text:
Deicide (band)

Deicide is an American death metal band formed in Tampa, Florida in 1987 by drummer/composer Steve Asheim and guitarist brothers Eric and Brian Hoffman as "Carnage", then hiring bassist/vocalist/lyricist Glen Benton and becoming "Amon". They would later change the band name to Deicide in 1989. The band rose to mainstream success in 1992 with their second album Legion, and is credited as the second-best-selling death metal band of the Soundscan Era, after Cannibal Corpse. Since their debut album in 1990, Deicide has released thirteen studio albums, one live album, two compilation albums and two live DVDs. In November 2003, their first two albums, Deicide and Legion, were ranked second and third place respectively in best-selling death metal albums of the SoundScan era. Deicide is known for their lyrics, which cover topics such as Satanism, anti-Christianity and blasphemy. Their lyrics have resulted in bans, lawsuits and criticism from religious groups and the general public.

Early days as Amon/Carnage (1987–1989)
Deicide was formed in Tampa, Florida on July 21, 1987, after guitarist Brian Hoffman called Glen Benton, replying to an advertisement the latter had placed in a local music magazine. Hoffman and his brother, along with drummer Steve Asheim, had previously played together as the band "Carnage", which was in need of a bassist and vocalist. Carnage played cover songs by Slayer, Exodus, Celtic Frost and Dark Angel.

The new band, called Amon, consisted of Benton (bass and vocals), Hoffman, Hoffman's brother Eric (guitars) and Steve Asheim (drums). Within a month, they had recorded the Feasting the Beast 8-track demo in Benton's garage and had started playing the occasional gig in the Tampa area. In 1989, Amon recorded their second demo, Sacrificial, at Morrisound with producer Scott Burns.

Malevolent Creation guitarist Phil Fasciana recalls an early Carnage show: "It was like Slayer intensified a thousand times." "I guess Carnage had hollowed out a mannequin and filled it with fuckin' blood and guts from a butcher shop... and then they threw the fuckin' thing on the floor. Morbid Angel had these pit bulls with them back then and they were just tearing the meat up. It was a really weird scene, man. There was blood and meat everywhere."

As Deicide (1989–2004)
Benton reportedly stormed into Roadrunner Records' A&R man Monte Conner's office and presented him with the demo, saying, "Sign us, you fucking asshole!" The next day contracts were issued to the band. Although this version of events was later denied by Benton, who claimed he indeed visited the office but never used profanities. In 1989 the band's name was changed to Deicide at the request of Roadrunner Records.

Deicide then released their self-titled debut album, also produced by Scott Burns at Morrisound, in 1990. Their debut featured re-recorded versions of all six of the Sacrificial tunes that had secured them their record deal. Both the Hoffman brothers tended to play technical solos at fast speeds and with overlapping riffs, which gave Deicide the definitive heavy sound and complex song structures. This lineup remained intact until November 25, 2004, in the wake of increasing animosity between Glen Benton and the Hoffmans allegedly in regards to royalties and publishing. The Hoffman brothers later went on to reform Amon.

Post-Hoffman brothers period (2004–present)
Shortly after, the guitar roles were then filled by former Cannibal Corpse guitarist Jack Owen, and Vital Remains guitarist Dave Suzuki. Following the tour, Suzuki was replaced by guitarist Ralph Santolla. Santolla stated he was a Catholic, which had received a small amount of shock and ridicule from some metal fans. In spite of this, Deicide's eighth studio album The Stench of Redemption, which was released on August 22, 2006, received rave reviews.

In January 2007, Benton left the European tour and returned home to the United States as a result of legal issues at home. Asheim announced that Seth van Loo, from opening act Severe Torture, and Garbaty "Yaha", from the Polish death metal band Dissenter, would be replacing Benton starting on January 9 in the Netherlands, until Benton could rejoin the tour. Benton rejoined the band in Paris on January 13. On May 24, 2007, it was announced Ralph Santolla had left Deicide. Subsequently, he joined Florida's Obituary and appeared on their album Xecutioner's Return as well as the tour. On July 20, 2007, guitarist Jack Owen announced that Deicide would be "on hiatus" and he had joined Ohio based death/thrash combo Estuary for touring purposes. The band embarked on a Balkan tour, dubbed "Balkans AssassiNation Tour", in October 2007 alongside Krisiun, Incantation and Inactive Messiah.

By November 2007, Deicide began work on their ninth studio album at Florida's Morrisound Studios. Entitled Till Death Do Us Part, the follow-up to The Stench of Redemption, promised to be the band's "most savage and aggressive [offering] to date", according to a press release. Drummer Steve Asheim recorded drum tracks and Benton started recording vocals in December 2007. In April 2008, two songs off the album were posted online. It was finally released on April 28, 2008. As the record was coming out, Benton considered retiring from music, in the midst of personal matters including a custody battle.

On January 6, 2009, Deicide posted a blog on their official Myspace page saying they had signed a worldwide record deal with Century Media, with Ralph Santolla returning to the band for a European tour. They were said to be working on material for a summer 2010 release. In early 2009, they toured with Vital Remains and Order of Ennead. Guitarist Kevin Quirion of Order of Ennead joined the band in the summer of 2009.

In June 2010, Glen Benton revealed that the next Deicide album was to be titled To Hell with God. It was produced by Mark Lewis at Audiohammer Studios in Sanford, Florida, and was released on February 15, 2011. The eleventh studio album In the Minds of Evil was released on November 26, 2013.

In November 2016, it was apparent that guitarist Jack Owen was no longer in the band and had been replaced by Monstrosity guitarist Mark English without an official announcement. Owen went on to join Six Feet Under in February 2017.

On October 9, 2014, The Village Voice reported that Deicide had started working on new material for their twelfth studio album. On March 10, 2017, Deicide announced a short U.S. tour which would begin in May and also issued an update on the album: "the new record is almost completed, right now its down to scheduling, this run of shows were setting up is to introduce and work in our new guitarist Mark English, that and I need a break from this thing called Florida…". The album titled Overtures of Blasphemy was released on September 14, 2018.

On June 6, 2018, former guitarist Ralph Santolla died due to complications following a heart attack and was taken off life support since being in a coma for a week.

