Talk:Docklands Light Railway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Docklands Light Railway has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Accessible

The text says "Since 2000, all DLR stations have had lifts or ramps, making them accessible by wheelchair." I'm pretty sure that since opening all stations have been accessible by wheelchair - is there any reason why we start at 2000? Tompagenet 10:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DLR and London Underground

If the DLR "is not part of the London Underground", as the article correctly says, why does the accompanying infobox list it under "Lines of the London Underground"? Some inconsistency there surely? -- ChrisO 16:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It shares the same ticketing and zone systems, and also shares the tube map with the underground lines. It's inclusion is fair. --BesigedB 20:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In that case, the article needs to be more specific. In precisely what ways is the DLR not a part of the LU? Ownership? ----Isaac R 02:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've certainly bought DLR tickets before that aren't valid on any London Underground lines, and it seems to be what you get by default from their automated ticket machines. It does shares some ticketing systems (travelcard) with LU, but then so do busses and boats. The standard maps also show train lines and boats as well as the DLR. Ojw 21:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Tube tickets are valid for the DLR, and generally likewise. However, you can get discounted tickets that are only valid on the DLR 86.0.203.120 21:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not light rail, revisited

I'm not going to change the article, as I'm currently involved in disputes about this, and changing the article to support my view would be form. But the initial paragraph refers to it simply as light rail, without saying that it is mainly a rapid transit system that has a few light rail technologies, and is called "light rail" to distinguish it from the "heavier" Underground. Any comments? --SPUI (talk) 01:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, "Light Railway" is the LR in DLR, so it's probably the phrase people most often associate with it... I haven't heard "rapid transport system" used to describe anything int he UK before, assumed it was just an american version of the same phrase. Ojw 21:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It is Light Rail as opposed to Heavy Rail, which apparently made it cheaper to build. As far as Line Type is concerned in the infobox, the sense here is I think type of trains (hence light rail) rather than position in relation to ground (deep level tube lines, "sub-surface" lines, but not "primarily elevated" lines). Light rail is probably the more appropriate option here. Willkm 20:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Length of DLR system

Unless I've somehow missed it, I can't find information about the length of the system. Could somehow note perhaps the overall length of the system and each branch? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No Drivers???!!!

You Brits must trust your computers. Haven't you ever heard of the halting problem? ;-) ----Isaac R 23:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Separation Issues

I rewrote DavidArthur's clarification of the separation issue to try and make it read more smoothly. I also nitpicked the ownership thing.

I'm not an expert on London transit, living on a separate continent. But I have to agree with ChrisO that the "Lines of the London Underground" box (or rather the LondonUndergroundLines template) is confusing when it comes to the DLR and Tramlink. There needs to be more than a blue line separating them from the "real" London Underground -- a subtitle or something. Note that the TfL web site doesn't treat the DLR or Tramlink as part of the Tube. ----Isaac R 23:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is hard to know what to do with the box - the DLR and Tramlink aren't in any sense part of the Tube, but they're listed on London Transport maps in much the same way. It would probably make more sense to change the box's title from 'Lines of the London Underground' to something more inclusive (maybe even including National Rail metros) rather than removing them. David Arthur 18:43, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Metros of London? --Enotayokel 09:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extension to Woolwich

The new extension is being built, and is marked on the maps (in the usual dotted lines for such purposes): when will it be included here? Jackiespeel 18:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The extension has been opened on December 2nd, 2005 between Canning Town and King George V. Stations are Canning Town, West Silvertown, Pontoon Dock, London City Airport, King George V . Hektor 22:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I have updated the article accordingly. Someone should check the total route distance though, I came up with 31 km from adding 27 and 4.4 on the DLR website and rounding to two significant digits, and then converting 31 km to miles using the Metric4US converter, and rounding again. Anyone who knows a more accurate and/or precise measurement should thus change the article immediately. 130.243.135.145 01:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

What, no photos yet on London City Airport DLR station? Morwen - Talk 09:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Third Rail

The article correctly describes the system as using third-rail current collection. However no reference is made to the fact that to improve safety and reduce disruption during icy weather the current is collected from the underside of the third rail and the top is protected with a plastic covering. I believe this is unusual (unique ?). Should this be elaborated on and if so it there a recognised technical term for this ?--Pedantic of Purley 07:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The third rail article refers to it as "bottom-contact", and although I think it is unique in the UK it is in use elsewhere. Thryduulf 16:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3-car extension

