| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
Surprised that no-one seems to have mentioned this (unless they have -
and I've just missed it in which case sorry for repeating this). 18/05/2005 TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension http://developments.dlr.co.uk/extens...ails.asp?id=19 The planned extension of the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) to Stratford International took an important step forward today as the TfL Board approved plans for DLR to submit an application for a Transport and Works Act (TWA) Order. The TWA would secure the powers needed to build the extension, which will run from Canning Town to integrate with the CTRL station at Stratford International, due to be finished by late 2009 in good time for a successful London 2012 Olympics. The £110m project is funded as part of Transport for London’s five year £10bn Investment Programme. Welcoming the Board’s decision, Jonathan Fox, DLR’s Director said: “This is an important step forward in bringing further transport improvements to east London. This extension will help meet the growing demand for quality public transport in the Lower Lea Valley, bringing vital regeneration benefits to the area. We will continue to push this project forward and have it up and running by the end of 2009.” The 5km extension – which is the conversion of the North London Line between Canning Town and Stratford, will link with DLR’s Beckton and London City Airport routes. There will be new stations built at Star Lane (formerly designated as Cody Road), Abbey Road and Stratford High Street (formerly designated as Stratford Market). Existing North London line stations at Canning Town, West Ham and Stratford would be modified and a new station will be opened at Stratford International, which will be the main rail interchange from Eurostar into the TfL network. |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being pushed
beyond what its really suited for? It was desinged to be a local tram-like service around the docks area. Now it seems to be turning into an east london tube/train replacement and I'm not sure its really up to the job. The trains are not very comfortable for long journeys and just don't have the capacity. B2003 |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
Boltar wrote:
Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being pushed beyond what its really suited for? It was desinged to be a local tram-like service around the docks area. Now it seems to be turning into an east london tube/train replacement and I'm not sure its really up to the job. The trains are not very comfortable for long journeys and just don't have the capacity. I couldn't disagree with that. It does continue a long tradition of public transport policies in the UK. Too little too late and on the cheap. |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
Boltar wrote:
Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being pushed beyond what its really suited for? It was desinged to be a local tram-like service around the docks area. Now it seems to be turning into an east london tube/train replacement and I'm not sure its really up to the job. The trains are not very comfortable for long journeys and just don't have the capacity. B2003 I disagree. You said it was designed to be a local tram-like service for the docks area; it's still being a local tram-like service, just now for a wider area of east London, which is hardly surprising given the increase in importance of the Docks. The Stratford International extension is not really a Tube/train replacement; it provides a local tram-like (i.e. light rail) service along a corridor which is being targeted for regeneration. If people want to get to central London, they can still connect into the Underground or rail services at Stratford, West Ham or Canning Town; but now people will find it easier to travel around the lower Lea valley. Nobody is expecting people to use the DLR for long journeys. Even the Dagenham Dock extension services will only run between Canning Town and Dagenham Dock - they are designed for people to connect into other transport services like the Jubilee line or Crossrail, or to get to local centres at Beckton or the future centres in the Thames Gateway like Dagenham Dock. I find it odd that people are complaining about this; for once, infrastructure is being provided AHEAD of development. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
The Stratford International extension is not really a Tube/train
replacement; it provides a local tram-like (i.e. light rail) service along a corridor which is being targeted for regeneration. Of course it is , its replacing the NLL which has proper trains. I'm not really sure what they're trying to achieve that they couldn;t have achieved far cheaper by simply upping the frequency of NLL train services. B2003 |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
On 25 May 2005 02:56:49 -0700, "Boltar" wrote:
Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being pushed beyond what its really suited for? It was desinged to be a local tram-like service around the docks area. Now it seems to be turning into an east london tube/train replacement and I'm not sure its really up to the job. The trains are not very comfortable for long journeys and just don't have the capacity. I sort of understand your comments but I'm not sure I agree. I think Docklands is a valuable addition to the transport network and although it has been "reworked" several times I am pleased that we have got momentum behind the development both of Docklands / East London and the DLR itself. If we had waited for a tube line or heavy rail options then nothing new would be being built to City Airport or Woolwich and we certainly would not have the Beckton or Lewisham lines. If the choice is between having a light rail system or nothing then please give me a light rail system. It's no different to the Tyne and Wear Metro in a lot of respects and I dread to think what the old Tyneside loop line service would be like if it was a National Rail franchised service. The DLR has clearly shown it can provide a good and reliable service - having learnt a lot of hard lessons - and it is now reaping the rewards. There are no arguments about PFIs or private sector subcontracting from Ken Livingstone or Bob Kiley when it comes to the DLR. TfL and the Mayor are clearly delighted to keep pursuing a path that involves the private sector in building and owning the infrastructure with the private sector running the system. Quite a contrast to LU and PPP! DLR clearly know what they are doing when it comes to developing projects and they are skillful enough to keep ahead of traffic trends and to secure the capacity enhancement that is needed. I dread to think what the Jubilee Line would be like in the peaks if there was no DLR network. At the height of the peak then DLR is very busy and overcrowded but show me a half useful transport service in London that isn't like that - it's the nature of the beast. As for comfort - well it's not that bad and is certainly on a par with the modern seat designs on low floor buses and new trains / tube stocks. You won't get Inter City type comfort on any urban transport system that has to carry a lot of people. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Boltar wrote:
Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being pushed beyond what its really suited for? I never thought i'd say this, but i agree with you. Don't get me wrong - the DLR's a great thing, and has been and continues to be instrumental in the development of Docklands and the littoral east end. But ... It was desinged to be a local tram-like service around the docks area. Now it seems to be turning into an east london tube/train replacement and I'm not sure its really up to the job. That's true. The DLR is an excellent, well-run, reliable, forward-looking light rail service, but it is ultimately only a light rail service, and as such, will never be able to provide the speed and capacity of real trains, or even tubes. During the early days of the Docklands, it was enough; in the next couple of years, with the three-car trains and sundry other improvements, it will be enough, but, provided the area continues to develop according to plan, in twenty or thirty years' time, it will not be enough. Transport planners have to think in terms of that sort of timescale, if not more. Now, the area is getting a dose of Crossrail, which will help, but that only addresses a fairly narrow range of journeys. There are plans for trams, or trolleybuses or something, in that general area of London, but those are hardly going to fill the capacity gap. What the area needs is proper heavy rail solutions; throwing out all sorts of short-termist DLR-based solutions is ultimately failing to face up to this reality. The trouble is that the DLR options are doable now. The long-term solutions (about the details of which i'm pretty hazy) would be exorbitantly expensive. The two options that spring to mind are extending the Jubilee line from North Greenwich (not entirely sure where to, though!) and reclaiming some of the old railway alignments from the DLR and using them for proper trains. tom -- this place would be a paradise tomorrow if every department had a supervisor with a sub-machine gun |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
"Paul Corfield" wrote in message ... On 25 May 2005 02:56:49 -0700, "Boltar" wrote: Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being pushed beyond what its really suited for? It was desinged to be a local tram-like service around the docks area. Now it seems to be turning into an east london tube/train replacement and I'm not sure its really up to the job. The trains are not very comfortable for long journeys and just don't have the capacity. I sort of understand your comments but I'm not sure I agree. I think Docklands is a valuable addition to the transport network and although it has been "reworked" several times I am pleased that we have got momentum behind the development both of Docklands / East London and the DLR itself. If we had waited for a tube line or heavy rail options then nothing new would be being built to City Airport or Woolwich and we certainly would not have the Beckton or Lewisham lines. If the choice is between having a light rail system or nothing then please give me a light rail system. It's no different to the Tyne and Wear Metro in a lot of respects and I dread to think what the old Tyneside loop line service would be like if it was a National Rail franchised service. The DLR has clearly shown it can provide a good and reliable service - having learnt a lot of hard lessons - and it is now reaping the rewards. There are no arguments about PFIs or private sector subcontracting from Ken Livingstone or Bob Kiley when it comes to the DLR. TfL and the Mayor are clearly delighted to keep pursuing a path that involves the private sector in building and owning the infrastructure with the private sector running the system. Quite a contrast to LU and PPP! DLR clearly know what they are doing when it comes to developing projects and they are skillful enough to keep ahead of traffic trends and to secure the capacity enhancement that is needed. I dread to think what the Jubilee Line would be like in the peaks if there was no DLR network. At the height of the peak then DLR is very busy and overcrowded but show me a half useful transport service in London that isn't like that - it's the nature of the beast. As for comfort - well it's not that bad and is certainly on a par with the modern seat designs on low floor buses and new trains / tube stocks. You won't get Inter City type comfort on any urban transport system that has to carry a lot of people. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! I agree with the previous poster. All they are doing is replacing the NLL section with a more frequent (and by that I mean 6-10 minute peak time services) It's hardly radical. Sure we get a few more stations but then we lose the Canning Town to North Woolwich section. (an area which is due for huge regeneration in the coming years) Why they want to scrap a railway which has a huge future potential use is beyond me. The City Airport extension will no doubt take the brunt of the traffic. Much easier would be to increase the frequency of the NLL (one of the reasons why it is underused) Plus give it a rebranding and a refurb. the NLL already has some great interchange possbilities at Canning Town, Stratford and further on at Highbury and soon Dalston with the ELL. And that just in the East. But as we know, someone has it in for the NLL. A |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
Boltar wrote:
The Stratford International extension is not really a Tube/train replacement; it provides a local tram-like (i.e. light rail) service along a corridor which is being targeted for regeneration. Of course it is , its replacing the NLL which has proper trains. I'm not really sure what they're trying to achieve that they couldn;t have achieved far cheaper by simply upping the frequency of NLL train services. Why are those "proper trains" automatically better than DLR trains? By replacing NLL services they're achieving: 1. Increased catchment area with more useful station locations 2. Improved reliability 3. More economically-achieved increased frequency (I'm sure the DLR can run the proposed frequency levels far more efficiently and cheaply than the NLL ever could) 4. More, useful local destinations (Stratford - Canning Town - Beckton and Stratford - Canning Town - Woolwich Arsenal) 5. A useful service between Stratford and North Woolwich maintained once the Canning Town - North Woolwich NLL service closes for Crossrail 6. An economical way of directly serving Stratford International station -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Boltar wrote: Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being pushed beyond what its really suited for? I never thought i'd say this, but i agree with you. Don't get me wrong - the DLR's a great thing, and has been and continues to be instrumental in the development of Docklands and the littoral east end. But ... It was desinged to be a local tram-like service around the docks area. Now it seems to be turning into an east london tube/train replacement and I'm not sure its really up to the job. That's true. The DLR is an excellent, well-run, reliable, forward-looking light rail service, but it is ultimately only a light rail service, and as such, will never be able to provide the speed and capacity of real trains, or even tubes. During the early days of the Docklands, it was enough; in the next couple of years, with the three-car trains and sundry other improvements, it will be