Talk:Docklands Light Railway

message: I do not remember Poplar ever being rebuilt "to provide cross-platform interchange between the Stratford and Beckton lines", so I think a citation is needed here. 164.36.38.240 (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The original station was just a two-platform thing; nothing major. It was completely rebuilt into a four-platform station when the new branch was mooted. The primary difference / reason being the direct link across the tunnel entrance being added instead of the sole route coming down from the high-level triangular junction. --AlisonW (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Poplar Station - rebuilt when Beckton Branch constructed?

message: There're 2 logos:
Image:DLRMark.jpg|PNG roundel with text and without transparency:
Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|SVG roundel without text
I think that SVG roundel without text is better, but what do you think? --<Flrntalk> 15:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo

message: I am a little unhappy about the definitive statement concerning the platforms at Tower Gateway.  I deliberately made this vague because I was aware of a later planning application for a change of design.  However a planning application is not the same as planning consent and presumably the original application is still valid.  The fact that this has not been confirmed elsewhere leaves me unconvinced that this will happen - though I think it more likely than not and it does seem eminently sensible.
Has anyone got any evidence that there will be two platforms ?--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: DLRs website proves that there will only be one platform after the rebuild at Tower Gateway. The London Underground map also confirms this as it says the station will be closed until summer 2009 for rebuilding. Unisouth (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The one I added and linked to was the application on which they received consent. You can't change it afterwards! There will be one *line* which is where the confusion may have arisen. --AlisonW (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After another look through DLRs website, there will indeed be two platforms but serving one line as Alison W has said. The north platform will be for boarding and the south platform will be for alighting. Unisouth (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Platforms Planned at Tower Gateway

message: I think we need the bulk of this page archived.  Could someone who knows how to do it please do so.  Some of us would be very grateful--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Simply south (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Archival

message: Maybe these should be split per earler discussions and they make up half the article. 147.197.173.29 (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Developments

message: This has been "rescued" from the main article where it was added incorrectly.
Note: Although it is not grammatically correct, TfL nowadays seem to use mixed upper/lower case when referring to the line names on all literature, maps, signs and even labels on some trains. For example, the Circle line is always listed as Circle line, not Circle Line. However, this convention does not extend to the Docklands Light Railway.
Why say TfL only "seem/seems"? Don't TfL style guides lay down the law on every detail of presentation?
 But (A) justify your prescription
     (B) explain the mass capitalisation on the London Connections map and in TfL
         Journey Planner" says SilasW 29/04/2008
from User:Olana North
:Yeah I saw it as superfluous so I removed the above from all line articles. By the way, it's definitely TfL! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: TfL or TFL

message: Is it really relevant to have even a paragraph of detail on this in this article? Could it be cut down slightly? 78.86.18.55 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: South Quay Bombing

message: Wasn't there a plan to extend the line from Stratford, through lea valley to Tottenham hale?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.191.224 (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tottenham hale

message: The link to Chapter 5: Major Transport and Regeneration Projects, item 5.6.3 given as a reference in the Euston/King's Cross extension section doesn't mention anything about extending the DLR to Euston or Kings Cross.  To Liverpool Street, Farringdon, or Charing Cross, yes.  Euston or Kings Cross, no.  In fact, Euston isn't even mentioned once anywhere in the chapter.  Is the idea original research or a deliberate hoax? 79.74.71.162 (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this was genuinely investigated at least as far as Kings Cross.  I heard the boss of DLR discuss it in a talk.  However I got the impression it was "checked out" rather than pursued with vigour.  I think the proposal to Charing Cross and onward to Victoria as reported in Modern Railways is the one they will go for.  Although this was mentioned in passing in last months Modern Railways I really would like to see something more definitive before amending anything.--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Euston/King's Cross extension