I think that this is a little sloppy compared to the technical accuracy and detail of the rest of the article. It does not distinguish between what is approved (TWA), awaiting approval and proposed. It also omits to mention which stations already have long enough platforms, proposed selective door opening at Cutty Sark (and Pudding Mill Lane) and proposals to carry out the work at East India and Blackwall as well. This is not helped by the DLR website not being as up to date as the Modern Railways article. However I hope in the next few weeks to comprehensively update this unless someone beats me to it (be my guest) or it is thought that this is not really worthy of such detailed treatment.--Pedantic of Purley 07:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I formalised this a bit and included it as two specific proposals for enhancement of DLR. If there are any formatting issues I hope others will be able to tidy it up. It could also be argued that the order of these enhancements to DLR could be beneficially changed. I was going to write a lot more but I thought I would be either entering the realm of speculation/not verifiable or the detail would be disproportionate to the rest of the article.--Pedantic of Purley 12:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like my use of "aspirational" to describe this but I can't think of a better word. It seems to be more than just "proposed" but less than formally "approved". If anyone can think of something better please change it. If not then time will probably sort it out and it can be changed to "awaiting TWA approval" or whatever.--Pedantic of Purley 10:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

DLR have now updated their website and I have reflected this in further updates.--Pedantic of Purley 13:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased to see this section has been further enhanced (not by me). However, I am a little concerned that the section is starting to sound like a press release. In particular I think the paragraphs about environmental protection just detracts the whole thing. It feels like it has been lifted from a press release or company statement (why not just link to it rather than duplicate it ?) and is not of general interest. Furthermore it only states the companies legal obligations "spun" by the PR department to make it sound as if it is something special rather than something we take for granted in this day and age. I am very tempted to remove it if nobody objects.--Pedantic of Purley 09:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Indeed the whole 'Future developments' section is starting to read like it was written by the TfL Press Relations department, rather than an encyclopedia article. I'm going to try a copy edit on it, mostly just to change the flavour of the writing rather than the information content. -- Chris j wood 11:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think the tidy-up by Chris Wood is going in the right direction. I agree with him that we must remember this is an online encyclopedia and not a repository for every snippet of information we can find and certainly not a place for repeating in full what can be found elsewhere (though an appropriate link can never do any harm). I think that in "Future Developments" the briefest mention is enough as more information is normally available on the DLR website where it is generally both up-to-date and updated. Items not on the DLR website (e.g. proposed Charing Cross extension) perhaps merit more detail.--Pedantic of Purley 16:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There is much that can be written about enhancing the length of the DLR trains. Indeed there are a few comments I have been previously tempted to add but resisted. I think we need to either be careful about keeping the size of this item proportionate to the rest of the DLR entry as a whole or give it its own special entry with a summary in the main DLR article.--Pedantic of Purley 09:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cars v units v LRV's

There is some inconsistency as to what to call an articulated carriage on the DLR. I followed the terminology of units before realising they were also referred to as cars and even LRV. It would be better if a (thinge) was clearly described at the start of the article and subsequent references were to 2-(thinge) or 3-(thinge) trains. My personal belief is consistency is more important than what it is called.--Pedantic of Purley 09:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely about consistency, but the official website isn't much help: "Trains can run as single units, in articulated, or linked units, on tracks set beside or in the middle of streets or on their own private right of way. A standard light rail vehicle can carry up to 250 people - nearly treble the capacity of a typical bus. The vehicles are accessible to all..". My preference is for units over LRVs as the latter is ugly. Normally I'd prefer cars over units (e.g. a British Rail Class 158 is a single unit with two cars) but the official website doesn't seem to use cars that I can find. Thryduulf 17:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I prefer ‘unit’, since the one-carriage articulated units are capable of running separately. ‘LRV’ brings up the whole problem of ‘light rail’ (for which there is no clear definition) again, so I think it’s best avoided. David Arthur 21:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Langdon Park Station

I have removed almost all of this description and put it on its own dedicated page as I thought that the details gone into, while admirable, were wholly disproportionate to a general article on the DLR. However my Wikipedia editing and design skills are limited so someone else might like to look at it and tidy it up or make it more in the style of the other station pages.--Pedantic of Purley 09:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stations generally - move?