In February 2019, Deicide parted ways with Mark English and replaced him with Autumn's End vocalist/guitarist Chris Cannella.

On April 17, 2021, the band performed in front of an audience of full capacity at The Verona in New Port Richey amid the COVID-19 pandemic, as all restrictions for businesses were lifted and mask mandate enforcements for local cities in Florida were removed as the state was moved into Stage 3 in late September 2020. A U.S. tour followed soon after, with Kataklysm, Internal Bleeding and Begat the Nephilim.

On January 19, 2022, Chris Cannella left the band and was replaced by new guitarist Taylor Nordberg. The thirteenth album Banished by Sin was released through Reigning Phoenix Music on April 26, 2024. It was the album of the month on metallian.com. The band was touring Europe.

Controversy
Deicide has received considerable controversy relating to their albums and lyrics, which include vehement anti-Christian themes, such as "Death to Jesus", "Fuck Your God", "Kill the Christian", "Behead the Prophet" and "Scars of the Crucifix", among others. Drummer Asheim said, "The whole point of Satanic music is to blaspheme against the Church", "I don't believe in or worship a devil. Life is short enough without having to waste it doing this whole organised praying, hoping, wishing-type thing on some superior being".

Most of the controversy surrounded frontman Benton for a rash of shocking interviews and wild statements. Benton has repeatedly branded an inverted cross into his forehead on at least 12 different occasions. During an interview with NME magazine, he shot and killed a squirrel with a pellet gun to prevent any further damage to his electrical system in the attic at the location the interview was held. This act garnered negative attention from critics and some animal rights activists. Benton had professed beliefs in theistic Satanism during Deicide's early years, claimed to slaughter rodents for fun, and that he held beliefs in demonic possession and that he was possessed. Such statements had eventually been concluded as tongue-in-cheek and little more than sensationalism by band members questioned alternatively. Additionally, Benton claimed in the early 1990s that he would commit suicide at the age of 33 to "mirror" a lifespan opposite that of Jesus Christ. However, he passed that age in 2000 and did not commit suicide, rebutting in 2006 that these statements had been "asinine remarks" and that "only cowards and losers" choose to kill themselves.

Deicide has been banned from playing in several venues (such as Valparaiso, Chile over a promotional poster featuring Jesus Christ with a bullet hole in his forehead ) and with various festivals such as Hellfest, after several graves had been spray-painted with "When Satan Rules His World", a reference to a song from Deicide's 1995 album Once upon the Cross. In addition, their music video for "Homage for Satan", which features blood-splattered zombies on a rampaging mission to capture a priest, was banned from UK music TV channel Scuzz.

In 1992, Deicide was on tour in Europe with Atrocity from Germany and Gorefest, a Dutch death metal band. In Stockholm, during the Gorefest set, a bomb was discovered on-stage. It exploded in the club in which they were playing. The bomb was located to the rear of the stage, behind a heavy, fireproof door. The explosion was big enough to deform the door and blow it off its hinges. Deicide managed to play three songs before the police decided to stop the concert and evacuate the club. At first, Benton blamed that attack on the Norwegian black metal scene, where Deicide's brand of death metal was despised by some. Many people blamed animal rights activists who were angered at Deicide's lyrical themes of animal sacrifice.

Current members

 * Steve Asheim – drums (1987–present), guitars (2007–2008, 2018)
 * Glen Benton – bass, lead vocals (1987–present)
 * Kevin Quirion – guitars, backing vocals (2007–2008, 2009–2010, 2011–present)
 * Taylor Nordberg – guitars, backing vocals (2022–present)

Former members

 * Eric Hoffman – guitars (1987–2004)
 * Brian Hoffman – guitars (1987–2004)
 * Ralph Santolla – guitars (2005–2007, 2008–2009, 2010–2011; died 2018)
 * Jack Owen – guitars (2004–2016)
 * Mark English – guitars (2016–2019)
 * Chris Cannella – guitars, backing vocals (2019–2022)

Live members

 * Dave Suzuki – guitars (2004)
 * Seth Van Loo – vocals (2007)
 * Dariusz "Garbaty Yaha" Kułpiński – bass, lead vocals (2007)

Discography

 * Deicide (1990)
 * Legion (1992)
 * Once upon the Cross (1995)
 * Serpents of the Light (1997)
 * Insineratehymn (2000)
 * In Torment in Hell (2001)
 * Scars of the Crucifix (2004)
 * The Stench of Redemption (2006)
 * Till Death Do Us Part (2008)
 * To Hell with God (2011)
 * In the Minds of Evil (2013)
 * Overtures of Blasphemy (2018)
 * Banished by Sin (2024)

title: Deicide (band)


text:
Daniel Williamson

Daniel Williamson may refer to:
 * Danny Williamson (footballer) (born 1973), former English footballer
 * A DJ, stage name LTJ Bukem
 * Daniel Alexander Williamson (1823–1903), British artist

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Daniel Williamson


text:
Division of labour

The division of labour is the separation of the tasks in any economic system or organisation so that participants may specialise (specialisation). Individuals, organisations, and nations are endowed with or acquire specialised capabilities, and either form combinations or trade to take advantage of the capabilities of others in addition to their own. Specialised capabilities may include equipment or natural resources as well as skills. Training and combinations of equipment and other assets acting together are often important. For example, an individual may specialise by acquiring tools and the skills to use them effectively just as an organisation may specialise by acquiring specialised equipment and hiring or training skilled operators. The division of labour is the motive for trade and the source of economic interdependence.

An increasing division of labour is associated with the growth of total output and trade, the rise of capitalism, and the increasing complexity of industrialised processes. The concept and implementation of division of labour has been observed in ancient Sumerian (Mesopotamian) culture, where assignment of jobs in some cities coincided with an increase in trade and economic interdependence. Division of labour generally also increases both producer and individual worker productivity.

After the Neolithic Revolution, pastoralism and agriculture led to more reliable and abundant food supplies, which increased the population and led to specialisation of labour, including new classes of artisans, warriors, and the development of elites. This specialisation was furthered by the process of industrialisation, and Industrial Revolution-era factories. Accordingly, many classical economists as well as some mechanical engineers, such as Charles Babbage, were proponents of division of labour. Also, having workers perform single or limited tasks eliminated the long training period required to train craftsmen, who were replaced with less-paid but more productive unskilled workers.

