-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why did they have the DLR , rather than extend the Underground/overground
- Thread starter Simon75
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The main tower, One Canada Square, featured in the 1991 film "Close My Eyes". It was stood there all alone surrounded by waste land and no other buildings.
It must have been 1991 when I went up to the top floor of 1CW in the builders' lift on the outside of the structure - never been so scared ! I was part of an LUL party led by Bill Clarke, then Railway Extensions Director, who was getting to grips with planning the JLE. Of course the collapse of O&Y left the project in the mire as Maggie still insisted on the private sector contribution to the project. The result was all smoke and mirrors, with much of the private sector contribution phased years downstream. And LUL moved its engineering headquarters to 30 South Colonnade as a means of helping the creditor banks prop up the entire Canary Wharf project. Oh, and don't get me started about the plans for moving block signalling for the JLE expounded by then Engineering Director, Brian Mellitt. After LUL he proposed the same for WCML when he went to Railtrack. And that went well....
The producer had a contact in the local council, who said there were plans in redevelopment of the docks
At this time, the Bank <-> Lewisham service ran from Bank to either Crossharbour or Island Gardens and then Island Gardens to Lewisham. The main reason was for the platform extensions at Greenwich and Mudchute as well as the addition of platform 3 at Mudchute which has previously been just a siding. The platforms at Cutty Sark were not extended during the 3-car upgrades, just equipment installed to for SDO working to be introduced
The Lewisham to Island Gardens service was evey 10 minutes as only 4 trains could be stabled remotely- 3 were in service with the 4th acting as a "spare" stabled at Lewisham during the day.
Halfway through the blockade, the services swapped platforms at Island Gardens, to enable works to be carried out on the other platforms at Mudchute and Greenwich. The night before the swap, the vehicles that were stabled remotely south of Island Gardens were taken back to Beckton and swapped with 4 other double-sets.
I can remember that summer well, the weather was pretty good throughout and some of the regular staff on the trains built up a really good raport with the regular commuters on the Island to Lewisham services.
Last edited:
Yes, saying it was a successful steal at 77m ignores how little it could do, how much more was spent so soon.
With sufficient funding, a stop at Tower Hill?
There isn’t a disused rail line near Mile End, was that dropped in early planning as soon as they went from tram to automated light rail?
I do find it curious how for so long the "big" railway couldn't manage to tunnel under the river, resulting all those dead end short branches, but the DLR has had no problem building even bigger tunnels decades later, but their usage isn't maximised (in the sense of being part of the national network and being useful for things like freight) as it's a separate system.
Obviously, the answer is that it's much newer, technology moves on, etc., but I do feel longer-term we'd have been better served with metro heavy rail a-la the overground/SSL. Nobody could have predicted the success of LO & Crossrail, but using the old branch from Victoria Park down to Island Gardens via a rejigged Poplar, thence in a new tunnel to Greenwich to pick up whatever was left of the long-abandoned Greenwich Park branch to connect back at Nunhead would have been better, IMHO.
Coupled with a diversion of the District Line from Tower Bridge up and along the viaduct taken by the DLR through Poplar, thence eastwards towards Beckton onto Dagenham & London City under the river onto Woolwich. Crossrail went some way to correcting the latter, but ideally we should have had the District serving that axis much, much sooner.
Obviously, the answer is that it's much newer, technology moves on, etc., but I do feel longer-term we'd have been better served with metro heavy rail a-la the overground/SSL. Nobody could have predicted the success of LO & Crossrail, but using the old branch from Victoria Park down to Island Gardens via a rejigged Poplar, thence in a new tunnel to Greenwich to pick up whatever was left of the long-abandoned Greenwich Park branch to connect back at Nunhead would have been better, IMHO.
Coupled with a diversion of the District Line from Tower Bridge up and along the viaduct taken by the DLR through Poplar, thence eastwards towards Beckton onto Dagenham & London City under the river onto Woolwich. Crossrail went some way to correcting the latter, but ideally we should have had the District serving that axis much, much sooner.