message: I changed this from 28 February 2009 to early 2009.  This was because this is what DLR now currently says.  Someone changed it back again.  There may still be some old references to the original date.  However I think this was merely a contractual date by which the job had to be finished.  DLR has a history of opening before the originally specified date.  As progress is reported to be going well this would seem to be the case here.  I think the normal convention should apply here and the most recent reference wins.  All the recent references quote "early 2009".--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it helps, I was in Woolwich a few weeks ago at the DLR information desk. I asked what they meant by "early 2009". The woman who was there said it would open at the end of January 2009. I'm not going to add this as it would almost certainly fall within original research. D-Notice (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks D-Notice.  Interesting.  I have seen 2nd February mentioned but this is a Monday so I think they will have an unpublicised opening on the afternoon of Friday 30th January.--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Wood Lane and Shepherd's Bush Overground stations are anything to go by, they'd open it on a Sunday... which would be 1st Feb. D-Notice (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I saw in the last TfL board meeting minutes it's opening on 2009-01-10 D-Notice (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening date for Woolwich

message: I notice that the template within articles about individual stations e.g. Tower Gateway DLR station still shows the terminus as King George V.  I would correct this if I knew how to.  Could someone who does know how to please do this ?--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Better now? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Thanks for doing that--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Template for Individual Stations wrong

message: The article says (the bullets are mine for ease of reference):
"Four new stations will be built:
*1 Star Lane (formerly Cody Road),
*2 Abbey Road,
*3 Stratford High Street (formerly Stratford Market)
*4 and Stratford International,
*5 as well as serving West Ham and Stratford."
In #3 "formerly" gives the name of a station once at the site of the DLR station, but for #1 I find no reference to a Cody Road station. Street maps show Cody Road and Star Lane almost collinear, separated by the railway and roads parallel to it. The change of name of a road, or part of it, seems irrelevant to the article.
In #5 the words connect with no subject  (4 new sta.s will be built, A B C & D, as well as serving E & F).
Canning Town ex-NLL platforms too will become DLR.--SilasW (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that Star Lane station was originally going to be called Cody Road, but it was changed. D-Notice (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stations on former NLL

message: Hi all, i made three minor edits to the Rolling Stock section (replaced two words and added a comma) to improve the flow/readability of the section. I was careful not to interfere with any industry-specific terms.Darigan (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Darigan.  Your edits look good to me, I'm sure no one will object to the small changes you have made.  Thanks for the contribution. —fudoreaper (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rolling Stock

message: Recently a user deleted one of the setences and references in this section, dismissing it as contradictory not on topic. Firstly, although it mentions the word 'Tram' in the little, Light Railways are commonly talked about throughout, and modern trams and light railways have become increasingly similar, right down to the rolling stock used. Secondly, as long as the criticisms made are from authoritive and proper sources, they don't have to agree with each other. However, they don't actually disagree when you read into the two statements. One was a complaint that it lacked peak time capacity and was overloaded at busy periods, and another attacked the system for spending most of its time underused. The two viewpoints aren't mutually exclusive, the DLR has the unfortunant position of both lacking and overproviding capacity simotaneously, being under heavy demand for two hours of the day, more than can be managed by the existing two car system hence the upgrades, and the cars travelling along virtually empty for 80% of the day. Thus the seeming contradiction vanishes when this is recognised, the different perspectives between peak time demand verses capacity, and overall use verses potential use at maximum capacity. Neither is wrong, just different perspectives of looking at the performance of the system. Hope this was at least informative for those curious in the matter, and that the section isn't edited out again without discussion. Kyteto (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any stats to support off-peak underusage at present? Although I say this anecdotally, I notice that weekends also generate much traffic. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I haven't had much luck finding further backup to what is currently there, both the ORR and ToL publish monthly and annual statistics covering the system, but so far I haven't found any that breaks them down by the hour. All the media coverage seems to be blotted over by the future capacity expansion plans when doing keyword searches. It would be great if someone does uncover the hour-by-hour figures, if they even choose to correlate their data that way it'll be a good start. I think that the reference should be able to remain standing though, as the vast majority of references on this article actually come from older dates (I added 2/3rds of them a few months ago), and it could be reasoned that past criticisms are almost as important as current ones to demonstrate an element of progression and transition in the system. It isn't ideal though. Kyteto (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms section - explaination

message: However, the ambitions of operators were supported by politicians in Parliament, including then Labour Deputy Prime Minster John Prescott[23] and Lord Whitty,[24] and by 1996 construction work on the line commenced as proposed.[19]
This contains an anachronism as Labour were not in power in 1996. Can someone who knows the history correct this? MRSC (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the reference. It isn't an Anachronism, projects need support after they've started (just look at how many things get cancelled half way though), he was a notable supporter before and AFTER, th reference specifically points to 1998. The wording is confusing, but the reference clears that right up. Kyteto (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology

message: This section seems disjointed and off-topic and it doesn't really fit in with the rest of the article.  The first one-sentence paragraph is a rather vague statement that really isn't worth making.
The rest is devoted to plugging a proposal which is proposed by the London group of the Campaign for Better Transport.  It is a pressure group. As far as I am aware this is not an "official" proposal and even if it was it does not seem especially related to the article.
I would suggest we delete the whole section--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that section could be better summarised as one sentence elsewhere, i.e. that the DLR model could be applied to the North and West London Light Railway. It certainly does not warrant a whole section as you correctly state. NRTurner (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Other locations section

message: The inaugural what?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed! ("inaugural journey"). best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: the inaugural was marred

message: When additional Excel services run, they start from Blackwall. Trains do not run into the Eastbound platform from Royal Victoria any more, so the points at Blackwall are used to reverse the trains. Will update when I can find a reference. WillE (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Excel service

message: Is it strictly speaking correct to say that trains stopping at stations prior to Canning Town from the Beckton branch are running to Tower Gateway or Bank? Trains from the Eastern branch only run into Bank when they are running into service from the Beckton Depot, or when engineering works closes Tower Gateway. I think it might give a false impression to the casual reader. I also note that the Bank Station entry does not list trains to Gallions Reach, for the return journey to the depot.
Thoughts, anyone?
WillE (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Beckton to Bank Services

message: I find it remarkable that 86 per cent of the population were said to be in favour of the extension to Woolwich. Maybe the demographics are unusual but say people typically live to 70 then 14 percent could be in each 10 year cohort; I doubt if a poll is normally taken (or to be taken seriously) where infants' opinions are counted. In any case: is the report of such a poll, where controversy has died through construction, really encyclopedic?--SilasW (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: We want it Mummy

message: The article comes up with a notice about its size. A simpler style (rather than "Write a ten million word essay") might ease that and the task of reading it.--SilasW (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of article

message: Does anyone have details on what ground the DLR runs on? Through the Isle of Dogs it is on brownfield of course, and between Tower Gateway and Limehouse it is along side NR, but All Saints to Bow Church is old track bed isn't it? Is that former NR and why was it converted? Was it abandoned before? What other NR (except for the NLL) ran through the docks before the DLR replaced it? Was the Greenwich to Lewisham section on brownfield? Were buildings knocked down? Was it old NR trackbed? Pre-DLR docklands transport is something that would be good to mention in the history section no?- J.Logan`t: 08:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: old track bed

message: According to a Canadian documentary on OnY's history, a provision of the agreement to build Canary Wharf was that the existing metro lines (perhaps the Jubilee line) would be extended to the building site. Apparently this was a personal promise made by the Iron Lady herself, and when it was broken there was some minor political fallout. There is no mention of this in this article, and it is possible, given the timing, that this story is bogus. Can anyone provide a reference one way or the other? Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: DLR and Canary Wharf

message: This is not a notable section.  There was no incident here, I'm sure worse happens everyday.  There were no injuries, no loss of life nor any damage to rolling stock.  No objections if I remove it? Mtaylor848 (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that as it happened to a VVIP and Head of State, and attracted the attention of the national media, it forfilled the basic requirements of notability. I find it a bit of a pity that it is now gone. Kyteto (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Service difficulties with the Royal train

message: There are some inconstancies due to partial updates on three car trains;
*"A few stations (Elverson Road, Pudding Mill Lane (one platform Stratford Bound), Royal Albert, Gallions Reach, Cutty Sark) have not been extended to accept three-car trains; such extension may be impossible in some cases" (uncited)
*"Funding to upgrade the Beckton branch was not secured until December 2008, and the work will not be completed until early 2011. The only stations which still require upgrading are Beckton, Prince Regent and Custom House for ExCel." (cited but deadlink)
Now, from what I know Cutty Sark will never be extended and Pudding Mill will be extended when it is rebuilt when moved due to Crossrail. As the Bank-Lewisham route is finished either Elverson Road cannot be extended or it has been finished now. On the Beckton route, Royal Victoria is already extended due to Stratford International works while Beckton Park and Cyprus are already long enough.
That leaves Custom House, Prince Regent, Royal Albert, Gallions Reach and Beckton. None of these stations are unable to be extended so the question is what is finished and what isn't. The first quote says Royal Albert and Gallions Reach while the second says Beckton, Prince Regent and Custom House. Is anyone able to find out conclusively which ones are done, which are in works and which are not yet started?- J.Logan`t: 08:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "OR" warning - if you count travelling on the line as OR. Royal Victoria - ready; Custom House for Excel West - still working on lift at West end of the platform thought looks like trains-in-platforms will be offset as protective glass on route to East end lift has been removed and platform edge refaced. Prince Regent for Excel East - still working on it, but don't know exactly what. I seem to recall Gallions Reach will be Selective Door Opening with no little change; Beckton looked complete bar the shouting a couple of months ago. 3 car trains have been spotted running dead at various times of day from the Beckton depot. WillE (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistency

message: I seem to recall many years ago when there was London Underground tube strike that the DLR ran totally automated. Usually, there is a passenger train attendedent, but I am pretty sure being surprised there was not one aboard.
Can someone confirm this. I am talking about early 1990s....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.234.179 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can the DLR 100% automated 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/docklands/index.html
*:Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature1953/
*:Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/docklands/docklands11.html
*:Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/docklands/specs.html
*:Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/docklands/
*:Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: The map shown could use a colour code, at least for the DLR lines. I'd add one, but I'm not sure what to call that particular shade. Does is have a standard name (besides DLR color)?--agr (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "the map shown"? There are several maps in this article. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they mean the "mapcolour" parameter of the infobox, meaning the colour that is used to depict it on the tube map - e.g. the Central Line is described as "red" and the W&C "Corporate Turquoise". I have a local copy of issue 3 of the colour standards document which does not give names to the colours used for lines, but I've heard it described as "teal". Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, the large map in the section headed "Map".  A key would be helpful.--agr (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map colour code 

message: http://www.greenwich-guide.org.uk/november.htm#22 is a correct source for this - not sure where the date in Dec comes from but Cutty Sark opened later than the bulk of the Extension. To be precise, the official opening was Monday 22 November 1999 but the new section was open for free rides from the previous Saturday (20 November 1999) - I was there and used it myself as I live in Lewisham and often shop at ASDA in Crossharbour. Please can someone with more credibility than myself in this section of Wikipedia please adjust the relevant section as I don't need the arguments? Thanks in advance.http://www.greenwich-guide.org.uk/november.htm#22 188.29.9.17 (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lewisham Extension Opening Date 

message: I genuinely do not know what PSA stands for. Could someone more knowledgeable than me please spell it out, as a courtesy to ignorant readers like me.
Herbgold (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Per MOS:ACRO, it's explained the first time that it's used, which is in Docklands Light Railway#Initial system (1987–1990). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  PSA 

message: I always thought "Sooty" was named after its number CT1, (not saying it didn't smoke a bit tho') and of course it almost always pulled a flatbed affectionately known as "Sweep"
Ripov (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depots 

message: Hello Wikipedians,
I am currently remaking the WHOLE page for the DLR wiki page. I would absolutely appreciate if some other wiki editors help me and add new information for the DLR. Thanks.
I will be adding new info, as well as fixing old links etc. OfficialNeon (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remaking Page Project 

message: These sentences:
The former station stood on the only significant section of single track on the system, between Bow Church and Stratford,[85] though the opportunity will be taken to double the track in three stages, to improve capacity. There was originally no provision for works beyond the realigned section in the Crossrail Act.
Seem like they should read:
The former station stood on the only significant section of single track on the system, between Bow Church and Stratford.[85] The opportunity will be taken to double the track in three stages, to improve capacity, though there was originally no provision for works beyond the realigned section in the Crossrail Act.
Or (less preferable).
The former station stood on the only significant section of single track on the system, between Bow Church and Stratford.[85] There was originally no provision for works beyond the realigned section in the Crossrail Act, though the opportunity will be taken to double the track in three stages, to improve capacity.
I am only trying to improve how it reads. The text as is seems unclear.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.34.78 (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relocation ... 