enough, but, provided the area continues to develop according to plan, in twenty or thirty years' time, it will not be enough. Transport planners have to think in terms of that sort of timescale, if not more. Now, the area is getting a dose of Crossrail, which will help, but that only addresses a fairly narrow range of journeys. There are plans for trams, or trolleybuses or something, in that general area of London, but those are hardly going to fill the capacity gap. What the area needs is proper heavy rail solutions; throwing out all sorts of short-termist DLR-based solutions is ultimately failing to face up to this reality. How are these DLR solutions "short-termist"? Obviously the DLR is a light rail network for local journeys within an area; no-one is suggesting that that role should change. The Jubilee line arrived to provide a route for longer journeys to and from the area; Crossrail will arrive in the future with quite high capacity for transporting people from Stratford, Canary Wharf and Custom House into central London. The vast majority of journeys are short journeys; that's why such an emphasis has been placed on the bus system recently, and why constructing DLR routes to serve regeneration areas around Docklands is a good idea. Nobody is saying that East London Transit, the DLR or Greenwich Waterfront Transit should be providing a high-capacity service for travellers into central London; the whole point of the regeneration areas around the Thames Gateway is to provide jobs as well as houses. Yes, more people will be travelling into London; they will be fed into enhanced Jubilee and Crossrail services via Stratford, West Ham, Canning Town, Custom House, Abbey Wood, Romford etc. However, an awful lot of people will just be travelling around the Thames Gateway area, and it's vitally important that transit systems are in place to avoid them all taking to their cars for the short trip into the town centre. Normal buses provide part of the solution, but the main "capacity gap" you talk about is for the increase in local trips which normal buses won't be able to fulfil, and rail will not be able to fulfil cost-effectively - hence we require intermediate modes like the Transits and the DLR. Heavy rail is suited to heavy flows to and from large centres; the NLL is wasted on the Royal Docks area, which needs a frequent, reliable, *local* service where you don't have to walk 15 minutes to get to the station for a two-stop journey, and where easy through journeys are possible within the local area - that's Stratford via Canning Town to Beckton or Woolwich. The trouble is that the DLR options are doable now. The long-term solutions (about the details of which i'm pretty hazy) would be exorbitantly expensive. The two options that spring to mind are extending the Jubilee line from North Greenwich (not entirely sure where to, though!) and reclaiming some of the old railway alignments from the DLR and using them for proper trains. This is the problem; people who "don't like" the use of the DLR here aren't really sure what the alternatives are, apart from increasing the frequency of the NLL - which might help if you want to travel from the vicinity of Canning Town or West Ham stations, but will be pretty useless otherwise. Which old railway alignments would you "reclaim" from the DLR and use for "proper trains"? What services currently provided by the DLR should be provided by heavy rail, and which DLR stations would you close to provide that heavy rail service? Is this abstract concept of "proper trains" to do with higher capacity? The Thames Gateway doesn't need hazy possibilities for 15 years' time, it needs definite probabilities now, before development starts, so that people can get around their new local areas. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
londoncityslicker wrote:
"Paul Corfield" wrote in message ... On 25 May 2005 02:56:49 -0700, "Boltar" wrote: Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being pushed beyond what its really suited for? It was desinged to be a local tram-like service around the docks area. Now it seems to be turning into an east london tube/train replacement and I'm not sure its really up to the job. The trains are not very comfortable for long journeys and just don't have the capacity. I sort of understand your comments but I'm not sure I agree. I think Docklands is a valuable addition to the transport network and although it has been "reworked" several times I am pleased that we have got momentum behind the development both of Docklands / East London and the DLR itself. If we had waited for a tube line or heavy rail options then nothing new would be being built to City Airport or Woolwich and we certainly would not have the Beckton or Lewisham lines. If the choice is between having a light rail system or nothing then please give me a light rail system. It's no different to the Tyne and Wear Metro in a lot of respects and I dread to think what the old Tyneside loop line service would be like if it was a National Rail franchised service. The DLR has clearly shown it can provide a good and reliable service - having learnt a lot of hard lessons - and it is now reaping the rewards. There are no arguments about PFIs or private sector subcontracting from Ken Livingstone or Bob Kiley when it comes to the DLR. TfL and the Mayor are clearly delighted to keep pursuing a path that involves the private sector in building and owning the infrastructure with the private sector running the system. Quite a contrast to LU and PPP! DLR clearly know what they are doing when it comes to developing projects and they are skillful enough to keep ahead of traffic trends and to secure the capacity enhancement that is needed. I dread to think what the Jubilee Line would be like in the peaks if there was no DLR network. At the height of the peak then DLR is very busy and overcrowded but show me a half useful transport service in London that isn't like that - it's the nature of the beast. As for comfort - well it's not that bad and is certainly on a par with the modern seat designs on low floor buses and new trains / tube stocks. You won't get Inter City type comfort on any urban transport system that has to carry a lot of people. I agree with the previous poster. All they are doing is replacing the NLL section with a more frequent (and by that I mean 6-10 minute peak time services) It's hardly radical. Sure we get a few more stations but then we lose the Canning Town to North Woolwich section. The loss is actually Stratford to North Woolwich, although Canning Town to North Woolwich is being lost in favour of Crossrail, a vastly more useful service than the NLL provides to the Royal Docks. (an area which is due for huge regeneration in the coming years) Why they want to scrap a railway which has a huge future potential use is beyond me. What huge future potential use is there that neither the DLR nor Crossrail provides? The City Airport extension will no doubt take the brunt of the traffic. ....making the NLL even less useful, and making it more useful to provide DLR services between Canning Town and Stratford to maintain and enhance local connections in the area. The DLR services will be more useful because they will run as far as Beckton and Woolwich Arsenal. Much easier would be to increase the frequency of the NLL (one of the reasons why it is underused) Not necessarily easier - new turnback