Plato
In Plato's Republic, the origin of the state lies in the natural inequality of humanity, which is embodied in the division of labour:

"Well then, how will our state supply these needs? It will need a farmer, a builder, and a weaver, and also, I think, a shoemaker and one or two others to provide for our bodily needs. So that the minimum state would consist of four or five men...."

Silvermintz (2010) noted that "Historians of economic thought credit Plato, primarily on account of arguments advanced in his Republic, as an early proponent of the division of labour." Notwithstanding this, Silvermintz argues that "While Plato recognises both the economic and political benefits of the division of labour, he ultimately critiques this form of economic arrangement insofar as it hinders the individual from ordering his own soul by cultivating acquisitive motives over prudence and reason."

Xenophon
Xenophon, in the 4th century BC, makes a passing reference to division of labour in his Cyropaedia (a.k.a. Education of Cyrus).

"Just as the various trades are most highly developed in large cities, in the same way, food at the palace is prepared in a far superior manner. In small towns, the same man makes couches, doors, ploughs and tables, and often he even builds houses, and still, he is thankful if only he can find enough work to support himself. And it is impossible for a man of many trades to do all of them well. In large cities, however, because many make demands on each trade, one alone is enough to support a man, and often less than one: for instance one man makes shoes for men, another for women, there are places even where one man earns a living just by mending shoes, another by cutting them out, another just by sewing the uppers together, while there is another who performs none of these operations but assembles the parts. Of necessity, he who pursues a very specialised task will do it best."

Augustine of Hippo
A simile used by Augustine of Hippo shows that the division of labour was practised and understood in late Imperial Rome. In a brief passage of his The City of God, Augustine seems to be aware of the role of different social layers in the production of goods, like household (familiae), corporations (collegia) and the state.

"…like workmen in the street of the silversmiths, where one vessel, in order that it may go out perfect, passes through the hands of many, when it might have been finished by one perfect workman. But the only reason why the combined skill of many workmen was thought necessary, was, that it is better that each part of an art should be learned by a special workman, which can be done speedily and easily, than that they should all be compelled to be perfect in one art throughout all its parts, which they could only attain slowly and with difficulty."

Medieval Muslim scholars
The division of labour was discussed by multiple medieval Persian scholars. They considered the division of labour between members of a household, between members of society and between nations. For Nasir al-Din al-Tusi and al-Ghazali the division of labour was necessary and useful. The similarity of the examples provided by these scholars with those provided by Adam Smith (such as al-Ghazali's needle factory and Tusi's claim that exchange, and by extension the division of labour, are the consequences of the human reasoning capability and that no animals have been observed to exchange one bone for another) led some scholars to conjecture that Smith was influenced by the medieval Persian scholarship.

William Petty

Sir William Petty was the first modern writer to take note of the division of labour, showing its has worth in existence and usefulness in Dutch shipyards. Classically, the workers in a shipyard would build ships as units, finishing one before starting another. But the Dutch had it organised with several teams each doing the same tasks for successive ships. People with a particular task to do must have discovered new methods that were only later observed and justified by writers on political economy.

Petty also applied the principle to his survey of Ireland. His breakthrough was to divide up the work so that large parts of it could be done by people with no extensive training.

Bernard de Mandeville

Bernard de Mandeville discussed the matter in the second volume of The Fable of the Bees (1714). This elaborates many matters raised by the original poem about a 'Grumbling Hive'. He says: "But if one will wholly apply himself to the making of Bows and Arrows, whilst another provides Food, a third builds Huts, a fourth makes Garments, and a fifth Utensils, they not only become useful to one another, but the Callings and Employments themselves will in the same Number of Years receive much greater Improvements, than if all had been promiscuously followed by every one of the Five."

David Hume
"When every individual person labors apart, and only for himself, his force is too small to execute any considerable work; his labour being employed in supplying all his different necessities, he never attains a perfection in any particular art; and as his force and success are not at all times equal, the least failure in either of these particulars must be attended with inevitable ruin and misery. Society provides a remedy for these three inconveniences. By the conjunction of forces, our power is augmented: By the partition of employment, our ability increases: And by mutual succour we are less exposed to fortune and accidents. 'Tis by this additional force, ability, and security, that society becomes advantageous." - David Hume, A Treatise on Human Nature

Henri-Louis Duhamel du Monceau
In his introduction to The Art of the Pin-Maker (Art de l'Épinglier, 1761), Henri-Louis Duhamel du Monceau writes about the "division of this work":

"There is nobody who isn't surprised of the small price of pins; but we shall be even more surprised, when we know how many different operations, most of them very delicate, are mandatory to make a good pin. We are going to go through these operations in a few words to stimulate the curiosity to know their detail; this enumeration will supply as many articles which will make the division of this work.… The first operation is to have brass go through the drawing plate to calibrate it.…"

By "division of this work," du Monceau is referring to the subdivisions of the text describing the various trades involved in the pin making activity; this can also be described as a division of labour.

Adam Smith

In the first sentence of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), Adam Smith foresaw the essence of industrialism by determining that division of labour represents a substantial increase in productivity. Like du Monceau, his example was the making of pins.

Unlike Plato, Smith famously argued that the difference between a street porter and a philosopher was as much a consequence of the division of labour as its cause. Therefore, while for Plato the level of specialisation determined by the division of labour was externally determined, for Smith it was the dynamic engine of economic progress. However, in a further chapter of the same book, Smith criticised the division of labour, saying that it makes man "as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become" and that it can lead to "the almost entire corruption and degeneracy of the great body of the people.…unless the government takes some pains to prevent it." The contradiction has led to some debate over Smith's opinion of the division of labour. Alexis de Tocqueville agreed with Smith: "Nothing tends to materialize man, and to deprive his work of the faintest trace of mind, more than extreme division of labor." Adam Ferguson shared similar views to Smith, though was generally more negative.