message: 404 not found  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.210.152 (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is apparently common to all articles in :Category:Articles using KML from Wikidata. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

text: The problem was reported at Template talk:Attached KML. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Route map: link

message: Wasn't there once talk of sending DLR trains down the Waterloo and City line? Would make a lot of sense, and abolish that otherwise rather silly line.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.210.152 (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: extensions

message: Couple of points following my edits - 
Given that the "Replacement of Tower Gateway station with interchange at Tower Hill" turns out the proposal was for a "long term aspiration (2050)" is this really worth leaving in the article as a "proposed extension" for the next 30+ years? Or would this be best left in the tower gateway article.
Furthermore, many of the other extensions to bromley/victoria etc are not currently proposed and were merely suggestions/ideas in previous studies by TFL. Given they are no longer under consideration, how best to represent them? Turini2 (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  extensions 

message: By "Rail-Way" I mean that which would be left if the passenger facilities were by magic completely removed - no stations, no passenger compartments, no routes.  The side box does include
Track gauge   1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in) standard gauge
and
Electrification   750 V DC third rail (bottom contact)
but there seems to be nothing in the main text.
The Article needs a section including an end-view of the track showing the shape and size of the running rails and how the third rail is positioned, showing the presumed coning of the wheels, showing how the running connection to the third rail is made - and where the platform edge goes.  There should be something on the treatment of the third rail at points.
It needs something on the motors and on which are the driven wheels.
It needs something about how the power is converted from the presumed high voltage AC power that the DLR gets from the National Grid (or wherever) - and it could say whether the third rail is positive or negative.  How much power does a train take, what is the peak power taken by the DLR, and the typical kWh/day?  What about the stations - are they supplied as a shop of similar size might be, or what?
It should be possible to cover all that within the equivalent of a traditionally-typed A4 page, plus diagrams. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  More needed about the Rail-Way itself 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The list of stations page List of Docklands Light Railway stations has a very detailed background section for a list page - shouldn't this information be here on this page (or a 'history of' page). A better example would be something like List of London Underground stations, right? Turini2 (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been actioned, I'll pull across any useful text to here. Turini2 (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have dumped the aforementioned history section here for now User:Turini2/DLRsandbox - I'll get to it in a bit, unless someone else wants a crack at it! Turini2 (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of stations 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Connaught Road DLR station and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 20#Connaught Road DLR station until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Connaught Road DLR station" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I have added a section on the important topic of CO2 emissions based on official figures.  However I do not know why the figures are so much higher than London Underground (30 times!).  If anyone knows please do add an explanation...51.6.235.59 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @51.6.235.59 I've removed this - as I believe the FOI number is an error, perhaps an order of magnitude out. There's no reason an electrified railway would be 30x more polluting than the London Underground! TfL's Health Safety and Environment report has these figures for a London wide basis - around 40 to 60 carbon emissions grams (g) of CO2e per passenger km (page 49) https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-hse-annual-report-2017-18.pdf  Turini2 (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

text: See page 29 of this report. It gives  per passenger km across the range of TfL transport modes. The figures are much more along the lines of what common sense would dictate. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  CO2 Emissions 

message: Need a lot more technical detail, eg. traction current is 750 Vdc supplied through unusual "upside down" traction rail. Use and link to https://www.thetrams.co.uk/dlr/trains/ . - RHaworth  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.40.235 (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical 

message: I don't think that the DLR has 7 lines, as the article says.
Looking at the history (e.g. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Docklands_Light_Railway&oldid=601967934 ) this used to say 7 services, which is very different from 7 lines. For example, the District Line is 1 line with 6 services, according to its own Wikipedia article as of today.
Ultimately, 7 lines is simply incorrect. However, it's not clear what the right solution is. Options are:
- Restore the term "Services", and bring back the full list of services (as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Docklands_Light_Railway&oldid=596609767 ), AND/OR
- Change it to "lines = 3", in accordance with the colour-coding used on the TfL's own DLR maps, seen here: https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/track/dlr , OR
- Maybe just remove this, or treat it all as 1 line (much like the Northern and District Lines are treated as 1 "line", despite being extremely non-linear in shape) 
Jmmolenick (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think anything other than the 3 shown on the maps is probably going to be original research. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of lines (or services)