Talk:Docklands Light Railway/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

When DLR was conceived

I've changed the reference to the DLR being concieved in the late 80s to read "early 80s". As the live opened in 1987, this makes more sense, and is borne out by the history section on the DLR website, where 1982 is given as the first reference. 164.36.142.217 13:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC) WillE at work...

Level Crossings

Is it without level crossings?

If so, is it perhaps more than light rail and rather a "true metro system" as defined in the underground article: an urban, electric mass transit system, totally independent from other traffic, with high service frequency? Patrick 16:01 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC)

It has no level crossings. So in terms of service, maybe it's more a metro (though it has many branches, it's a network rather than a line). It's light rail tech though, and is called thus. -- Tarquin

A very minor point. Apparently there is a level crossing on the DLR but it is within the Beckton depot so not really worth mentioning.--Pedantic of Purley 07:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The map refers to "Elverston Road" and the text to "Elverson Road", not sure which is right so I can't correct. Mat-C 14:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The map is wrong - it's Elverson, no "t". -- ChrisO 21:49, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You Yanks should look at the evidence before making such statements - firstly, the DLR generally runs fine, secondly, if there is a problem, the trains can be controlled manually, thirdly, many other places have driverless trains, for example the Paris Metro. Thanks.

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)

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)

Photos

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I am probably getting over pinickity but I am not convinced that refurbishment of a couple of arches under the station platforms and a splaying-out of the steps really qualifies under "future developments". If we had a "refurbishment" section it would qualify for this. Compared to the other items in this section I have yet to be convinced this is something other than a very minor improvement. It is basically a facelift. I suspect there is a bit of political beating the drum by TfL/Mayor's office here to show that they are doing something for the the local people in the area and not just addressing the needs of Docklands businesses. Back to my point that we have to be objective and even if what is on the TfL website is factually correct it doesn't mean we have to give it the hype that they do.--Pedantic of Purley 10:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll move it from the page. Simply south 11:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Theres now a bit more detail on it which seems to include building a new station for better interchange. See Shadwell Station Improvements - Background. Simply south 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that which seems to be more than was originally suggested by either the website or the notices around the works affected. It seems that they have "snuck in" a phase three. I cannot quite visualise what is planned in this phase. For what its worth I still don't think phase I and II amount to much - a lot of it is simply repairs/bringing up to modern standards masquerading as something big. If you think it is worthy of inclusion in the main article and can summarise it I won't make any further suggestions as to it being removed - but I personally still think on balance it does not merit being in the main DLR article. Maybe once phase III is confirmed it will be different ? --Pedantic of Purley 10:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

Accidents

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

Custom House

If anyone is interested, i have put this up on WP:RM to be moved to the DLR station article, at least until Crossrail is opened. Simply south 16:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Port of London Authority Railways

As the existing remains and some of the station names were "reused" by the DLR, some mention should be made. Jackiespeel 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Map upgrade request

Map needed
 It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in England may be able to help!

It is a bit hard to have any sense of where these lines are with respect to city. A map not unlike Image:Docks-transport.jpg (but showing the whole of London) would be helpful in establishing geographic context, especially for non-Londoners like me. -- Beland 21:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This map Image:London Underground full map.png displayed on Portal:London Transport seems to fit your requirements, i'm not sure if it would be apropriate to include it in this artice given that there are already a lot of maps and diagrams on this page Oxyman42 (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Barking Reach/Riverside

The DLR consultation document [1] states that the area is now to be known as "Barking Riverside" and so I've altered the heading to reflect this. D-Notice 00:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Medium capacity system vs Light Rail

I believe the Docklands Light Railway should be classed as a Medium capacity rail systemas it does not fall into the definition of Light Rail. L blue l 03:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The system has probably evolved into a Medium capacity system from it's beginings as a light rail syatem, but you are always going to have the dificulty that it is called the Docklands Light Railway. Oxyman42 (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
‘Light rail’ has many meanings. The DLR is — and always has been — quite unlike what gets called ‘light rail’ in the United States, but on the other hand it’s closely parallel to the ‘light rail’ you’ll find in parts of Asia and elsewhere in Europe, so I don’t think there’s a problem here. David Arthur (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoken Version added

I have added a spoken version of this article; see the link at the top. Hassocks5489 16:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Gauge

Which is actually the gauge of this railway? Is it 1000 mm (narrow gauge) or 1435 mm (standard gauge)? --Voyager 20:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It is standard gauge, like the underground and national rail. Claret 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Airport Branch Opening Date

Dexovo changed this from 2 December 2005 to 6 December 2005 and a Times Online article was cited to verify this. This was an understandable change but unfortunately, as is often the case, even supposedly reliable sources like the Times get things like this wrong. The official opening ceremony was indeed on Tuesday 6th but the line actually opened in the late afternoon of the preceding Friday (the 2nd). I definitely travelled on it on the 3rd and Diamond Geezer (diamondgeezer.blogspot.com) confirms it was open by the 3rd December. I am pretty sure there are various sets of photos on flickr showing it open on the 2nd. Unfortunately I cannot find a simply authoritative source that is still on the web to confirm this. Can anyone else ?