If I remember correctly (it's been a while), there's passive provision for an underground station for Tower Hill / Gateway? Halfway down the Bank tunnel it levels out for a short while before diving further underground?
Disclaimer: it's been over 15 years since I worked in Canary Wharf so might have misremembered that!
DoubleLemon
Member
There wasn’t much left of the Greenwich Park branch by the mid/late-80s, most of it had been filled in or built on.
The 1999 Lewisham extension passes close to the remaining tiny bits of the line (either side of Brookmill Road) at Elverson Road.
Beat you to it, see #28.
NorthKent1989
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 May 2017
- Messages
- 2,172
Here’s my two pence on the matter
We got the DLR because the Thatcher government in the early eighties cancelled phases two and three of the Jubilee line extension - these versions of the extension took a much different route, it wouldn’t have cross the river southwards until Surrey Quays from there it would have either been extended further to New Cross, Lewisham and Hayes, or to North Greenwich then onwards to Woolwich Arsenal and Thamesmead, worth noting that North Greenwich station survived both versions of the extended route.
However the Docklands was being redeveloped and needed transportation, so we got the DLR, which roughly follows the same proposed route where the Jubilee line could have been extended had it been extended in the early to mid 80s had it been extended to Lewisham and Woolwich.
No one really anticipated how successful the DLR would become with its various extensions
We got the DLR because the Thatcher government in the early eighties cancelled phases two and three of the Jubilee line extension - these versions of the extension took a much different route, it wouldn’t have cross the river southwards until Surrey Quays from there it would have either been extended further to New Cross, Lewisham and Hayes, or to North Greenwich then onwards to Woolwich Arsenal and Thamesmead, worth noting that North Greenwich station survived both versions of the extended route.
However the Docklands was being redeveloped and needed transportation, so we got the DLR, which roughly follows the same proposed route where the Jubilee line could have been extended had it been extended in the early to mid 80s had it been extended to Lewisham and Woolwich.
No one really anticipated how successful the DLR would become with its various extensions
So, in summary, in answer to the original question, this was a political act resulting from a particular ideology.
AlastairFraser
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 4,173
Wouldn't closing Tower Gateway and extending the DLR to the old Jubilee platforms at Charing Cross via the Strand and City Thameslink be better?
It makes use of existing disused tunnels as far as Wellington St near Aldwych, it has been proposed by the DLR before in 2011, and it provides a key link to Thameslink + the Bakerloo/Northern lines for a range of key connections.
Yes, it doesn't provide the range of direct connections that a station in the Euston/King's Cross/St Pancras area would, but that would be an incredibly expensive extension to deliver.
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,964
I think the problem with this particular routing is that it doesn't relieve the Northern line or provide a direct connection from the WCML/ECML and HS1/2. It is probably quite easy to deliver, but if you're going to City Thameslink, you might as well continue onwards within zone 1 rather than ending at Charing Cross.
Yes, it will be expensive, but it would considerably relieve the Northern Line and essentially connect all four major lines to the Docklands without requiring the use of alternative (and overcrowded) infrastructure. If Canary Wharf are willing to contribute to the building costs, it might well be one of those things that should be built, although I don't have much faith in such a project being built without substantial overruns.
Sort of, sort of not. The idea wasn't really bad, because it showed that a light rail system could be developed cheaply by reusing existing infrastructure. It arguably opened the door for things like Metrolink in Manchester, and it certainly showed that the UK was capable of creative and low cost public transport investments. It did the job that it was supposed to do, and it was certainly more sensible than building the Fleet Line extension at the time. Given the financial problems that Canary Wharf had, I'd argue that it was quite foresighted to build the DLR rather than a full scale metro, as there was absolutely no guarantee that it would actually be needed.
