather more use at
that time.

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?


The future of the Docklands area was indeed far from certain when the
DLR was being designed and built. Some predicted that the development
of the area would come to nothing, and that the DLR would be an
expensive (all of £77m if I remember correctly) white elephant.
Others predicted that a large-scale development would take, and the
DLR would be totally unable to cope. Neither prediction was totally
unreasonable at the time. Certainly, it would have been quite
impossible to fund anything like the current system at the time.

On 5 Aug, 19:24, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:17:56 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Sunil"

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. *

According to Wiki:
"Canary Wharf station had been part of the original DLR plans, but
when the system opened in August 1987 the station was not ready.[5] It
was originally planned that the station would be similar to the
original station at Heron Quays, with two small platforms either side
of the tracks. It soon became apparent that the Canary Wharf
development would produce demand well above the capacity of a simple
station. On 17 July 1987 (over a month before the DLR opened to the
public) a contract was awarded to GEC-Mowlem Railway Group to rebuild
the station into the considerably more elaborate and spacious design
that exists today. It was opened in November 1991.[5]"

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.

I got the info I required (see upthread) very promptly, within about
2hrs 10 minutes after my initial email to the TfL Customer Relations
team. The person who responded (we'll call him "R") gave a very
succinct answer and he made no allusions to his job being under threat
by giving that answer.

On 6 Aug, 03:36, "Dr. Sunil" wrote:
On 5 Aug, 19:24, Bruce wrote:

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

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. *

According to Wiki:
"Canary Wharf station had been part of the original DLR plans, but
when the system opened in August 1987 the station was not ready.[5] It
was originally planned that the station would be similar to the
original station at Heron Quays, with two small platforms either side
of the tracks. It soon became apparent that the Canary Wharf
development would produce demand well above the capacity of a simple
station. On 17 July 1987 (over a month before the DLR opened to the
public) a contract was awarded to GEC-Mowlem Railway Group to rebuild
the station into the considerably more elaborate and spacious design
that exists today. It was opened in November 1991.[5]"

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.

I got the info I required (see upthread) very promptly, within about
2hrs 10 minutes after my initial email to the TfL Customer Relations
team. The person who responded (we'll call him "R") gave a very
succinct answer and he made no allusions to his job being under threat
by giving that answer.

Maybe that's because his job was to give answers based on information
of the kind provided to those whose job it is to give answers.

This is not the same as giving out answers based on information which
has been provided confidentially to someone whose job is not to give
out answers, but who would have to guess whether it might happen to be
in the public domain by now. Even I can work that one out.

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 19:36:11 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Sunil"
wrote:
On 5 Aug, 19:24, Bruce wrote:
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.

I got the info I required (see upthread) very promptly, within about
2hrs 10 minutes after my initial email to the TfL Customer Relations
team. The person who responded (we'll call him "R") gave a very
succinct answer and he made no allusions to his job being under threat
by giving that answer.


As I said, if you can't be sincere, don't bother. As you're clearly
intent on being a particularly nasty piece of ****, welcome to my kill
file. Ctrl-K.