The specialisation and concentration of the workers on their single subtasks often leads to greater skill and greater productivity on their particular subtasks than would be achieved by the same number of workers each carrying out the original broad task, in part due to increased quality of production, but more importantly because of increased efficiency of production, leading to a higher nominal output of units produced per time unit. Smith uses the example of a production capability of an individual pin maker compared to a manufacturing business that employed 10 men: "One man draws out the wire; another straights it; a third cuts it; a fourth points it; a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations; to put it on is a peculiar business; to whiten the pins is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper; and the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations, which, in some manufactories, are all performed by distinct hands, though in others the same man will sometimes perform two or three of them. I have seen a small manufactory of this kind, where ten men only were employed, and where some of them consequently performed two or three distinct operations. But though they were very poor, and therefore but indifferently accommodated with the necessary machinery, they could, when they exerted themselves, make among them about twelve pounds of pins in a day. There are in a pound upwards of four thousand pins of a middling size. Those ten persons, therefore, could make among them upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in a day. Each person, therefore, making a tenth part of forty-eight thousand pins, might be considered as making four thousand eight hundred pins in a day. But if they had all wrought separately and independently, and without any of them having been educated to this peculiar business, they certainly could not each of them have made twenty, perhaps not one pin in a day."Smith saw the importance of matching skills with equipment—usually in the context of an organisation. For example, pin makers were organised with one making the head, another the body, each using different equipment. Similarly, he emphasised a large number of skills, used in cooperation and with suitable equipment, were required to build a ship.

In the modern economic discussion, the term human capital would be used. Smith's insight suggests that the huge increases in productivity obtainable from technology or technological progress are possible because human and physical capital are matched, usually in an organisation. See also a short discussion of Adam Smith's theory in the context of business processes. Babbage wrote a seminal work "On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures" analysing perhaps for the first time the division of labour in factories.

Immanuel Kant

In the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Immanuel Kant notes the value of the division of labour: "All crafts, trades and arts have profited from the division of labour; for when each worker sticks to one particular kind of work that needs to be handled differently from all the others, he can do it better and more easily than when one person does everything. Where work is not thus differentiated and divided, where everyone is a jack-of-all-trades, the crafts remain at an utterly primitive level."

Karl Marx
Marx argued that increasing the specialisation may also lead to workers with poorer overall skills and a lack of enthusiasm for their work. He described the process as alienation: workers become more and more specialised and work becomes repetitive, eventually leading to complete alienation from the process of production. The worker then becomes "depressed spiritually and physically to the condition of a machine."

Additionally, Marx argued that the division of labour creates less-skilled workers. As the work becomes more specialised, less training is needed for each specific job, and the workforce, overall, is less skilled than if one worker did one job entirely.

Among Marx's theoretical contributions is his sharp distinction between the economic and the social division of labour. That is, some forms of labour co-operation are purely due to "technical necessity", but others are a result of a "social control" function related to a class and status hierarchy. If these two divisions are conflated, it might appear as though the existing division of labour is technically inevitable and immutable, rather than (in good part) socially constructed and influenced by power relationships. He also argues that in a communist society, the division of labour is transcended, meaning that balanced human development occurs where people fully express their nature in the variety of creative work that they do.

Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson
Henry David Thoreau criticised the division of labour in Walden (1854), on the basis that it removes people from a sense of connectedness with society and with the world at large, including nature. He claimed that the average man in a civilised society is less wealthy, in practice than one in "savage" society. The answer he gave was that self-sufficiency was enough to cover one's basic needs.

Thoreau's friend and mentor, Ralph Waldo Emerson, criticised the division of labour in his "The American Scholar" speech: a widely informed, holistic citizenry is vital for the spiritual and physical health of the country.

Émile Durkheim
In his seminal work, The Division of Labor in Society, Émile Durkheim observes that the division of labour appears in all societies and positively correlates with societal advancement because it increases as a society progresses.

Durkheim arrived at the same conclusion regarding the positive effects of the division of labour as his theoretical predecessor, Adam Smith. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith observes the division of labour results in "a proportionable increase of the productive powers of labour." While they shared this belief, Durkheim believed the division of labour applied to all "biological organisms generally," while Smith believed this law applied "only to human societies." This difference may result from the influence of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species on Durkheim's writings. For example, Durkheim observed an apparent relationship between "the functional specialisation of the parts of an organism" and "the extent of that organism's evolutionary development," which he believed "extended the scope of the division of labour so as to make its origins contemporaneous with the origins of life itself…implying that its conditions must be found in the essential properties of all organised matter."

Since Durkheim's division of labour applied to all organisms, he considered it a "natural law" and worked to determine whether it should be embraced or resisted by first analysing its functions. Durkheim hypothesised that the division of labour fosters social solidarity, yielding "a wholly moral phenomenon" that ensures "mutual relationships" among individuals. As social solidarity cannot be directly quantified, Durkheim indirectly studies solidarity by "classify[ing] the different types of law to find...the different types of social solidarity which correspond to it." Durkheim categorises:

 * criminal laws and their respective punishments as promoting mechanical solidarity, a sense of unity resulting from individuals engaging in similar work who hold shared backgrounds, traditions, and values; and
 * civil laws as promoting organic solidarity, a society in which individuals engage in different kinds of work that benefit society and other individuals.

Durkheim believes that organic solidarity prevails in more advanced societies, while mechanical solidarity typifies less developed societies. He explains that in societies with more mechanical solidarity, the diversity and division of labour is much less, so individuals have a similar worldview. Similarly, Durkheim opines that in societies with more organic solidarity, the diversity of occupations is greater, and individuals depend on each other more, resulting in greater benefits to society as a whole. Durkheim's work enabled social science to progress more efficiently "in…the understanding of human social behavior."

Ludwig von Mises
Marx's theories, including his negative claims regarding the division of labour, have been criticised by the Austrian economists, notably Ludwig von Mises. The primary argument is that the economic gains accruing from the division of labour far outweigh the costs, thus developing on the thesis that division of labour leads to cost efficiencies. It is argued that it is fully possible to achieve balanced human development within capitalism and alienation is downplayed as mere romantic fiction.

According to Mises, the idea has led to the concept of mechanisation in which a specific task is performed by a mechanical device, instead of an individual labourer. This method of production is significantly more effective in both yield and cost-effectiveness, and utilises the division of labour to the fullest extent possible. Mises saw the very idea of a task being performed by a specialised mechanical device as being the greatest achievement of division of labour.