facilities will need to be provided at Canning Town in order to provide an increased frequency service to two stations already served at high frequency by the Jubilee line. The NLL is partly underused because it is low frequency; it is also underused because the DLR and Jubilee line provide the appropriate roles in the area more attractively. Plus give it a rebranding and a refurb. the NLL already has some great interchange possbilities at Canning Town, Stratford and further on at Highbury and soon Dalston with the ELL. And that just in the East. The DLR will have great interchange opportunities at Canning Town, West Ham and Stratford too, and will provide them to more people than the NLL can. DLR and Jubilee services already provide interchange with the ELL at Shadwell and Canada Water, better than the interchange at Dalston with the NLL will. But as we know, someone has it in for the NLL. Someone wants to provide a more useful local service to the residents of the Royal Docks, whilst recognising the NLL provides an extremely useful service outside the Royal Docks and planning to enhance its frequency where it is needed. Shocking! At this rate, we might even get the Olympics. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:
Boltar wrote: The Stratford International extension is not really a Tube/train replacement; it provides a local tram-like (i.e. light rail) service along a corridor which is being targeted for regeneration. Of course it is , its replacing the NLL which has proper trains. I'm not really sure what they're trying to achieve that they couldn;t have achieved far cheaper by simply upping the frequency of NLL train services. Why are those "proper trains" automatically better than DLR trains? Capacity. tom -- The revolution will not be televised. The revolution will be live. |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 25 May 2005, Boltar wrote: Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being pushed beyond what its really suited for? What the area needs is proper heavy rail solutions; throwing out all sorts of short-termist DLR-based solutions is ultimately failing to face up to this reality. How are these DLR solutions "short-termist"? Because they fail to address the long-term needs of the area. Obviously the DLR is a light rail network for local journeys within an area; Like the Circle line, then. I'm not talking about shipping people between the east end and central London; i really do think Crossrail plus the Jubilee and District lines (and the North Kent line) can handle that. Rather, it's a question of handling the movement of commuters into the area. As Docklands and the Thames Gateway (which, incidentally, is an absolutely horrible name) continue to develop, they'll be the destination for an increasing number of commuters. The Isle of Dogs alone is about the same area as the City (although it does have rather more of its area underwater); the City has five mainline termini (six if you count London Bridge, plus Thameslink), more tube stations than you can doff a bowler hat at, and is still creaking under the strain. How on earth will light rail be able to cope if the area develops to even a quarter of the density of the City? Heavy rail is suited to heavy flows to and from large centres; Couldn't have put it better myself. The trouble is that the DLR options are doable now. The long-term solutions (about the details of which i'm pretty hazy) would be exorbitantly expensive. The two options that spring to mind are extending the Jubilee line from North Greenwich (not entirely sure where to, though!) and reclaiming some of the old railway alignments from the DLR and using them for proper trains. This is the problem; people who "don't like" the use of the DLR here aren't really sure what the alternatives are, Absence of evidence etc! apart from increasing the frequency of the NLL - which might help if you want to travel from the vicinity of Canning Town or West Ham stations, but will be pretty useless otherwise. I'm not proposing that - i like the NLL even less than i like the DLR. Which old railway alignments would you "reclaim" from the DLR and use for "proper trains"? I'm lamentably badly-informed of the history of the "railway alignments" which were recycled by the "DLR", so i have to confess that it was a purely speculative remark. A quick look at CULG suggests that a Stratford - Bow - Isle of Dogs route could be liberated for heavy rail. That could link into the Lea Valley line to the north, the Great Eastern to the east, the NLL to the west, lines through the Royal Docks via a Canning Town - Poplar alignment,and via a new tunnel to Greenwich and Lewisham, and on to the inner SLL, Croydon, the Ravensbourne valley lines, Metropolitan Kent lines, etc. The whole thing could be like a sort of Outer ELL. What services currently provided by the DLR should be provided by heavy rail, As many as possible. and which DLR stations would you close to provide that heavy rail service? Convert rather than close. In places, the spacing is too close for heavy rail, i admit, and there, stations would have to close, unless there was room for DLR and heavy rail to run side by side or interwork. That would be a tough decision. Is this abstract concept of "proper trains" to do with higher capacity? Yes. The Thames Gateway doesn't need hazy possibilities for 15 years' time, it needs definite probabilities now, before development starts, so that people can get around their new local areas. No, it needs realistic plans for how people will move around in 30 or more years' time. Now is temporary; the future is for ever. tom -- The revolution will not be televised. The revolution will be live. |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
Tom Anderson wrote: What services currently provided by the DLR should be provided by heavy rail, As many as possible. and which DLR stations would you close to provide that heavy rail service? Convert rather than close. In places, the spacing is too close for heavy rail, i admit, and there, stations would have to close, unless there was room for DLR and heavy rail to run side by side or interwork. That would be a tough decision. Is this abstract concept of "proper trains" to do with higher capacity? Yes. Tom - by 'heavy rail', what do you have in mind - something like the JLE, or 'heavy rail' as we understand it in South London (widely-spaced and unpleasant stations, no more than 4 tph, inappropriately designed trains for inner-suburban services, poor penetration of zone 1 beyond a few peripheral termini)? It strikes me that the reason the DLR has proved popular with the huge numbers of people moving to Docklands is because it's perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a 'pretend Tube' - something which that area of London was previously notably lacking. (Even if it doesn't get any further into Central London than your average suburban rail service.) I think that's the same reason people are getting so excited about the ELLX [1] - because it's perceived as 'something different' from the despised heavy rail services we already have. You only have to compare the DLR and NR stations at (say) Deptford and Deptford Bridge to see which of the two presents more of a modern, safe, clean rapid transit-type image. Of course that's not entirely the fault of the railway - its stations are 80-100 years older than those of the DLR (though that's no excuse for the lamentable state of most inner-suburban stations compared to their Tube equivalents). I'm not sure what conclusion I was going to draw from that. Ah well. [1] well, that and a chronic misunderstanding of what it will actually involve - I still giggle every time I see a "TUBE COMING TO BROMLEY!" headline on a local paper... |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
