Quote Originally Posted by Waterways View Post
You can put a station somewhere and it will create demand - a part of an overall planning policy. The London DRL was put in when the demand was negligible. It should have been seamless with some Underground lines not the little chugga trains it now has.
Firstly, why 'should' it have been seamless with the existing undeground? Are you saying that they should of made the tunneled sections tube gauge which are cramped?

Secondly, no heavyrail or tube infrastructure could achieve the curvature and gradients that the DLR does. This is what light rail does best. Incidently, the DLR stock has a maximum speed of 50mph - not especially slow, considering the maximum line speed on Merseyrail is 60mph.

I have been trying to find a picture (not for you WW, for anyone who has not seen the DLR before )to illustrate what light rail does well (and cheaply) - tight curves and gradients. I couldn't find the picture I wanted, so this one will have to do. You can see the flyovers and unders to the left of the train.



It is a matter of building infrastructure for the future and infrastructure that matters improves image in a massive way, gives out the right progressive messages and will bring in investment. Roads & busses and trams don't do that.
Lightrail does exactly that.



Yo don't get it. People will go from any station on the loops to the next but one or whatever - that is any of the loops, inner or outer.
In *your opinion*.

I would certainly not use any loop line unless I was going three or four stops, or it was pouring down.