Friedrich A. Hayek
In "The Use of Knowledge in Society", Friedrich A. Hayek states:

"The price system is just one of those formations which man has learned to use (though he is still very far from having learned to make the best use of it) after he had stumbled upon it without understanding it. Through it, not only a division of labour but also a coordinated utilisation of resources based on an equally divided knowledge has become possible. The people who like to deride any suggestion that this may so usually distort the argument by insinuating that it asserts that by some miracle just that sort of system has spontaneously grown up which is best suited to modern civilisation. It is the other way round: man has been able to develop that division of labour on which our civilisation is based because he happened to stumble upon a method which made it possible. Had he not done so, he might still have developed some other, altogether different, type of civilisation, something like the 'state' of the termite ants, or some other altogether unimaginable type."

Globalisation and global division of labour
The issue reaches its broadest scope in the controversies about globalisation, which is often interpreted as a euphemism for the expansion of international trade based on comparative advantage. This would mean that countries specialise in the work they can do at the lowest relative cost measured in terms of the opportunity cost of not using resources for other work, compared to the opportunity costs experienced by countries. Critics, however, allege that international specialisation cannot be explained sufficiently in terms of "the work nations do best", rather that this specialisation is guided more by commercial criteria, which favour some countries over others.

The OECD advised in June 2005 that:

"Efficient policies to encourage employment and combat unemployment are essential if countries are to reap the full benefits of globalisation and avoid a backlash against open trade... Job losses in some sectors, along with new job opportunities in other sectors, are an inevitable accompaniment of the process of globalisation... The challenge is to ensure that the adjustment process involved in matching available workers with new job openings works as smoothly as possible."

Few studies have taken place regarding the global division of labour. Information can be drawn from ILO and national statistical offices. In one study, Deon Filmer estimated that 2.474 billion people participated in the global non-domestic labour force in the mid-1990s. Of these:

 * around 15%, or 379 million people, worked in the industry;
 * a third, or 800 million worked in services and
 * over 40%, or 1,074 million, in agriculture.

The majority of workers in industry and services were wage and salary earners—58 per cent of the industrial workforce and 65 per cent of the services workforce. But a large portion was self-employed or involved in family labour. Filmer suggests the total of employees worldwide in the 1990s was about 880 million, compared with around a billion working on their own account on the land (mainly peasants), and some 480 million working on their own account in industry and services. The 2007 ILO Global Employment Trends Report indicated that services have surpassed agriculture for the first time in human history: "In 2006 the service sector's share of global employment overtook agriculture for the first time, increasing from 39.5 to 40 per cent. Agriculture decreased from 39.7 per cent to 38.7 per cent. The industry sector accounted for 21.3 per cent of total employment."

Contemporary theories
In the modern world, those specialists most preoccupied in their work with theorising about the division of labour are those involved in management and organisation.

In general, in capitalist economies, such things are not decided consciously. Different people try different things, and that which is most effective cost-wise (produces the most and best output with the least input) will generally be adopted. Often, techniques that work in one place or time do not work as well in another.

Styles of division of labour
Two styles of management that are seen in modern organisations are control and commitment:

 * 1) Control management, the style of the past, is based on the principles of job specialisation and the division of labour. This is the assembly-line style of job specialisation, where employees are given a very narrow set of tasks or one specific task.
 * 2) Commitment division of labour, the style of the future, is oriented on including the employee and building a level of internal commitment towards accomplishing tasks. Tasks include more responsibility and are coordinated based on expertise rather than a formal position.

Job specialisation is advantageous in developing employee expertise in a field and boosting organisational production. However, disadvantages of job specialisation included limited employee skill, dependence on entire department fluency, and employee discontent with repetitive tasks.

Labour hierarchy
It is widely accepted among economists and social theorists that the division of labour is, to a great extent, inevitable within capitalist societies, simply because no one can do all tasks at once. Labour hierarchy is a very common feature of the modern capitalist workplace structure, and the way these hierarchies are structured can be influenced by a variety of different factors, including:

 * Size: as organisations increase in size, there is a correlation in the rise of the division of labour.
 * Cost: cost limits small organisations from dividing their labour responsibilities.
 * Development of new technology: technological developments have led to a decrease in the amount of job specialisation in organisations as new technology makes it easier for fewer employees to accomplish a variety of tasks and still enhance production. New technology has also been helpful in the flow of information between departments helping to reduce the feeling of department isolation.

It is often argued that the most equitable principle in allocating people within hierarchies is that of true (or proven) competency or ability. This concept of meritocracy could be read as an explanation or as a justification of why a division of labour is the way it is.

This claim, however, is often disputed by various sources, particularly:
 * Marxists claim hierarchy is created to support the power structures in capitalist societies which maintain the capitalist class as the owner of the labour of workers, in order to exploit it. Anarchists often add to this analysis by defending that the presence of coercive hierarchy in any form is contrary to the values of liberty and equality.
 * Anti-imperialists see the globalised labour hierarchy between first world and third world countries necessitated by companies (through unequal exchange) that create a labour aristocracy by exploiting the poverty of workers in the developing world, where wages are much lower. These increased profits enable these companies to pay higher wages and taxes in the developed world (which fund welfare in first world countries), thus creating a working class satisfied with their standard of living and not inclined to revolution. This concept is further explored in dependency theory, notably by Samir Amin and Zak Cope.

Limitations
Adam Smith famously said in The Wealth of Nations that the division of labour is limited by the extent of the market. This is because it is by the exchange that each person can be specialised in their work and yet still have access to a wide range of goods and services. Hence, reductions in barriers to exchange lead to increases in the division of labour and so help to drive economic growth. Limitations to the division of labour have also been related to coordination and transportation costs.

There can be motivational advantages to a reduced division of labour (which has been termed ‘job enlargement’ and 'job enrichment'). Jobs that are too specialised in a narrow range of tasks are said to result in demotivation due to boredom and alienation. Hence, a Taylorist approach to work design contributed to worsened industrial relations.