DLR itself. If we had waited for a tube line or heavy rail options then
nothing new would be being built to City Airport or Woolwich and we I'll wager that within a decade city airport will have grown to the point where a branch line from the jubilee line is required. They should have done that at the start , in fact IMO the jubilee line should have terminated at the airport just like the picc does at heathrow instead of stratford which was already well served anyway and didn't need a tube service that just duplicated the DLR. Anyone suggesting the piccadilly line should terminate at hounslow and a light rail line run to heathrow would be considered mad , yet for some reason this seems setup seems to be seen to be ok for city airport. British short sightedness at its most stunningly thickwitted I would say. B2003 |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
Boltar wrote:
DLR itself. If we had waited for a tube line or heavy rail options then nothing new would be being built to City Airport or Woolwich and we I'll wager that within a decade city airport will have grown to the point where a branch line from the jubilee line is required. They should have done that at the start , in fact IMO the jubilee line should have terminated at the airport just like the picc does at heathrow instead of stratford which was already well served anyway and didn't need a tube service that just duplicated the DLR. Anyone suggesting the piccadilly line should terminate at hounslow and a light rail line run to heathrow would be considered mad How do passenger numbers at LCY now compare with those at LHR when the Piccadilly Line extension was approved? |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Dave Arquati wrote: Boltar wrote: The Stratford International extension is not really a Tube/train replacement; it provides a local tram-like (i.e. light rail) service along a corridor which is being targeted for regeneration. Of course it is , its replacing the NLL which has proper trains. I'm not really sure what they're trying to achieve that they couldn;t have achieved far cheaper by simply upping the frequency of NLL train services. Why are those "proper trains" automatically better than DLR trains? Capacity. Only useful when it will actually be filled. DLR can operate on extremely short headways compared to heavy rail trains anyway, providing quite good capacity; however, this is a bit moot when we're talking about Stratford to North Woolwich. Even if traffic warranted the capacity planned for the rest of the NLL (IIRC 6-car trains every 10 minutes), the DLR could still provide that capacity (with 2-unit trains every 3-4 mins) whilst still fulfilling the local role it is designed for. However, the Jubilee line already provides a high-capacity service between Stratford and Canning Town, and increasing the NLL frequency there just duplicates that; yes, the trains run beyond Stratford to Hackney, but I think the majority of passengers along that corridor will be making local trips to Stratford or West Ham to connect into radial services or reach local centres. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
Boltar wrote:
DLR itself. If we had waited for a tube line or heavy rail options then nothing new would be being built to City Airport or Woolwich and we I'll wager that within a decade city airport will have grown to the point where a branch line from the jubilee line is required. They should have done that at the start , in fact IMO the jubilee line should have terminated at the airport just like the picc does at heathrow instead of stratford which was already well served anyway and didn't need a tube service that just duplicated the DLR. Anyone suggesting the piccadilly line should terminate at hounslow and a light rail line run to heathrow would be considered mad , yet for some reason this seems setup seems to be seen to be ok for city airport. British short sightedness at its most stunningly thickwitted I would say. Even if City Airport grew significantly enough to warrant services beyond the DLR, a Crossrail station could be constructed at Silvertown relatively easily. I don't think those levels of growth are likely anytime soon though. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Dave Arquati wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 25 May 2005, Boltar wrote: Is it just my opinion or do other people think the DLR is being pushed beyond what its really suited for? What the area needs is proper heavy rail solutions; throwing out all sorts of short-termist DLR-based solutions is ultimately failing to face up to this reality. How are these DLR solutions "short-termist"? Because they fail to address the long-term needs of the area. The aim of the Thames Gateway area is primarily to provide extra housing to cope with the demand in the southeast housing market, which is primarily driven by central London. Some jobs will be created in the area with new local centres being forged at places like Dagenham Dock and Ebbsfleet, but the majority of job generation will be in existing nearby local centres like Barking or Woolwich. The DLR and Transits provide medium capacity from what will be large, low-to-medium density housing areas into the medium density centres. The Underground and heavy rail are for providing high capacity into high density centres; there are no plans for any high density centres in the area other than Canary Wharf, and the Underground link has been provided, with the heavy rail link being provided within 10 years. Obviously the DLR is a light rail network for local journeys within an area; Like the Circle line, then. Nope. The Circle line provides a high capacity link for the vast numbers of people travelling from rail terminals to and from the City, which is a completely different market to the DLR and Transit proposals. I'm not talking about shipping people between the east end and central London; i really do think Crossrail plus the Jubilee and District lines (and the North Kent line) can handle that. Rather, it's a question of handling the movement of commuters into the area. As Docklands and the Thames Gateway (which, incidentally, is an absolutely horrible name) continue to develop, they'll be the destination for an increasing number of commuters. Yes, an increasing number, but not anywhere approaching the numbers currently travelling into the West End and City; the numbers it does generate will either be in Canary Wharf or spread across a number of local centres. The Isle of Dogs alone is about the same area as the City (although it does have rather more of its area underwater); the City has five mainline termini (six if you count London Bridge, plus Thameslink), more tube stations than you can doff a bowler hat at, and is still creaking under the strain. How on earth will light rail be able to cope if the area develops to even a quarter of the density of the City? The Isle of Dogs is getting Crossrail, which will provide a high-capacity link to the appropriate area for commuters to the south