I would like to point out that common sense tells you that new branches do not open in the middle of the week (HS1 excepted due to very unusual and specific circumstances). It is common to open on a Friday afternoon if possible (e.g. Victoria Line, Vic Line Brixton extension, Jubilee Line stage 1) to give the maximum opportunity to "bed-in" before being subjected to high loading on the following Monday.--Pedantic of Purley 17:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

at the end of the train you see a door between the LEDP (lead emergency driving) and the FAP (fault auxiliary panel) read the notice on it and it says (note to vehicle operator) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.0.134 (talk) 19:34, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

PSA / VO

One user seems to be insistant that PSAs are now known as VOs, but has failed to provide evidence to back this up. Until he does, I'll revert it. This is a conversation that occurred between him and myself on my talk page, indented for clarity:

Hi i work for serco dlr thats how i know about the VO many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielthesaint (talk • contribs) 18:48, 18 August 2007
It'd still be nice if you could provide a reliable source for this - signage on the rolling stock still use PSA. TheIslander 18:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


you know what a traffic notice is? it tells us whats happing in the week and it does not say PSA it says VO rolling stock still use PSA...may i ask do you work or know anybody who works at DLR? also at the end doors of the train it says NOTE TO VEHICLE OPERATOR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielthesaint (talk • contribs) 20:21, 18 August 2007
Please sign your comments by typing ~~~~, which Wikipedia converts to a signature and timestamp. Nope, I don't work for the DLR, Serco or even TfL (though I'd really love a go at pressing buttons under that so-tempting looking pannel at the front... =P ). I am, however, an infrequent passenger on the DLR, and, as it happens, used it last week. It seems that, as far as the public are concerned, it's still PSA for the moment - see here, specifically "The Passenger Service Agent can drive trains in a manual mode with all the protection of Automatic Train Protection. If the Passenger Service Agent attempts to over speed or depart when a route has not been set, the train will automatically apply the emergency brakes preventing further movement.". Also, as I mentioned, signage still uses PSA. As for the "note at the end doors of the train", I assume you mean on the platform? If so, I suspect that that's just an internal phrase, but that you're still a PSA to us. If you can find an online, publically available source, preferably from TfL, DLR or Serco themselves, that confirm that they are indeed now refered to as VO's, then I see no problem with it staying as such. If, as I suspect, however, it's just a new internal phrase, then it's not really best for Wikipedia. Thanks, TheIslander 19:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Danielthesaint 19:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC) i know how the train works i operate them and the end doors are on the train where you the public seat thinking its a bloody rollercoaster next time you seat at the EDP (where we somtimes drive the train) you can read it...
Gah, don't be so grumpy - it's great fun, 'tis like the underground, but you can see out the front! The only reason you don't find it amazing is 'cause it's what you do every day :P. Do you mean the sign that says something like "Please be prepared to give up this seat if the PSA [VO] needs to operate the train from the front", or something like that? If so, then I'll admit defeat, as that'll be proof enough for me. (quick tip - 'tis usual to sign your post at the end). TheIslander 19:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, my view is that this must be a new internal name - however, no evidence has been provided one way or the other. TheIslander 20:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Danielthesaint 19:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)at the end of the train you see a door between the LEDP (lead emergency driving) and the FAP (fault auxiliary panel) read the notice on it and it says (note to vehicle operator)
At the end of the train above the LEDP, you'll see a notice stating something along the lines of "Please be prepared to vacate this seat if required to do so by a passenger service agent (PSA)". Also see here, specifically the line "The Passenger Service Agent can drive trains in a manual mode with all the protection of Automatic Train Protection." Also see here, on the DLR site again. Also see here, on BBC h2g2, specifically the line "The train is manned by a Passenger Service Agent6 (PSA), whose job is to check tickets, make announcements7, open and close the doors at stops, and take over control if there are any problems with the system." Also see here. Also, bear in mind that typing "Docklands Light Railway PSA" throws up a multitude of useful links, "Docklands Light Railway VO" doesn't. See, whereas I can come up with a multitude of internet links and sources citing PSA, you can cite none for VO. Please, before re-inserting, find a decent internet source that uses VO, or we'll need to go through WP:3O. TheIslander 19:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
78.86.0.134 20:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)what pissed me off is that i work for dlr and you don't i know more about it you don't so stop being a bigger body than me....i know what a vo is you don't this is part of the 2007 franchise and sometimes we can be known as train captains as avis says when the train is out of service NOT PSA.....
Please bear in mind that you have just broken the three revert rule. Unfortunatly, I can't really report you for it, as I didn't warn you before. I have now, though, so please refrain from continually reverting without proper sources, or risk being blocked for 24 hours upwards. TheIslander 20:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to request at 3O

