Do you consider the DLR a part of the tube?

[danielfigfoz]

Do you consider the DLR part of the tube?

I know alot of people will say that that's ridicouls but, I think that the DLR is part of the tube.

[ianvisits]

I consider it part of central London transport - but certainly not part of the main tube network any more than the Croydon tram is part of the tube network.

[Alight]

I do associate it with the LU due to it being on the tube maps. However I do obviously differentiate between the two as DLR and LU even though the association is of them being one big group

[Deleted]

I would regard the DLR as separate from the tube but obviously both are parts of TfL.

[c5]

Until the DLR was privatised it was part of LUL!

[Deleted]

It is just as much a metro system as the London Underground is. Ie. high frequencies, within a city, completely separated from other transport (more so than the London Underground even!) The only difference is just the company running it and the branding.

[amershamsi]

I think it's worth comparing it to the New York Subway/PATH thing - there's two metros in one city...

[Colin]

Given that we (the admins) have given the DLR it's own area under "other TfL railways"......well I think that's enough of a clue as to what I think........

[astock5000]

I think of the DLR as halfway between LU and Buses (Tramlink is halfway between DLR and Buses). With longer trains coming soon, and extensions from Bank proposed, more people will think of it as part of 'the tube'.

[Deleted]

Personally I see the DLR as much as the Tube as LO.

And as for Tube maps, they don't exist, they are TfL rail maps these days.

[ianvisits]

Jun 9, 2008 23:11:03 GMT @mackenzieblu said:

And as for Tube maps, they don't exist, they are TfL rail maps these days.

And increasingly include bus routes on the "rail map" as well.

[SE13]

For me, DLR is a seperate thing altogether. Completely different rolling stock, completely different operation, and different livery.

If they ever run some 73ts or even 38ts down those lines, I'll change my mind, but as it would be impossible to do so, my mind is unlikely to change!

[Deleted]

Jun 11, 2008 7:03:30 GMT SE13 said:

For me, DLR is a seperate thing altogether. Completely different rolling stock, completely different operation, and different livery.

If they ever run some 73ts or even 38ts down those lines, I'll change my mind, but as it would be impossible to do so, my mind is unlikely to change!

now i would like to see that happed! ;D. Shame it neve gonna happed

[edwin]

I wouldn't like to see it happen, either the track or the train will get ripped to shreds if a 73TS goes round one of those tight curves...

[raakone]

Ok, well, physically and adminstratively it's not part of the tube, but other than that....it's part of the same "integrated rail" network as the Tube, let's say....and it was intended as a cheaper alternative to the tube...had they been aware how successful it was going to be, maybe they would have built longer stations on day 1 and instead of P and B stock have used some kind of tube or subsurface stock, just on elevated structures (still save on the tunneling...except the Bank branch)...and instead of DLR it would have been the DER (Docklands Elevated Railway) or DAL (Docklands Automatic Railway)

[Alight]

I mean technically it could be part of London Underground but a 3rd type: tube, subsurface and light rail - so long as the trains have a similar appearance.

[astock5000]

Jun 18, 2008 19:46:49 GMT @raakone said:

P and B stock

The problem with calling them that is the B2007s are completely different to the B90/B92/B2K.

Jun 18, 2008 19:46:49 GMT @raakone said:

instead of DLR it would have been the DER (Docklands Elevated Railway) or DAL (Docklands Automatic Railway)

As thew system is getting bigger and bigger, maybe it should be renamed to East London Light Railway, or have some services (the ones that go through Delta Junction) called Docklands Light Railway and give other services different names. You hardly ever see 'Docklands Light Railway' written anywhere now, it's always DLR, even on London Underground DVA.

[Deleted]

It really needs dividing into proper "lines" - such as "Dog" and "Royal". It will feel more like the Tube if they do that.

[Deleted]

How about route numbers instead?

[Deleted]

Well, as long as there's some distinction...

[astock5000]

Jul 7, 2008 13:15:21 GMT @axewielder said:

How about route numbers instead?

As route numbers could be confused with buses, what about using route letters?

[thirstquensher]

First of all - yes, I believe DLR and LOG should show on the overall map because it is now a "TfL Rail" map, not just a "Tube Map" (despite what it says at the top).

In fact, as from the next issue, the UNDERGROUND roundel is swapped for a plain blue corporate one. Look out for it.

BTW In terms of distinguishing DLR lines, I had a number of ideas a while ago - to wit, tfl.moonfruit.com/routediagrams

Although in retrospect I started thinking this was a little impractical given that trains CAN change route partway through a journey to take account of degraded modes (planned or otherwise).

[Deleted]

Jul 15, 2008 13:35:05 GMT @thirstquensher said:

Although in retrospect I started thinking this was a little impractical given that trains CAN change route partway through a journey to take account of degraded modes (planned or otherwise).

But it's partly because of that it's needed.

[Deleted]

Jul 15, 2008 13:35:05 GMT @thirstquensher said:

I believe DLR and LOG should show on the overall map because it is now a "TfL Rail" map, not just a "Tube Map" (despite what it says at the top).

Indeed. I would also say I think that the Croydon Tramlink should also appear on the tube map. I've never quite understood why it doesn't, really.

[Colin]

It does - if you look at the right one :
www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/tube-dlr-trams-and-train-travelcard-zones-map.pdf

[rob4hells]

in my opinion i don't consider the DLR as part of the UNDERGROUND.
this to due the complications with being able to top up your oyster card at DLR stations. By tht i mean YOU CANT TOP UP YOUR OYSTER CARD. YOU HAVE TO GET A SINGLE TO A UNDERGROUND INTERCHANGE AND TOP UP THERE

[Deleted]

Jul 15, 2008 13:35:05 GMT @thirstquensher said:

First of all - yes, I believe DLR and LOG should show on the overall map because it is now a "TfL Rail" map, not just a "Tube Map" (despite what it says at the top).

But isn't LO owned by Network Rail, ran by TfL, while the DLR is ran by Serco, but owned by, I presume, TfL?

The Croydon Tram doesn't belong on there at all, I think. It's a tram, not at all metro-like.

[c5]

Jul 30, 2008 12:05:57 GMT @sweek said:

Jul 15, 2008 13:35:05 GMT @thirstquensher said:

First of all - yes, I believe DLR and LOG should show on the overall map because it is now a "TfL Rail" map, not just a "Tube Map" (despite what it says at the top).

But isn't LO owned by Network Rail, ran by TfL, while the DLR is ran by Serco, but owned by, I presume, TfL?

The Croydon Tram doesn't belong on there at all, I think. It's a tram, not at all metro-like.

No LO is a concession (franchise) controlled by TfL rather than the DfT. However it unlike normal TOCs TfL specify the service and staffing levels and set and retain all the fares. The operator of LO are then paid a fee to operate the services, most likely with performance related bonuses and penalties.

Network Rail are still the Infrastructure Controller and look after and operate track and signals like the normal TOC/NR relationship.

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2008 12:05:57 GMT @sweek said:

The Croydon Tram doesn't belong on there at all, I think. It's a tram, not at all metro-like.

I dunno ... it's closer to being a "light rail" system than the trams of old, imo. It feels more like a light rail than it's counterparts in say, Amsterdam, too. I'd argue it belongs on the tube map as much as the DLR does.

Putting the Croydon Tramlink on the tube map would also put much of South London on it for the first time, as well.