east. The Jubilee line has a fair amount of capacity (compared to other lines) between Stratford and London Bridge, and as this capacity is being filled up, new carriages will be added to increase that capacity (Jan 2006) and moving block signalling will provide a further capacity increase (by 2009), bringing it up to the standards provided by other Underground lines to the central area. The Isle of Dogs just won't be developing to the levels of the City within the next 30 years; the City has been developing to its current levels for a few hundred years. Heavy rail is suited to heavy flows to and from large centres; Couldn't have put it better myself. Large centres - of which Canary Wharf will be the only truly large centre in the Thames Gateway, and even so will be considerably smaller than the City. The trouble is that the DLR options are doable now. The long-term solutions (about the details of which i'm pretty hazy) would be exorbitantly expensive. The two options that spring to mind are extending the Jubilee line from North Greenwich (not entirely sure where to, though!) and reclaiming some of the old railway alignments from the DLR and using them for proper trains. This is the problem; people who "don't like" the use of the DLR here aren't really sure what the alternatives are, Absence of evidence etc! Quite! apart from increasing the frequency of the NLL - which might help if you want to travel from the vicinity of Canning Town or West Ham stations, but will be pretty useless otherwise. I'm not proposing that - i like the NLL even less than i like the DLR. Which old railway alignments would you "reclaim" from the DLR and use for "proper trains"? I'm lamentably badly-informed of the history of the "railway alignments" which were recycled by the "DLR", so i have to confess that it was a purely speculative remark. A quick look at CULG suggests that a Stratford - Bow - Isle of Dogs route could be liberated for heavy rail. ....although the Jubilee line has spare and increasing capacity between Stratford and Canary Wharf? The last thing the denizens of Bow need is for their local DLR service to be ripped up in favour of a heavy rail service which will serve them more poorly in favour of commuters who haven't appeared yet. The people in Bow want *more* stations (i.e. Langdon Park), not fewer. That could link into the Lea Valley line to the north, the Great Eastern to the east, the NLL to the west, lines through the Royal Docks via a Canning Town - Poplar alignment,and via a new tunnel to Greenwich and Lewisham, and on to the inner SLL, Croydon, the Ravensbourne valley lines, Metropolitan Kent lines, etc. The whole thing could be like a sort of Outer ELL. The demand for these services within the next 30 years is never going to approach the level at which their construction can be justified. Perhaps some will be necessary in a longer time period, but that's no reason to deny people a local DLR service now, and it's probably not even reason to substitute the DLR for them in the future. The DLR provides an extremely valuable local service which should only be supplemented in the future, not replaced. If new lines are required from the Lea Valley via Stratford and Canary Wharf to Lewisham or Croydon or wherever, those should be provided by new infrastructure. Besides, we should be encouraging people to live closer to work with high quality local transport, rather than inconveniencing those who do live close, in favour of providing services from further away. That's not to say that the latter service shouldn't be provided, it's to say that they shouldn't be provided at the expense of the former. What services currently provided by the DLR should be provided by heavy rail, As many as possible. That's a rather poor goal. If you were going to propose substitution of DLR services for heavy rail ones, then you should consider each and every substitution on its merits and problems. I think the the disadvantages of killing a reliable, high quality, high frequency DLR service will be quite high compared to the benefits gained. and which DLR stations would you close to provide that heavy rail service? Convert rather than close. In places, the spacing is too close for heavy rail, i admit, and there, stations would have to close, unless there was room for DLR and heavy rail to run side by side or interwork. That would be a tough decision. Is this abstract concept of "proper trains" to do with higher capacity? Yes. As I discussed before, I think your desire for high capacity to Canary Wharf by replacing DLR alignments is misplaced. Admittedly, the DLR cannot provide the capacity afforded by a Crossrail-style heavy rail service - but such services are *extremely* expensive, and face a very tough time stacking up against any benefits gained. The DLR can provide 2-unit (i.e. 4-car) trains with extremely short headways at 98% reliability, with 3-unit/6-car trains in the pipeline. The Thames Gateway doesn't need hazy possibilities for 15 years' time, it needs definite probabilities now, before development starts, so that people can get around their new local areas. No, it needs realistic plans for how people will move around in 30 or more years' time. Now is temporary; the future is for ever. The DLR is not temporary; it's no use providing "future" transport for possible people at the expense of transport now for definite people. People need to move locally around East London, not just into and out of it from further afield, and the DLR fulfils that role easily, relatively cheaply and extremely well. For the future, we should continue to ensure that people can still move around their local areas easily, so we can create sustainable communities where people can live a reasonably short distance from their places of work - not sprawling non-communities where people are forced to live further away to have access to decent transport. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
In article .com,
Boltar writes I'll wager that within a decade city airport will have grown to the point where a branch line from the jubilee line is required. They should have done that at the start The junction is already in place at North Greenwich, so it can be done if required. in fact IMO the jubilee line should have terminated at the airport just like the picc does at heathrow instead of stratford which was already well served anyway and didn't need a tube service that just duplicated the DLR. It doesn't duplicate the DLR. It serves a different area further east, as well as providing fast direct connection to Southwark. for some reason this seems setup seems to be seen to be ok for city airport Because it's a toy airport. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Rupert Candy wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: Is this abstract concept of "proper trains" to do with higher capacity? Yes. Tom - by 'heavy rail', what do you have in mind Trains bigger than light rail - for example, the tube or mainline railways. something like the JLE, or 'heavy rail' as we understand it in South London (widely-spaced and unpleasant stations, no more than 4 tph, inappropriately designed trains for inner-suburban services, poor penetration of zone 1 beyond a few peripheral termini)? Less like that! Sorry for not making myself clearer. I was thinking of things like the tube, or WAGN services from Chingford, or Crossrail. What's this about widely-spaced stations in the south, though? From looking at maps, i get the general impression that spacings are comparable to those on north London tube lines at equivalent distances out from town. It strikes me that the reason the DLR has proved popular with the huge numbers of people moving to Docklands is because it's perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a 'pretend Tube' - something which that area of London was previously notably lacking. (Even if it doesn't get any further into Central London than your average suburban rail service.) I think that's the same reason people are getting so excited about the ELLX [1] - because it's perceived as 'something different' from the despised heavy rail services we already have. True. I'd never thought of it like that. To be fair, it does also have much better frequencies, which makes a huge difference in the way you can use the service. I guess the southern reaches of the ELL won't get a great frequency, though. You only have to compare the DLR and NR stations at (say) Deptford and Deptford Bridge to see which of the two presents more of a modern, safe, clean rapid transit-type image. Of course that's not entirely the fault of the railway - its stations are 80-100 years older than those of the DLR (though that's no excuse for the lamentable state of most inner-suburban stations compared to their Tube equivalents). True. The DLR does have the advantage of being very modern, but the neglect of suburban NR stations is awful. Roll on London Rail! [1] well, that and a chronic misunderstanding of what it will actually involve - I still giggle every time I see a "TUBE COMING TO BROMLEY!" headline on a local paper... I get the same with "TUBE COMING TO DALSTON!" headlines. tom -- Punk's not sexual, it's just aggression. |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
for some reason this
seems setup seems to be seen to be ok for city airport Because it's a toy airport. Now it yes yes. But infrastructure tends to grow in line with the transport links to it. If the jubilee (or even DLR) had gone to the airport much earlier it would probably be handling far more passengers now than it does. Admittedly it'll never be another heathrow simply because of the space limitation and length of runway , but thats not to say it won't become a major short-hop hub. Of course whether we want any more air traffic and hence pollution around london is another matter entirely. B2003 |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
On 26 May 2005 02:08:30 -0700, "Boltar" wrote:
Anyone suggesting the piccadilly line should terminate at hounslow and a light rail line run to heathrow would be considered mad , yet for some reason this seems setup seems to be seen to be ok for city airport. British short sightedness at its most stunningly thickwitted I would say. Funny that years ago the Piccadilly Line used to run only as far as Hounslow West and everyone was kicked off on to a bus to get to Heathrow. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
In message , James Farrar
writes How do passenger numbers at LCY now compare with those at LHR when the Piccadilly Line extension was approved? Nowhere near. LCY passenger numbers for 2003 were 1.5 million. Heathrow was already seeing 5.27 million in 1960, long before the Piccadilly extension was planned: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/h...html/1960s.stm -- Paul Terry |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li... I'm lamentably badly-informed of the history of the "railway alignments" which were recycled by the "DLR", so i have to confess that it was a purely speculative remark. The DLR is a bit of a mix of lines, and doesn't really use any great length of any route. Sections are as follows:- - Tower Gateway (near Christian Street Junction) to Limehouse, which uses two tracks of the former four-track LTS alignment at this point. - Limehouse to Westferry - uses part of the former route from Limehouse to Blackwall. All of the DLR in the Poplar area is on new alignment, partly using old goods yards. IIRC Aspen Way occupied part of the Blackwall route at this point. - Poplar to Bow Church uses the southern end of the North London Line's Victoria Park to Poplar route. - Bow Church to Stratford uses a former track used by trains travelling from Bow Junction via Bow Road to Limehouse. - Prince Regent to Cyprus and the immediate approach to Beckton uses parts of the branches to Gallions and Beckton respectively. - Crossharbour to Mudchute uses part of the route of the Millwall Extension Railway, which ran from the Poplar area (Millwall Junction station) to North Greenwich (actually Island Gardens). So really the amount of old railway used by the DLR is quite small, and in any event it tends to use off bits of line rather than any great length - leading to sharp curves and steep gradients. A quick look at CULG suggests that a Stratford - Bow - Isle of Dogs route could be liberated for heavy rail. The curves in the Poplar and South Quay areas would be a problem. The original route ran "straight ahead" north of Crossharbour. I suspect forging a railway through that area would be quite difficult due to subsequent building on the alignment. Convert rather than close. In places, the spacing is too close for heavy rail, i admit, and there, stations would have to close, unless there was room for DLR and heavy rail to run side by side or interwork. That would be a tough decision. I would like to see one of Heron Quays or West India Quay closed, plus perhaps one or two stations on the Beckton line. The DLR has to be the slowest rail service I've ever been on. |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
In message , Paul Corfield
writes Funny that years ago the Piccadilly Line used to run only as far as Hounslow West and everyone was kicked off on to a bus to get to Heathrow. But hardly anyone took that route to Heathrow in my experience. Before the Piccadilly Line extension, if you weren't travelling to Heathrow by cab or car you would normally check in at the West London Air Terminal in Cromwell Road. You and your luggage would then be taken by BEA (or BOAC) coach down the A4 (and later the M4) to the appropriate terminal building at Heathrow. Prior to 1957 I believe the check-in was at Waterloo, although the onward journey was still by airline coach. -- Paul Terry |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
In message .com,
Boltar writes LCY But infrastructure tends to grow in line with the transport links to it. It can only do so if there is room. And it is not just runway space. As you increase the number of flights, the space needed for plane servicing and maintenance, parking (plane and car), baggage handling, passenger facilities, and so forth, also increases. There is simply not the room at LCY (unless all of the remaining docks are to be drained and filled in). If the jubilee (or even DLR) had gone to the airport much earlier it would probably be handling far more passengers now than it does. I think that is very debatable. The 'bread and butter' of LCY consists of highly expensive short-hop business flights. For people using these services, the cost of a cab from Docklands or even the City is very little compared with the cost of the flight. I don't think they are likely to want to use the tube in the way that incoming tourists and outgoing holidaymakers do on the Piccadilly Line in order to save a few squid. Of course whether we want any more air traffic and hence pollution around london is another matter entirely. Indeed - and also to what extent it is possible to fit in more LCY traffic, given the proximity of two of Heathrow's holding stacks, the main Heathrow incoming flightpath, and also Stansted stacking areas such as Brentwood (which are set to widen). In other words - safety issues. -- Paul Terry |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