One thing that perhaps shouldn't be underestimated is that the DLR's operating philosophy showed that public transport didn't need to be ruinously expensive in terms of operation. The DLR certainly showed that you didn't need to have conductors on every train, and I think we generally learnt a lot by having low cost, modular stations as opposed to building giant structures. It really shows today in Berlin in comparison: many of the S-Bahn stations are hopelessly overequipped for the service that exists, such as with unused structures where shops and other facilities once resided.
I have the feeling from looking through archive documentation that the DLR was essentially a "well, if it fails, we haven't spent much money on it" type of project. You can only really see that they started to have expectations towards the DLR once it becomes clear that Canary Wharf is being considered as a new banking centre, and the Bank extension was already being discussed in 1985. There's an interesting bit from Hansard where the Secretary of State for Transport says that the companies involved with the Canary Wharf project consider the Bank extension as being absolutely essential, and that they would also underwrite the privatisation of the DLR as a result.
One fascinating thing is that the government of the day were already planning privatisation of the DLR even before it opened, although they paid for the building so that it would facilitate development of the Docklands. The idea considered was that they would agree to give the DLR for a symbolic price as long as the extension to Bank was built for private money, and the intention seems to have been to sell the DLR to the banks involved with Canary Wharf.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I've seen this mentioned in several places, but it's not clear at all as to what this provision actually is. It might just be as simple as a flat section of track around Tower Hill and nothing more.
Perhaps, but there was absolutely no will to spend so much money on such a thing. The initial idea of the DLR was that it would be privatised and owned by the companies involved with Canary Wharf, as they would be the ones benefitting from it. Having said that, the simple nature of the DLR made it very easy to expand and even to consider branches that would never have been considered for heavy rail metro operation.
I'd actually say that the success of the DLR partially comes from the fact that it's a relatively simple and straightforward operation, whereas any heavy rail or metro type operation is much, much more complicated.
Last edited:
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I can't see any reason why the DLR technology couldn't match the capabilities of an Underground line, with the exception of sharing track with Network Rail. TfL were assuming DLR rather than Tube technology when studying options for the Chelsea-Hackney line as a freestanding route, though heavy rail technology and through running to the national network was ultimately preferred in the form of Crossrail 2.
I doubt DLR would fit down Tube-sized tunnels.
I believe the reason for the 3rd platform at Mudchute was difficulties with tipping out at Crossharbour, done for the centre siding south of there and the siding alongside Mudchute station. Having a platform means that tipping out is not required and trains can just stand there or reverse. It is surprising nowadays how often I see a train stabled there.
bluegoblin7
Established Member
Of course, the DLR uses the same (in some respects better, albeit an older version) signalling system as the Jubilee, Northern and Sub-surface lines. The technologies are pretty much identical - LUL have paid a lot of money to have full bi-directional capability removed from their flavours of Seltrac, and of course the notable differences in door operation and train starting.
Those suggesting that 'DLR technology [can't] match...[LUL]' (and not edwin_m who I've quoted!) clearly don't understand the underlying technology of the DLR.
YorksLad12
Established Member
If we're tunnelling, how about branching off at Monument, heading west and linking up with the Waterloo and City? Then: close Tower Gateway, put in a junction underground to a new station at Fenchurch Street, and on to Kings Cross St Pancras via Bank, Moorgate and the tracks no longer in use after the Elizabeth Line came in?
Exactly why suggestions like mine above should be ignored - it's doing what it should be, it doesn't need turning into a pseudo-tube.
With the upgrades to the DLR over the years and the new trains having a passenger capacity somewhere between 1995 & 1996 stock - is there actually much benefit to to going to the full underground spec vs DLR spec?
With the appropriate traction package could you, theoretically, even use what are basically the same trains on both the DLR and subsurface lines?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I believe the S stock meets main line crashworthiness standards, or something similar, and the DLR stock doesn't. So it would be more complicated for DLR stock to share track with main line trains as the S stock does on parts of the Metropolitan and District.