Maybe not now but in near future, do you think the stations section should be moved to the seperate article of List of Docklands Light Railway stations? My reasoning is that there are lists of other metro or transport systems not related to national rail. For example List of London Underground stations, List of Tyne and Wear Metro stations etc

[edit] Cars

I know this is probably trivial but is one train one car or two? It has a flexible part in the middle in which some areas in the world use to seperate carriages. (I wish i could word this better) - Simply south 19:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Each DLR car is made up of two segments, with an articulated joint (a.k.a. 'flexible part in the middle') between them, and riding on 6 axles in three bogies(BE)/trucks(AE). Whilst it is technically possible to operate a single car train, all current DLR public service trains consist of two cars coupled together (ie. four segments/12 axles). Future plans involve three car (6 segments,18 axles) trains. -- Chris j wood 18:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think you need to be a bit careful about saying whether the 'flexible part in the middle' seperates cars. There are different sorts of 'flexible parts in the middle'; what actually makes the two segments of a DLR car one car is that the inner ends of the two segments are carried on a single bogie/truck and hence cannot be separated without serious workshop type facilities. Outwardly very similar 'flexible parts' can be found between cars on (eg) Paris Metro line 14 and the Hong Kong MTR, but in these case the cars are independently carried on their own bogies/trucks and can be uncoupled (admittedly with some difficulty). -- Chris j wood 19:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

One car with 2 segments? - Though that would mean a Eurostar is 2 9-segment coaches + powercars - Enotayokel 17:11, 4 May 2006

Yup. The general convention in light rail is that the term 'car' refers to an independent rail mounted vehicle. Thus the articulated six-axle unit that is the basic building block of DLR trains is one car, and the typical train (made up of two of these) is a two-car train. By contrast, the general convention for Eurostar trains seems to be to regard them as two power cars plus 18 articulated coaches. But then life pretty soon teaches us that conventions are rarely universal and logical. -- Chris j wood 18:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Not strictly relevant but possibly adding to the confusion is the fact that although the system is to be enhanced to "3-car" capacity it apparently is not the intention to run full length trains at all times according to an email I received from DLR when querying something else.--Pedantic of Purley 23:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stations

There are usage figures and other things included in templates on the National Rail Network and LU, so shouldn't there be some on the DLR? Simply south 10:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Langdon Park

An anonymous user [changed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Docklands_Light_Railway&diff=52465756&oldid=51494889] Langdon Park's status to "Under Construction" on May 10. I've reverted it until a source stating otherwise is given. --Dtcdthingy 04:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

How can the Conservative government which "came in in 1979" have changed the DLR plan, which is said in the same paragraph to have been "conceived in the late 1980s"? Something skewed here. SamSim 11:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unlikely developments etc

Can these be verified? Simply south 15:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

more importantly, they aren't the place of Wikipedia. This is a quote from the current article:

"This section has information on projects and developments that shall not take place on the DLR Network. They were discusssed during a personal visit to the DLR Development Team at Poplar, London."

This is directly contradictory to WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a place for original research. To quote WP:NOT: "If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites" Tompagenet 15:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

- Just to make a process on this, unless someone can provide a good reason for keeping this section and the "Options for extending into London that will not take place" section that follows it, I will delete both in one week (i.e. on Friday 25th August 2006). It might seem a shame to lose this information, but for Wikipedia to be trusted it can't be a place for original research - this makes it unverifiable. Tompagenet 15:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel very bad. They seemed quite interesting, whoever wrote them. However, that probably doesn't count as a good reason. Simply south 16:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

- - This change has now occurred. The unverifiable primary research has been removed. Tompagenet 01:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stock

Well the rolling stock article has gone ahead anyway and still needs significant expansion.

Btw, does anyone know where the edit was ages ago to discuss splitting up of the article into rolling stock, that failed...? Simply south 11:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadwell Refurbishment

I was there yesterday and looked all around both on the platforms and in the arches below and I could find no evidence of refurbishment actually taking place. I have therefore modified the wording slightly. I know there is an aspiration for this but have we any evidence it will happen and furthermore be finished by the end of 2007 as stated ?Pedantic of Purley 17:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I only read this off the TfL website. Simply south 00:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the TfL website is notorious for ill-timed press releases. I know of the premature announcement of the opening Vauxhall bus station and Centrale tram stop - both months before they were actually open. I suspect there are other cases. Its a good source of information but not 100% reliable. Similarly I think DLR website claims Langdon Park station will open in 2007 but I seriously doubt this as no work has started yet.Pedantic of Purley 14:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, not quite the news section but station information. Simply south 14:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

We're a bit alwaystouchout.com/DLR.co.uk reference heavy, could anyone chip in some reference from here. Its the LDDC website. Thanks RHB 22:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Italic text

[edit] GA Passed

Great article. Im from australia and now i have a good understanding of the docklands Light Rail. Keep it up. -- Nathannoblet 09:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accidents

Other than the South Quay bomb, have there been any other disasters on the DLR? Simply south 21:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/c/Talk%7EDocklands_Light_Railway_d270.html"