There are also limitations to the division of labour (and the division of work) that result from workflow variations and uncertainties. These help to explain issues in modern work organisation, such as task consolidations in business process re-engineering and the use of multi-skilled work teams. For instance, one stage of a production process may temporarily work at a slower pace, forcing other stages to slow down. One answer to this is to make some portion of resources mobile between stages so that those resources must be capable of undertaking a wider range of tasks. Another is to consolidate tasks so that they are undertaken one after another by the same workers and other resources. Stocks between stages can also help to reduce the problem to some extent but are costly and can hamper quality control. Modern flexible manufacturing systems require both flexible machines and flexible workers.

In project-based work, the coordination of resources is a difficult issue for the project manager as project schedules and resulting resource bookings are based on estimates of task durations and so are subject to subsequent revisions. Again, consolidating tasks so that they are undertaken consecutively by the same resources and having resources available that can be called on at short-notice from other tasks can help to reduce such problems, though at the cost of reduced specialisation.

There are also advantages in a reduced division of labour where knowledge would otherwise have to be transferred between stages. For example, having a single person deal with a customer query means that only that one person has to be familiar with the customer's details. It is also likely to result in the query being handled faster due to the elimination of delays in passing the query between different people.

Gendered division of labour
The clearest exposition of the principles of sexual division of labour across the full range of human societies can be summarised by a large number of logically complementary implicational constraints of the following form: if women of childbearing ages in a given community tend to do X (e.g., preparing soil for planting) they will also do Y (e.g., the planting); while for men the logical reversal in this example would be that if men plant, they will prepare the soil.

White, Brudner, and Burton's (1977) "Entailment Theory and Method: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of the Sexual Division of Labor", using statistical entailment analysis, shows that tasks more frequently chosen by women in these order relations are those more convenient in relation to child rearing. This type of finding has been replicated in a variety of studies, including those on modern industrial economies. These entailments do not restrict how much work for any given task could be done by men (e.g., in cooking) or by women (e.g., in clearing forests), but are only least-effort or role-consistent tendencies. To the extent that women clear forests for agriculture, for example, they tend to do the entire agricultural sequence of tasks on those clearings. In theory, these types of constraints could be removed by provisions of child care, but ethnographic examples are lacking.

Industrial organisational psychology
Job satisfaction has been shown to improve as an employee is given the task of a specific job. Students who have received PhDs in a chosen field later report increased satisfaction compared to their previous jobs. This can be attributed to their high levels of specialisation. The higher the training needed for the specialised job position, the higher is the level of job satisfaction as well, although many highly specialised jobs can be monotonous and produce high rates of burnout periodically.

Division of work
In contrast to the division of labour, a division of work refers to the division of a large task, contract, or project into smaller tasks—each with a separate schedule within the overall project schedule.

Division of labour, instead, refers to the allocation of tasks to individuals or organisations according to the skills and/or equipment those people or organisations possess. Often division of labour and division of work are both part of the economic activity within an industrial nation or organisation.

Disaggregated work
A job divided into elemental parts is sometimes called "disaggregated work". Workers specialising in particular parts of the job are called professionals. The workers doing a portion of a non-recurring work may be called contractors, freelancers, or temporary workers. Modern communication technologies, particularly the Internet, gave rise to the sharing economy, which is orchestrated by online marketplaces for various kinds of disaggregated work.

title: Division of labour


text:
Davy lamp

The Davy lamp is a safety lamp used in flammable atmospheres, invented in 1815 by Sir Humphry Davy. It consists of a wick lamp with the flame enclosed inside a mesh screen. It was created for use in coal mines, to reduce the danger of explosions due to the presence of methane and other flammable gases, called firedamp or minedamp.

History
German polymath Alexander von Humboldt, working for the German Bureau of Mines, had concerns for the health and welfare of the miners and invented a kind of respirator and "four lamps of different construction suitable for employment in various circumstances. The respirator was to prevent the inhaling of injurious gases, and to supply the miner with good air; the lamps were constructed to burn in the most inflammable kind of fire-damp without igniting the gas. They were the forerunners of Davy's later invention, and were frequently made use of by the miners."

Davy's invention was preceded by that of William Reid Clanny, an Irish doctor at Bishopwearmouth, who had read a paper to the Royal Society in May 1813. The more cumbersome Clanny safety lamp was successfully tested at Herrington Mill, and he won medals, from the Royal Society of Arts.

Despite his lack of scientific knowledge, engine-wright George Stephenson devised a lamp in which the air entered via tiny holes, through which the flames of the lamp could not pass. A month before Davy presented his design to the Royal Society, Stephenson demonstrated his own lamp to two witnesses by taking it down Killingworth Colliery and holding it in front of a fissure from which firedamp was issuing.

The first trial of a Davy lamp with a wire sieve was at Hebburn Colliery on 9 January 1816. A letter from Davy (which he intended to be kept private) describing his findings and various suggestions for a safety lamp was made public at a meeting in Newcastle on 3 November 1815, and a paper describing the lamp was formally presented at a Royal Society meeting in London on 9 November. For it, Davy was awarded the society's Rumford Medal. Davy's lamp differed from Stephenson's in that the flame was surrounded by a screen of gauze, whereas Stephenson's prototype lamp had a perforated plate contained in a glass cylinder (a design mentioned in Davy's Royal Society paper as an alternative to his preferred solution). For his invention Davy was given £2,000 worth of silver (the money being raised by public subscription), whilst Stephenson was accused of stealing the idea from Davy, because the fully developed 'Geordie lamp' had not been demonstrated by Stephenson until after Davy had presented his paper at the Royal Society, and (it was held) previous versions had not actually been safe.

A local committee of enquiry gathered in support of Stephenson exonerated him, showing that he had been working separately to create the Geordie lamp, and raised a subscription for him of £1,000. Davy and his supporters refused to accept their findings, and would not see how an uneducated man such as Stephenson could come up with the solution he had: Stephenson himself freely admitted that he had arrived at a practical solution on the basis of an erroneous theory. In 1833, a House of Commons committee found that Stephenson had equal claim to having invented the safety lamp. Davy went to his grave claiming that Stephenson had stolen his idea. The Stephenson lamp was used almost exclusively in North East England, whereas the Davy lamp was used everywhere else. The experience gave Stephenson a lifelong distrust of London-based, theoretical, scientific experts.

Design and theory
The lamp consists of a wick lamp with the flame enclosed inside a mesh screen. The screen acts as a flame arrestor; air (and any firedamp present) can pass through the mesh freely enough to support combustion, but the holes are too fine to allow a flame to propagate through them and ignite any firedamp outside the mesh. The Davy lamp was fuelled by oil or naphtha (lighter fluid).

The lamp also provided a test for the presence of gases. If flammable gas mixtures were present, the flame of the Davy lamp burned higher with a blue tinge. Lamps were equipped with a metal gauge to measure the height of the flame. Miners could place the safety lamp close to the ground to detect gases, such as carbon dioxide, that are denser than air and so could collect in depressions in the mine; if the mine air was oxygen-poor (asphyxiant gas), the lamp flame would be extinguished (black damp or chokedamp). A methane-air flame is extinguished at about 17% oxygen content (which will still support life), so the lamp gave an early indication of an unhealthy atmosphere, allowing the miners to get out before they died of asphyxiation.

Impact
In 1816, the Cumberland Pacquet reported a demonstration of the Davy lamp at William Pit, Whitehaven. Placed in a blower "... the effect was grand beyond description. At first a blue flame was seen to cap the flame of the lamp, – then succeeded a lambent flame, playing in the cylinder; and shortly after, the flame of the firedamp expanded, so as to completely fill the wire gauze. For some time, the flame of the lamp was seen through that of the firedamp, which became ultimately extinguished without explosion. Results more satisfactory were not to be wished..." Another correspondent to the paper commented "The Lamp offers absolute security to the miner... With the excellent ventilation of the Whitehaven Collieries and the application of Sir HUMPHRY's valuable instrument, the accidents from the explosion of' (carburetted) 'hydrogene which have occurred (although comparatively few for such extensive works) will by this happy invention be avoided".

However, this prediction was not fulfilled: in the next thirty years, firedamp explosions in Whitehaven pits killed 137 people. More generally, the Select Committee on Accidents in Mines reported in 1835 that the introduction of the Davy lamp had led to an increase in mine accidents; the lamp encouraged the working of mines and parts of mines that had previously been closed for safety reasons. For example, in 1835, 102 men and boys were killed by a firedamp explosion in a Wallsend colliery working the Bensham seam, described at the subsequent inquest by John Buddle as "a dangerous seam, which required the utmost care in keeping in a working state", which could only be worked with the Davy lamp. The coroner noted that a previous firedamp explosion in 1821 had killed 52, but directed his jury that any finding on the wisdom of continuing to work the seam was outside their province.

The lamps had to be provided by the miners themselves, not the owners, as traditionally the miners had bought their own candles from the company store. Miners still preferred the better illumination from a naked light, and mine regulations insisting that only safety lamps be used were draconian in principle, but in practice neither observed nor enforced. After two accidents in two years (1838–39) in Cumberland pits, both caused by safety checks being carried out by the light of a naked flame, the Royal Commission on Children's Employment commented both on the failure to learn from the first accident, and on the "further absurdity" of "carrying a Davy lamp in one hand for the sake of safety, and a naked lighted candle in the other, as if for the sake of danger. Beyond this there can be no conceivable thoughtlessness and folly; and when such management is allowed in the mine of two of the most opulent coal-proprietors in the kingdom, we cease to wonder at anything that may take place in mines worked by men equally without capital and science"

Another reason for the increase in accidents was the unreliability of the lamps themselves. The bare gauze was easily damaged, and once just a single wire broke or rusted away, the lamp became unsafe. Work carried out by a scientific witness and reported by the committee showed that the Davy lamp became unsafe in airflows so low that a Davy lamp carried at normal walking pace against normal airflows in walkways was only safe if provided with a draught shield (not normally fitted), and the committee noted that accidents had happened when the lamp was "in general and careful use; no one survived to tell the tale of how these occurrences took place; conjecture supplied the want of positive knowledge most unsatisfactorily; but incidents are recorded which prove what must follow unreasonable testing of the lamp; and your Committee are constrained to believe that ignorance and a false reliance upon its merits, in cases attended with unwarrantable risks, have led to disastrous consequences"  The "South Shields Committee", a body set up by a public meeting there (in response to an explosion at the St Hilda pit in 1839) to consider the prevention of accidents in mines had shown that mine ventilation in the North-East was generally deficient, with an insufficient supply of fresh air giving every opportunity for explosive mixtures of gas to accumulate. A subsequent select committee in 1852 concurred with this view; firedamp explosions could best be prevented by improving mine ventilation (by the use of steam ejectors: the committee specifically advised against fan ventilation), which had been neglected because of over-reliance on the safety of the Davy lamp.

The practice of using a Davy lamp and a candle together was not entirely absurd, however, if the Davy lamp is understood to be not only a safe light in an explosive atmosphere, but also a gauge of firedamp levels. In practice, however, the warning from the lamp was not always noticed in time, especially in the working conditions of the era.

The Regulation and Inspection of Mines Act of 1860 therefore required coal mines to have an adequate amount of ventilation, constantly produced, to dilute and render harmless noxious gases so that work areas were – under ordinary circumstances – in a fit state to be worked (areas where a normally safe atmosphere could not be ensured were to be fenced off "as far as possible"): it also required safety lamps to be examined and securely locked by a duly authorised person before use.

Even when new and clean, illumination from the safety lamps was very poor, and the problem was not fully resolved until electric lamps became widely available in the late 19th century.

Successors
A modern-day equivalent of the Davy lamp has been used in the Olympic flame torch relays. It was used in the relays for the Sydney, Athens, Turin, Beijing, Vancouver and Singapore Youth Olympic Games. It was also used for the Special Olympics Shanghai, Pan American and Central African games and for the London 2012 Summer Olympics relay.

Lamps are still made in Eccles, Greater Manchester; in Aberdare, South Wales; and in Kolkata, India.

A replica of a Davy lamp is located in front of the ticket office at the Stadium of Light (Sunderland AFC) which is built on a former coal mine.