But other than that, DLR stock is probably lighter so uses less energy. Compared to Tube stock it is more roomy inside and much more similar to stock running on other routes internationally, so likely to be easier and cheaper to procure.
I dunno. AFAIAA, the S-stock are basically "normal" trains, not too dissimilar from their cousins the Capitalstars, so you would imagine those would be very easy to acquire. The DLR stock were originally trams (which are also easy to acquire), which is why they went off to Essen (I think?) when London upgraded them to something a bit more heavy duty. From what I recall, the capacity of a 9-car DLR train vs. a S8 train is a lot closer than their predecessors, but the S-Stock still wins out. But I looked at that many years ago, so I can't recall the figures exactly.
AlastairFraser
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 4,173
It doesn't necessarily directly relieve the Northern or directly connect to the KXSP/Euston complex, but it does connect directly to another branch of the Northern at a station that is much less congested than Bank, and Thameslink (which has useful airport connections, as well as links to KXSP).
Depends how much Canary Wharf is willing to pay I suppose. I don't think a KXSP line is something that TfL or London taxpayers should contribute to as a priority.
Even if they had to be enlarged, the Jubilee line tunnels only exist up to a point under Wellington St near Aldwych, as far as I know, so it's only about half a mile max. that you would have to upgrade.
If you have a look at the excellent Carto Metro map of the Tube and associated London lines (https://cartometro.com/cartes/metro-tram-london/), it will show you that the W&C and the DLR at Bank/Monument are unfortunately aligned in the wrong direction (and possibly at different levels, if I remember correctly).
Reusing some of the old City Widened Line sidings near Moorgate is a good idea, but the map will show you again that these tracks end at Farringdon, so you'd have to make the DLR trains compatible with running on Underground/Thameslink infrastructure, or somehow tunnel under Farringdon including Hatton Garden vaults and head towards KXSP/Euston that way.
We built the tyne and wear metro, the manchester metrolink. the sheffield supertram, the croyden tramway..................
Each system is slightly different, but they have in common that they took over unused or under-used rail corridors and turned them into high-frequency transit services using relatively light/cheap vehicles.
But now we are running out of useful ex-rail corridors. There are disused railways sure, but most of them are far from city centers, have been built on, or are difficult to join-up into a meaningful whole.
We also seem to have lost the ability to build anything on a reasonable timescale or budget.
Yes, there's a flat straight bit of the tunnel, it's fairly obvious from the train or a front view video
YorksLad12
Established Member
Yes - Google shows similar (using Streetview inside the station and watching the map pin move is how I came to realise that the Northern Line platforms are as close to Monument as Bank!). But Carto does make my point; don't turn right at Monument, head straight on, and eventually you'll hit the W&C tunnel. They will be at different levels, but the DLR will cope with level changes better than heavy rail/tube stock. Add in stops at Cannon street and Blackfriars, and you've got the southern terminals sewn up. Yes, I'm crayoning wildly
Which kind-of makes my other point, that the DLR is a good light railway, not a tube, and I should be largely ignored
AlastairFraser
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 4,173
Haha, you'd be partially duplicating the District.Yes - Google shows similar (using Streetview inside the station and watching the map pin move is how I came to realise that the Northern Line platforms are as close to Monument as Bank!). But Carto does make my point; don't turn right at Monument, head straight on, and eventually you'll hit the W&C tunnel. They will be at different levels, but the DLR will cope with level changes better than heavy rail/tube stock. Add in stops at Cannon street and Blackfriars, and you've got the southern terminals sewn up. Yes, I'm crayoning wildly
The W and C is better extended south into South London in a different direction to Crossrail 2 post-2050.
An extension to Charing Cross via a station near Aldwych and an interchange at City Thameslink would help serve an area of London relatively poorly served by rail-based forms of transport (and help relieve Covent Garden, in the case of the Strand station).
- Status