Originally Posted by
robt
Somebody has changed their tune. Maybe they actually learnt about what they are talking about.
I know exactly what I am talking about. The confusion lies with you.
div>
The DLR has many poor points. It is a segregated metro network using "light-rail" trains. It is not a tram system, which is a sort of bus system running on streets. Merseyrail is a hybrid of metro/commuter-rail, so not directly comparable the DLR. A poor point was the train capacity. Not big enough and too few of them for the volume of people to shift. That has been rectified to a point. Or more likely the Jubilee Line went through Docklands to alleviate the DLR problem. The DLR is great for off-peak times. The tube takes some loadings at peak times. The DLR only runs around Docklands and extends to changing stations at the periphery with London Underground. People do have to change at the periphery any more.
Their system would be suitable for Liverpool Waters, it lacked in Docklands as a mean of getting into Dockland quickly from outside. Liverpool Waters has water to one side and much smaller than Docklands. Light-rail trains could be in Liverpool Waters and run in all parts of Merseyrail. The light passenger use nature of Merseyrail during off-peak times mean light-rail trains is highly attractive.
One good thing they have is rolling stock that is loosely applicable to Merseyside extending onto the Wirral and Liverpool Waters and negotiating tight curves exiting from the likes of the Waterloo Tunnel and U turn at Molllington St in Birkenhead. Light-Rail rolling stock would give a much more flexible and cheaper system when expanding. Merseyside of course would have rolling stock to their own requirements and highly unlikely the same as the DLR.
Bookmarks