|
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
Paul Corfield wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 26 May 2005:
On 26 May 2005 02:08:30 -0700, "Boltar" wrote: Anyone suggesting the piccadilly line should terminate at hounslow and a light rail line run to heathrow would be considered mad , yet for some reason this seems setup seems to be seen to be ok for city airport. British short sightedness at its most stunningly thickwitted I would say. Funny that years ago the Piccadilly Line used to run only as far as Hounslow West and everyone was kicked off on to a bus to get to Heathrow. Nonsense - I mean, not nonsense that the Picc. Line ended at Hounslow, of course it did, but the way you went to Heathrow then was by coach from the West London Air Terminal (which is now a Sainsbury's) on the Cromwell Road. You went only as far as Gloucester Road by Tube! And I think there was also a terminal opposite Victoria Coach station, if I remember rightly. -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 23 May 2005 |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
Mrs Redboots wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 26 May 2005: On 26 May 2005 02:08:30 -0700, "Boltar" wrote: Anyone suggesting the piccadilly line should terminate at hounslow and a light rail line run to heathrow would be considered mad , yet for some reason this seems setup seems to be seen to be ok for city airport. British short sightedness at its most stunningly thickwitted I would say. Funny that years ago the Piccadilly Line used to run only as far as Hounslow West and everyone was kicked off on to a bus to get to Heathrow. Nonsense - I mean, not nonsense that the Picc. Line ended at Hounslow, of course it did, but the way you went to Heathrow then was by coach from the West London Air Terminal (which is now a Sainsbury's) on the Cromwell Road. You went only as far as Gloucester Road by Tube! And I think there was also a terminal opposite Victoria Coach station, if I remember rightly. Not quite opposite, it was in Buckingham Palace Road over some of the railway tracks out of Victoria; where there is now a big shopping/office complex. |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
|
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Paul Terry) wrote: Before the Piccadilly Line extension, if you weren't travelling to Heathrow by cab or car you would normally check in at the West London Air Terminal in Cromwell Road. You and your luggage would then be taken by BEA (or BOAC) coach down the A4 (and later the M4) to the appropriate terminal building at Heathrow. Prior to 1957 I believe the check-in was at Waterloo, although the onward journey was still by airline coach. Victoria, wasn't it? Yes, where the Colonnade Walk shopping and office complex now is. |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
Paul Corfield:
Funny that years ago the Piccadilly Line used to run only as far as Hounslow West and everyone was kicked off on to a bus to get to Heathrow. Yes, well, this might have something to do with the fact that the line to Hounslow was several decades older than the airport, which became important at a time when there was very little funding for Underground extensions. Annabel Smyth: ... the way you went to Heathrow then was by coach from the West London Air Terminal ... Well, you could also go from Hounslow West. On the 1958 sample map in PDF at http://www.busmap.org, it's the number 91 bus; on the 1970 map, it's route A1. In 1975, due to my father making a side trip while we were on vacation in Britain, I ended up traveling to Heathrow both via that route and from the WLAT. The A1 was then a single-decker bus service, and I remember that when I paid my fare I was given two tickets that added up to the correct total amount (I have the impression it was 12p + 3p = 15p); being used to the North American practice that when there is a flat fare you don't need a ticket at all, this struck me as particularly quaint. The service from the WLAT, at a rather higher price, was a double-decker that trundled along the M4, riding very roughly, at 40-45 mph with all the other traffic swishing by. -- Mark Brader | Peter Neumann on Y2K: Toronto | This problem gives new meaning to "going out on | a date" (which many systems will do on 1/1/00). My text in this article is in the public domain. |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
|
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
Brimstone wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 26 May 2005:
Mrs Redboots wrote: And I think there was also a terminal opposite Victoria Coach station, if I remember rightly. Not quite opposite, it was in Buckingham Palace Road over some of the railway tracks out of Victoria; where there is now a big shopping/office complex. You are probably right - I *thought* I remembered it as being where the National Audit Office is, opposite the Coach Station, but that's probably my memory! -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 23 May 2005 |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
In article ,
says... In article , (Paul Terry) wrote: Before the Piccadilly Line extension, if you weren't travelling to Heathrow by cab or car you would normally check in at the West London Air Terminal in Cromwell Road. You and your luggage would then be taken by BEA (or BOAC) coach down the A4 (and later the M4) to the appropriate terminal building at Heathrow. Prior to 1957 I believe the check-in was at Waterloo, although the onward journey was still by airline coach. Victoria, wasn't it? BEA - Waterloo, later West London Air Terminal BOAC - Victoria KLM - Sloane Street |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
Funny that years ago the Piccadilly Line used to run only as far as
Hounslow West and everyone was kicked off on to a bus to get to Heathrow. And because it was awkward so they extended the tube to heathrow rather proving my point. I'm not sure what yours was, did you have one? B2003 |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
Boltar wrote:
Funny that years ago the Piccadilly Line used to run only as far as Hounslow West and everyone was kicked off on to a bus to get to Heathrow. And because it was awkward so they extended the tube to heathrow rather proving my point. I'm not sure what yours was, did you have one? That it needed Heathrow to be far busier than LCY is now to consider that it was worth it? |
TfL Board gives approval for next step for DLR Stratford extension
When the tube initially arrived at Hounslow back in the 30s, heathrow
was a patch of grass with some bi-planes sitting on it. When the jubilee line was extended LCA was already a busy airport and IMO was a clear target for the JLE to terminate at instead of the rather pointless terminus at Stratford. B2003 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:29 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk