Could the DLR be extended to Waterloo to replace the Waterloo and City Line?

[markymark2000]

Not sure if this belongs in speculative or the London Underground area so I will put it here and if needed, I'm sure Mods will move it.

This idea comes following what has been said in the 'will the waterloo & city line ever reopen' thread (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/will-the-waterloo-city-line-ever-reopen.208426/page-2)
Basically it has been mentioned that the flow of commuters who normally use the W&C line just isnt there but my question is is the line was adapted to accommodate DLR trains, the service could then run all day, everyday and more people would likely use the service as there would be more through destinations. It would also help for if anything happens on the Jubilee Line as then the DLR will link the Docklands to Waterloo. I think that on top of this, I believe that the DLR taking over this area would make operational costs lower as you wouldn't need dedicated maintenance nor dedicated office staff for the W&C line, all maintenance and operational stuff will be done from existing DLR bases. All of this creates a cheaper network to run. It's worth pointing out as well that the W&C drivers 'step back' at Bank in the peak times. This would be completely removed as the DLR would go 'through' Bank and at Waterloo when they go into the sidings, staff can move about then if they wish to or stay where they are as they don't need to be in a certain place.

Pros:
Operational cost savings
Some improved links for people around Shadwell/Limehouse/Westferry DLR stations
Potential for a more consistent service without the huge operational cost (IE extending service hours by 1 hour would be minimal on a DLR extension compared to running the W&C).
Backup for if anything goes slightly wrong on the Jubilee Line.
Will help people with journey planning since there will be 1 less line on the map.
Depending on which services run to Waterloo, there is potential for direct links from Waterloo to City Airport or the Excel (possibly none but that would be a TFL decision)

Cons:
Potentially having to relocate the DLR to Monument station.
The cost of amending the current tunnels and infrastructure to accommodate DLR trains
Potentially confuse a few people if the current part time service remains as passengers may get used to services running to the same place at all times.

 

[AM9]

The subterranean landscape below the city is very crowded and any new tunnelling would be a) inordinately expensive and b) potential disruptive of existing infrastructure.
Firstly, the DLR line I believe takes a turn northwards at Bank meaning that it would need to be realigned east of Bank station, therefore the whole line west of West Ferry would need to be closed for the duration, (especially as there's talk of closing Tower Gateway station to allow more space for Fenchurch St). Then there's the inconvenient fact that the W&C line is tube sized, I.e. around 12ft in diameter, whereas the DLR is quite a bit larger. So a completely new pair of tunnels would be needed all the way to Waterloo.
Extending the line would be a very expensive and lengthy project for little real gain.

 

[65477]

Potentially having to relocate the DLR to Monument station.
The cost of amending the current tunnels and infrastructure

This hints at the major obstacle to this proposal you would be looking at an entirely new line from the current tunnelled section to Waterloo. The orientation and depth of Bank probably rules any pure extension from Bank out. The cost would be much too high for what would really be an alternative to the Jubilee line.

Once there was a proposal to extend the DLR westwards to reduce the number of people interchanging to the Central line and thus relieving to load on the Central line.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If you really wanted to link the DLR to Waterloo (an idea which I agree has some merit if money were no object) a better option would be to extend the Tower Gateway stub as an elevated railway, rather than tunneling under The City (which is probably a bit like a block of Emmental cheese now). This would allow the existing station at Tower Gateway to be relocated, allowing Fenchurch Street to be expanded.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Could DLR trains fit in the existing tunnels though? If so, I like the idea as I use the W&C regularly and being part of the DLR would probably put an end to the troublesome Sunday closure. I also think the DLR cars are a nicer environment than Tube stock and a direct alternative to Canary Wharf and Stratford would be welcomed by me to the Jubilee.

Also, if they can fit, I assume they could use Waterloo Depot which means more flexibility for stabling and maintanance

I love the idea - doubt it will ever happen though, sadly

 

[randyrippley]

Could DLR trains fit in the existing tunnels though? If so, I like the idea as I use the W&C regularly and being part of the DLR would probably put an end to the troublesome Sunday closure. I also think the DLR cars are a nicer environment than Tube stock and a direct alternative to Canary Wharf and Stratford would be welcomed by me to the Jubilee.

Also, if they can fit, I assume they could use Waterloo Depot which means more flexibility for stabling and maintanance

I love the idea - doubt it will ever happen though, sadly

no they won't fit, see #2

 

[AM9]

no they won't fit, see #2

That's correct. I've just managed to confirm that the diameter of the Thames tunnels on the DLR is 6m. That is partly due to the requirement for an emergency walkway, which would be required on any new section opened for the DLR. So it would be a bit of a squeeze down the 3.7m W&C pipes?

 

[markymark2000]

The subterranean landscape below the city is very crowded and any new tunnelling would be a) inordinately expensive and b) potential disruptive of existing infrastructure.
Firstly, the DLR line I believe takes a turn northwards at Bank meaning that it would need to be realigned east of Bank station, therefore the whole line west of West Ferry would need to be closed for the duration, (especially as there's talk of closing Tower Gateway station to allow more space for Fenchurch St). Then there's the inconvenient fact that the W&C line is tube sized, I.e. around 12ft in diameter, whereas the DLR is quite a bit larger. So a completely new pair of tunnels would be needed all the way to Waterloo.
Extending the line would be a very expensive and lengthy project for little real gain.

Could you not just go through the existing tunnels and expand them? Essentially making a circular tunnel into a box tunnel and if the tunnels are close enough, you would probably link them rather than having them as separates. I know it would be a big job but creating brand new tunnels would be a bigger job and would mean more holes under London. With how many tunnels and stuff there already is under london, it can't be good for the city to keep adding more tunnels and it can't be good for infrastructure times.

 

[PTR 444]

If you really wanted to link the DLR to Waterloo (an idea which I agree has some merit if money were no object) a better option would be to extend the Tower Gateway stub as an elevated railway, rather than tunneling under The City (which is probably a bit like a block of Emmental cheese now). This would allow the existing station at Tower Gateway to be relocated, allowing Fenchurch Street to be expanded.

Good luck getting that across the Thames. Not to mention all the buildings in the way!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Good luck getting that across the Thames. Not to mention all the buildings in the way!

Build it above roads or the river like the Schwebebahn, simples...

 

[London Trains]

As much as I like fantasy ideas for the tube and DLR, I dont see the point in this.

No new journey opportunities are opened up, since the Jubilee Line is significantly quicker to Canary Wharf, and to Excel and City Airport changing at Canning Town.

Anything involving the W+C line should go towards Liverpool Street / Shoreditch / Hackney, to give new journey opportunities.

 

[adamedwards]

Euston extension is a more likely scenario, see https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2019/04/19/the-dlr-could-be-extended-from-bank-to-euston/

 

[leytongabriel]

As much as I like fantasy ideas for the tube and DLR, I dont see the point in this.

No new journey opportunities are opened up, since the Jubilee Line is significantly quicker to Canary Wharf, and to Excel and City Airport changing at Canning Town.

Anything involving the W+C line should go towards Liverpool Street / Shoreditch / Hackney, to give new journey opportunities.

Yes indeed. Given that things are apparently a bit blocked south of Liverpool St by some cross London project that might open one day, what about a tram-train (covers ears to muffle being shouted down) to get between the two on the surface, especially with the new traffic restrictions already in the area? Picking up the local Tfl Overground stoppers to Enfield Town and Cheshunt might fit nicely.

 

[AM9]

Euston extension is a more likely scenario, see https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2019/04/19/the-dlr-could-be-extended-from-bank-to-euston/

Having just read the article on that link, I think an extension to the DLR is even more remote. The western end of the DLR is aligned on a NNW-SSE axis parallel with the Northern Line, terminating in a stub where the tunneling shield is buried at the end of the tunnel somewhere under Coleman Street. So the suggestions of a link to Euston via City Thameslink and Holborn are just as bonkers. It just looks like a Canary Wharf project to draw business away from the City. Not that I have any problem with that competition, but in reality it will do nothing for travel from Euston (presumably HS2 in CW's mind) to CW, especially once Crossrail is functional.

 

[London Trains]

Yes indeed. Given that things are apparently a bit blocked south of Liverpool St by some cross London project that might open one day, what about a tram-train (covers ears to muffle being shouted down) to get between the two on the surface, especially with the new traffic restrictions already in the area? Picking up the local Tfl Overground stoppers to Enfield Town and Cheshunt might fit nicely.

No tram-trains in London! We dont want the awful things here. Anyway, Enfield Town and Cheshunt are too far out for tram-trains, Cheshunt isnt even in the M25!

What would be better is some sort of a Crossrail line from Clapham Junction to Tottenham Hale, running from Twickenham / Shepperton / Hampton Court / Chessington / Epsom / Sutton (via Wimbledon and St Helier) to Wimbledon, Earlsfield, Clapham Junction, Victoria, Westminster, Waterloo, Blackfriars, Bank, Liverpool Street, Shoreditch, Hackney and then dividing into 2 branches, one to Chingford (all stops) and one to Broxbourne (all stops). Aside from HS2 issues at Euston, I believe the idea is much better than CR2.

The Waterloo and City could then effectively be mothballed.

 

[D365]

I love the idea - doubt it will ever happen though, sadly

From your entire post, this last sentence is the only part that is correct

 

[ashkeba]

The orientation and depth of Bank probably rules any pure extension from Bank out. The cost would be much too high for what would really be an alternative to the Jubilee line.

Why not fork off the current tunnels before the current Bank station and run through a new linked DLR station under Cannon Street to join the W&C? W&C is 14m below at Bank while the DLR is 20m which might be a problem, but he size of the W&C tunnels and the duplication of the Jubilee line seem much bigger obstacles to the idea.

 

[markymark2000]

I should stress, the Jubilee line would have no effect on this as the main aim would be to to make the W&C service more sustainable. The savings here come from not having a dedicated fleet for the service (all DLR trains can be used on all routes), less administration staff and work since this would form part of a bigger network and possibly some extended operating hours as the DLR can extend the operational hours easily for minimal cost compared to currently on the W&C. The only time this would benefit any of the Jubilee Line is if there was disruption and this would then be the easy backup route. Improved links to Shadwell, Limehouse and Westferry stations are good but not essential.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

no they won't fit, see #2

A W&C train is 2.87m high
A DLR train is 3.51m high

But someone quotes the tunnels height are:

So it would be a bit of a squeeze down the 3.7m W&C pipes?

It's a shame it'd need to conform to new underground railway standards and can't rely upon grandfather rights

 

[AM9]

A W&C train is 2.87m high
A DLR train is 3.51m high ...

Tube stock has an almost semicircular profile above waist height, - DLR trains have flat sides and flat roofs, so even if they were allowed in the 21st century to have passengers in close fitting tunnels, it would still be necessary to bore at least 5m diameter circular tunnels.

... It's a shame it'd need to conform to new underground railway standards and can't rely upon grandfather rights

Why?

 

[JonathanH]

I should stress, the Jubilee line would have no effect on this as the main aim would be to to make the W&C service more sustainable. The savings here come from not having a dedicated fleet for the service (all DLR trains can be used on all routes), less administration staff and work since this would form part of a bigger network and possibly some extended operating hours as the DLR can extend the operational hours easily for minimal cost compared to currently on the W&C.

What? Is the W&C 'unsustainable' to the level of the billions cost of what you propose?

Isn't the W&C already managed alongside the Central line?

The operating hours for the W&C would be extended if there was demand for it. The reduced operating hours aren't really a big deal - they match the demand for journeys between Bank and Waterloo. At other times, most people making a journey that could use the W&C would be changing at Bank, not have Bank as a destination and they might as well do that at Tottenham Court Road or London Bridge or another station.

In this instance, it really is better to keep things simple.

 

[AM9]

Why not fork off the current tunnels before the current Bank station and run through a new linked DLR station under Cannon Street to join the W&C? W&C is 14m below at Bank while the DLR is 20m which might be a problem, but he size of the W&C tunnels and the duplication of the Jubilee line seem much bigger obstacles to the idea.

The DLR, whilst far more successful than envisaged in the '80 is hopelessly inadequate for central London passenger levels. They are in passenger terms the underground electric equivalent of Pacers which makes then OK for local urban transit systems, (the equivalent of trams on exclusive tracks), but they don't perform well as commuter 'conveyor belts' which is what the tubes are. Having said that, even deep tube lines are no longer satisfactory for the sheer volume of passengers that they are expected to carry, hence the moving to mainline standards for Crossrail.

 

[Ianno87]

The DLR, whilst far more successful than envisaged in the '80 is hopelessly inadequate for central London passenger levels. They are in passenger terms the underground electric equivalent of Pacers which makes then OK for local urban transit systems, (the equivalent of trams on exclusive tracks), but they don't perform well as commuter 'conveyor belts' which is what the tubes are. Having said that, even deep tube lines are no longer satisfactory for the sheer volume of passengers that they are expected to carry, hence the moving to mainline standards for Crossrail.

I've always wondered whether closing Tower Gateway (or retaining it for emergency use only) and sending the entire service to Bank would help?

It certainly does seem to struggle having so much demand loaded onto one terminus.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The DLR, whilst far more successful than envisaged in the '80 is hopelessly inadequate for central London passenger levels. They are in passenger terms the underground electric equivalent of Pacers which makes then OK for local urban transit systems, (the equivalent of trams on exclusive tracks), but they don't perform well as commuter 'conveyor belts' which is what the tubes are. Having said that, even deep tube lines are no longer satisfactory for the sheer volume of passengers that they are expected to carry, hence the moving to mainline standards for Crossrail.

The existing trains are a bit on the small side... however the new stock on order will be more akin to the S-Stock than a Pacer.

 

[AlbertBeale]

I've always wondered whether closing Tower Gateway (or retaining it for emergency use only) and sending the entire service to Bank would help?

It certainly does seem to struggle having so much demand loaded onto one terminus.

But could Bank cope with the full service terminating there, having only one place to reverse? Yes, there are 2 platforms, but trains can't arrive at and leave from both, as in most such situations. Remember one is arrivals and one departures, with just one track to shunt into for reversing direction.

 

[ashkeba]

But could Bank cope with the full service terminating there, having only one place to reverse? Yes, there are 2 platforms, but trains can't arrive at and leave from both, as in most such situations. Remember one is arrivals and one departures, with just one track to shunt into for reversing direction.

If not, would a second reverting track and a crossover be a relatively small build and solve the problem?

 

[AM9]

The existing trains are a bit on the small side... however the new stock on order will be more akin to the S-Stock than a Pacer.

The DLR is a medium capacity metro, - i.e. a slightly upgraded pre-metro. That's not a criticism but it should be seen in context, in the peak, Bank DLR platforms are at crush load levels, many passengers having to wait for a second or even third train to be able to board. The DLR was built and scaled as a community light-rail system to supplement the buses and heavy rail lines in an area of much development following the shrinkage of the London inner docks. It's route capacity is below that of an equivalent deep tube line and it is unlikely that 6m tunnels will be bored for a lower return.
Once Crossrail is fully operational, Canary Wharf can be reached by a single train from all the London National Rail 'commuter' routes into central London except for:

Euston (a connection may be available when HS2/OOC is complete otherwise a short hop by tube to either Tottenham Court Road or Farringdon for Crossrail)​

Marylebone (a short walk to Paddington Crossrail station)​

Victoria, probably the least accessible but many of the origins of services into Victoria also have alternatives to London Bridge which does have a direct connection to CW​

Kings Cross GN/LNER only, (a short hop to Farringdon via any of three LU lines or by Thameslink at the adjacent St Pancras low level. Most GN origins have alternative services to Moorgate for Crossrail or Thameslink for Farringdon (then Crossrail).​

Given the time that boring a new tunnel out of the square mile would take, it would not seem to be a cost effective way of saturating an already overloaded light railway.

