Boltar wrote:

Disused for passengers but probably a little goldmine for LU judging by
the number of times they keep popping up in adverts and films. And
then theres to useful stabling and reversing facilities they provide.
My guess is LU would be somewhat reluctant to lose them.

Is there so much demand for filming etc. that they need both CX and
Aldwych?

Neil

Londoncityslicker wrote:


The interchange between DLR and tube at Tower is far faster and less
hassle than most other big interchanges in town.

In good weather, yes. It's not so great in cold wind and rain.

Neil Williams wrote:
Boltar wrote:

Disused for passengers but probably a little goldmine for LU judging by
the number of times they keep popping up in adverts and films. And
then theres to useful stabling and reversing facilities they provide.
My guess is LU would be somewhat reluctant to lose them.

Is there so much demand for filming etc. that they need both CX and
Aldwych?

I would say so, and we would soon get sick of seeing just Aldwych
representing all underground staions!:-) (Last saw CHX standing in for
Stockwell for a Panarama re-enactment of the shooting there, dont think
it would have looked right using Aldwych for that)

I think John has hit the nail on the head when he says [Apart from
Crossrail 1 and 2] this is possibly the only alignment left through the
middle of London and it could be a case of use it or lose it.

Boltar wrote:

Stuart wrote:
apart from tunnels extending from the now-disused platforms at Charing
Cross

Disused for passengers but probably a little goldmine for LU judging by
the number of times they keep popping up in adverts and films. And
then theres to useful stabling and reversing facilities they provide.
My guess is LU would be somewhat reluctant to lose them.

B2003

AIUI the Jubilee line doesn't use CX for day to day operational
purposes (I don't think they use it to stable trains there at all). And
the LU film unit certainly doesn't have a veto on big infrastructure
projects even if it means they lose a film set! So both of those
'concerns' regarding such a proposal are not important.

I'd say the real questions are - (1) is a DLR extension to CX a good
idea, and if so (2) is there any chance the Treasury will loosen their
purse strings and stump up for it?

kytelly wrote:

(snip)

I think John has hit the nail on the head when he says [Apart from
Crossrail 1 and 2] this is possibly the only alignment left through the
middle of London and it could be a case of use it or lose it.


The use it or lose it angle is pretty interesting.

One could argue that the TfL planners realise there's no possibility of
a DLR CX extension getting the green light anytime soon - but by openly
contemplating the idea they can stake their continued claim on the
safeguarded "Fleet line" alignment. This way, they can at least leave
open the possibility of tunnelling along that alignment in the future
after the next wave of buildings have gone up.

I'm far from convinced that taking the DLR down this route to CX would
be a good idea - I forsee the potential demand far outstripping the
capacity the DLR could provide. However - if these rumours of a DLR
exntension proposal are true - perhaps the DLR would merely be playing
the "useful idiot" role that would provide TfL with a continuing
justification for keeping the "Fleet line" route safeguarded.

How such a safeguarded route would be used in the future, if the DLR
didn't use it, is another question!

Mizter T wrote:

I'm far from convinced that taking the DLR down this route to CX would
be a good idea - I forsee the potential demand far outstripping the
capacity the DLR could provide.

Yeah I suspect as much. The only other central london extension for the
DLR that has been speculated about (Albeit mainly on here!) is an
extension from Bank station, somehow linking up with the soon to be
abandoned Moorgate to Faringdon Thameslink line.

Now would this hit the same obstacles as the oft suggested
Moorgate-Cannon Street connector? i.e. the vaults of the old lady of
Threadneedle street getting in the way? Or could a route be treaded
through somehow?

MIG wrote:
I know it's a bit like that already, but this could result in an
increased number of changes for existing journeys, despite it
apparently being a new through service. The DLR will effectively be
divided into a number of separate lines, even more than it currently is.

I suspect we'll be seeing different DLR line colours on the map fairly
soon to denote different services...

kytelly wrote:
Mizter T wrote:

I'm far from convinced that taking the DLR down this route to CX would
be a good idea - I forsee the potential demand far outstripping the
capacity the DLR could provide.

Yeah I suspect as much. The only other central london extension for the
DLR that has been speculated about (Albeit mainly on here!) is an
extension from Bank station, somehow linking up with the soon to be
abandoned Moorgate to Faringdon Thameslink line.

Now would this hit the same obstacles as the oft suggested
Moorgate-Cannon Street connector? i.e. the vaults of the old lady of
Threadneedle street getting in the way? Or could a route be treaded
through somehow?

I think that route is proposed on here for its own sake (UTLers don't
like good railway alignments to go to waste...). If a route were
actually proposed in this direction, a new tunnel would probably be much
more practical.

--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:

kytelly wrote:
Mizter T wrote:

I'm far from convinced that taking the DLR down this route to CX would
be a good idea - I forsee the potential demand far outstripping the
capacity the DLR could provide.

Yeah I suspect as much. The only other central london extension for the
DLR that has been speculated about (Albeit mainly on here!) is an
extension from Bank station, somehow linking up with the soon to be
abandoned Moorgate to Faringdon Thameslink line.

Now would this hit the same obstacles as the oft suggested
Moorgate-Cannon Street connector? i.e. the vaults of the old lady of
Threadneedle street getting in the way? Or could a route be treaded
through somehow?

I think that route is proposed on here for its own sake (UTLers don't
like good railway alignments to go to waste...). If a route were
actually proposed in this direction, a new tunnel would probably be much
more practical.



All the ideas I've read on here for using the Moorgate to Farringdon
alignment are pretty wacky and fantastically unlikely! The
determination to see every bit of infrastructure re-used somehow is
most amusing, especially when such plans involve building new
infrastructure 10x that which will be saved for re-use!

The use for Moorgate - Farringdon I'd argue for is to retain at least
some of the track as sidings for use if and when Thameslink (and the
'upcoming' extension thereof, Thameslink 5000) went snafu. It would be
a useful place to put a defective train out of harms way, thus helping
with service recovery.

In article .com,
(Mizter T) wrote:

I'm far from convinced that taking the DLR down this route to CX
would
be a good idea - I forsee the potential demand far outstripping the
capacity the DLR could provide.

Not exactly the Docklands any more!


--
Paul Cummins

**FREE** mobile phones, with FREE line rental
http://www.gstgroup.co.uk/