Danielthesaint: Firstly, you need to stop waiving your credentials like a cudgel, because that will not endear you to any editor; it is a practice that is widely disliked around WP. Secondly, you need to read up on the processes of verifiability and original research. The Islander has provided the necessary reliable sources – some of which are secondary, as preferred by WP:RS – to substantiate his claim. You continue to attempt to rely on your credentials and your own research without providing sources. Not only that, but "vehicle operator" can be an entirely generic term for one who operates a vehicle, so I would not be at all surprised to see such a term used at some point as a substitution for an alternative term, when directed towards people who are directly involved in the running of the vehicle in question. The public is likely to be consistently presented with whatever term has been chosen for their benefit. In view of your failure to adhere to the relevant policies, I have to favour The Islander's assertion. However, if you can provide even one reliable source other than your own assertion, perhaps you would be willing to entertain a compromise rewrite that acknowledges the use of the generic term, wherever it may be used. Adrian M. H. 20:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that the last two edit summaries from TheIslander have referred to the above 3O as a "ruling". I just want to make the point, for the benefit of all concerned, that third opinions are not rulings. They are not cast from stone and are not enforced by any policy or guideline other than what is outlined on the 3O page itself. They are intended as a form of tie breaker that may foster the collaboration and compromise necessary to end the disagreement. Both parties should respect the third party's assessment, however, and I mention that fact by way of a suggestion to Danielthesaint/78.86.0.134 that he not indulge in an edit war in an attempt to get his own way. Edit wars are met with a very dim view and are covered by policies/guidelines such as WP:3RR. So don't be a dick about it. Adrian M. H. 23:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup, it's a fair cop. Sorry for using the word ruling - it's what I was thinking, to be honest, but you're quite right. Thanks for your input. TheIslander 23:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Boo! I will be around for a few mins, leave me a message if you want a revert. Might not be around for very long though! Tiddly-Tom 23:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You can now report for violating WP:3RR. Tiddly-Tom 23:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Um, thanks very much for your help, Tom, but I don't particularly want to collaborate with another user to circumvent 3RR myself. I'm taking appropriate action here, and though I really appreciate your help and concern, I certainly don't want to do anything that could be construed as bending the rules. Thanks anyway, TheIslander 23:37, 27

August 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I deffinaly did not want you to get in trouble! Good luck with your RfA, I tried to put in a good word ;) Tiddly-Tom 23:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have warned 78.86.0.134 over his four reverts of this page. I won't (yet) bring his conduct to AN3 (partly because it is a pain to set it properly), but one more revert and that's where he will be heading. Adrian M. H. 23:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As I feel this represents quite a number of violations in one (WP:3RR, WP:V, WP:OR), I have reported him to the admin board, as I'm not entirely sure which is worse of the above mentioned. It's got to stop, though. TheIslander 23:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
He has now racked up 'six reversions in short order, so I have lodged a report at AN3. Adrian M. H. 00:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
An interesting little detail that I thought I'd point out: the initials 'PSA' are mentioned twice more further down the article, yet it seems to be the top mentions only that this user is interested in persistantly reverting to 'VO'. Proof that not only are they refusing to provide sources, but they're not even reading through the article fully. TheIslander 00:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The Islander, watch out for the 3RR. Tiddly-Tom 18:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that, Tom. It's Danielthesaint you should be warning, not me. TheIslander 18:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
They are officialy known as Passenger Service Agents. Unisouth 16:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Danielthesaint 01:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)old news now mate but i still stand with the VO so until i get my proof you can seat on this one for now

71.83.122.55 23:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)true

Serco docklands 17:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)The above mention of vo is only used for internal staff

Audio

The audio recording made at the start of this year needs to be updated. It also misses facts which were current both then and now, such as the DLR extends to Beckton. Simply south 12:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Route Diagram

Just a heads-up: I made a route diagram over at Template:DLR Route diagram. It's far from finished, but I just thought you guys might like to know. Kevin Steinhardt 11:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Darn it, I knew I should have read the discussion page before I added my own!! I'll delete mine - yours is way better :-) Adetaylor 15:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What a mess!

There are faaaar too many boxes at the top of this page. It looks a total mess! I don't have the knowledge to do anything about it, so could someone please tidy it up? jdan 15:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This page, i.e. the talk page? It really doesn't matter that much - it's not the article. However, I've collapsed the wikiproject boxes. TheIslander 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)