 

[ijmad]

DLR trains are a fair bit roomier than people often perceive:

1. 2009 Stock (Victoria line) is 133m long, has 252 seats, max theoretical standing capacity of 1028.
2. S7 Stock (Circle, H&C, District) is 117m long, a 256 seats, max theoretical standing capacity of 1112.
3. B09 (DLR) in 3-car formation is 84m long, has 210 seats, max theoretical standing capacity of 852.

The new CAF stock should increase this considerably and will feel a lot like a shorter version of the S-Stock (5 carriages almost exactly the same length as an S Stock's, walkthrough, 3 doors per side, longitudinal seating) and nearly the same width (2.65m for DLR trains vs 2.82m for the S7).

It's really not a very 'light' rail system and certainly cities have built expensive deep level tunnels with stock that carries far fewer people. So I don't believe a DLR extension across the city isn't out of the question. The Horizons study looked at options to Victoria via Green Park and Charing Cross, and the Euston extension is mentioned above. Whether a Waterloo extension would be sensible would be down to passenger flows and whether current passengers go when they get off their trains at Bank, which I'm sure TfL have some good data on by now.

One substantial advantage of an extension would be relieving pressure at Bank by spreading out passengers from the Docklands among several central London interchanges. This (combined with moving Tower Gateway on to the deep tunnels or closing it entirely) would enable you to run the full 30tph service into the Bank platforms instead of only 22.5tph (7.5tph currently goes to Tower Gateway and being very lightly loaded). The SelTrac ATO system on the DLR (similar to Jubilee/Northern) may well be capable of 32tph or 36tph operation, since the trains are short and the only flat junction on the system is just south of Canning Town (trains from Woolwich to Stratford Int have to cross in front of trains from Bank to Woolwich).

I'd say sending 160 to 180 carriages per hour somewhere beyond Bank could be very worth the money it would cost.

 

[markymark2000]

What? Is the W&C 'unsustainable' to the level of the billions cost of what you propose?

Any savings would be over a longer period but savings would come from not having dedicated trains meaning less spares needed, reduced staff costs as all admin, ops and maintenance staff would be based at DLR stops and not be exclusive for the line (or paying people at Central Line HQ to manage the line). Also reduced staffing cost comes from the fact there would be no 'stepping back' as per on the W&C.

You may even save slightly on Bank/Monument staff as there would be less area with 2 less platforms and 1 less walkway (no walkway needed between the DLR and W&C.

Maintenance staff wouldn't be needed as much

Isn't the W&C already managed alongside the Central line?

That I don't know.

The operating hours for the W&C would be extended if there was demand for it. The reduced operating hours aren't really a big deal - they match the demand for journeys between Bank and Waterloo. At other times, most people making a journey that could use the W&C would be changing at Bank, not have Bank as a destination and they might as well do that at Tottenham Court Road or London Bridge or another station.

But the cost would be quite high with the dedicated fleet and staff. The DLR you would already have the office and maintenance staff etc as the rest of the DLR is already operating so your cost is literally just the extra one or two units and those 1 or 2 on train staff so that is the only cost which needs to be covered.

 

[Ianno87]

But could Bank cope with the full service terminating there, having only one place to reverse? Yes, there are 2 platforms, but trains can't arrive at and leave from both, as in most such situations. Remember one is arrivals and one departures, with just one track to shunt into for reversing direction.

The automatic reversals are pretty snappy in the single turnback. Can do platform to platform in less than 2 minutes, when the service frequency is something like 24tph (6 Beckton, 12 Lewisham, 6 Woolwich) or something like that?