In 2015, the bicentenary of Davy's invention, the former Bersham Colliery, in Wrexham, Wales, now a mining museum, hosted an event for members of the public to bring in their Davy lamps for identification. The National Mining Museum Scotland at Newtongrange, Scotland, also celebrated the 200th anniversary of the invention. In 2016, the Royal Institution of Great Britain, where the Davy lamp prototype is displayed, decided to have the invention 3D scanned, reverse engineered and presented to the museum visitors in a more accessible digital format via a virtual reality cabinet. At first sight it appears to be a traditional display cabinet but has a touch screen with various options for visitors to view and reference the virtual exhibits inside.

title: Davy lamp


text:
Docklands Light Railway

The Docklands Light Railway (DLR) is an automated light metro system primarily serving the redeveloped Docklands area of London and providing a direct connection between London's two major financial districts, Canary Wharf and the City of London. First opened on 31 August 1987, the DLR has been extended multiple times, giving a total route length of 38 km. Lines now reach north to Stratford, south to Lewisham, west to and  in the City of London financial district, and east to Beckton, London City Airport and Woolwich Arsenal. An extension to Thamesmead is currently being proposed.

Normal operations are automated, so there is minimal staffing on the 149 trains (which have no driving cabs) and at major interchange stations; the four below-ground stations are staffed, to comply with health and safety regulations for underground stations. The DLR was the first major railway infrastructure project in Britain where access for the disabled was considered, with level access into the train from platforms and lifts at all stations.

The DLR is currently operated by franchisee KeolisAmey Docklands for Transport for London (TfL). Passenger numbers have increased as the network has expanded since its launch. In the financial year 2022/23, there were 92.3million passenger journeys.

Background
In the 18th and 19th century, new docks were built east of the City of London to cater for the rapidly growing city. The last of these docks opened in 1921 in the Royal Docks. From the early 1960s, the docks began to decline as cargo was containerised and mechanised. The older docks did not have space to expand, and could not handle larger vessels. The docks had been connected to the national railway network via the London and Blackwall Railway (L&BR), which was closed in 1966 for lack of traffic. From the mid 1960s, the docks gradually closed down - leading to major job losses and economic deprivation. In the 1970s, the opening of new deep water Tilbury container docks located further east in Essex exacerbated the issue, with the Royal Docks closing in 1981.

Origins and development
Throughout the 1970s, the government and the Greater London Council (GLC) put forward various plans to redevelop the Docklands area. The area was thought to have great potential for redevelopment, located close to the City of London with historic warehouses and large areas of water.

In 1972, the London Docklands Study team commissioned Travis Morgan & Partners to propose redevelopment of the area. In 1973, they proposed, among other recommendations, that a "minitram" people-mover system capable of carrying up to 20 people in each unit should be constructed to connect the Docklands with the planned Fleet line tube railway terminus at Fenchurch Street railway station. The Greater London Council formed a Docklands Joint Committee with the Boroughs of Greenwich, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets in 1974 to undertake the redevelopment of the area. A light railway system was envisaged, terminating either at Tower Hill tube station or at nearby Fenchurch Street, but both options were seen as too expensive.

Nonetheless, in 1976 another report proposed a conventional tube railway for the area and London Transport obtained Parliamentary powers to build a line from Charing Cross station to Fenchurch Street, Surrey Docks (now Surrey Quays railway station), the Isle of Dogs, North Greenwich and Custom House to Woolwich Arsenal. This was intended to be the second stage of the Fleet line – which had been renamed the Jubilee line, the first stage of which opened in 1979 from to. This would have cost around £325million. However, when the Thatcher Government came to power, the plans to extend the Jubilee line were halted and the new government insisted that a lower-cost option should be pursued.

In July 1981, the government established the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) to coordinate the redevelopment of the Docklands. The need to provide a cheap public transport solution led to it commissioning London Transport to evaluate a number of exclusively light rail options, using trams or tram like vehicles. The cost of extending the Jubilee line to the area was now estimated to be around £450million.

The core of the route ran alongside the Great Eastern line out of London and south along the former London & Blackwall Railway line through the Isle of Dogs. Three terminus options were proposed at the west end, at Tower Hill, Minories and Aldgate East. The Tower Hill option would have required a low-level interchange to be constructed alongside the existing Underground station, but this would have been a very costly venture. The Minories option, a high-level station virtually on the site of the old Minories railway station, was selected and became the current Tower Gateway DLR terminus. Aldgate East would have been perhaps the most ambitious of all of the options, as it originally envisaged a low-level connection with the District line that would have allowed DLR trains to run on London Underground tracks to a variety of central London destinations. However, it quickly became apparent that there was no capacity on the existing network for integrating the DLR into the Underground.

Two southern terminus options were put forward, at Cubitt Town (today's Island Gardens station) and Tiller Road, on the west side of Millwall Dock, with two possible routes to reach them. A "western" route would have run from the Westferry station alongside West Ferry Road via Cuba Street, then either terminating at Tiller Road or continuing over Millwall Docks Cut to a terminus at Cubitt Town. The "central" option required the West India Docks to be infilled or bridged and would run down the middle of the peninsula, through what was at the time an area of derelict warehouses. Ultimately this latter option was chosen, though the 1981 London Transport report warned that without extensive development around Canary Wharf the area would be "very isolated with poor traffic prospects" – as indeed it was, for a number of years.

The northern terminus was proposed at Mile End, with options including street running down Burdett Road towards Limehouse or along the Mile End Road to turn south before using an old railway alignment to reach Poplar.

A final report - prepared by the GLC, LDDC, government departments and London Transport - was published in June 1982, proposing a north–south route from Mile End to the Isle of Dogs, and an east–west route linking the Isle of Dogs to the City of London. Even during the development of the line, proposals for future extensions were being envisaged and investigated.

Parliamentary process and construction
Following the publishing of the report, the Departments of the Environment and Transport agreed to provide £77million towards construction of the extension, with a deadline of 1987. The funding agreement also included conditions to maximise the use of modern technology, and that no ongoing subsidy would be available from government.

During the Parliamentary process, the northern terminus of the line was changed to Stratford, as part of efforts to segregate the line from road and other railway traffic, as the LDDC were pushing for the line to use a "high tech automated system". In 1984, the contract for the initial system was awarded to a GEC / John Mowlem joint venture, which proposed fully automated operation using light rail vehicles.

The two Acts of Parliament that authorised the line to be built were passed in 1984 and 1985. Construction of the system began shortly after in 1985, with the joint venture careful to minimise costs in light of the £77million budget. Two thirds of the route was built on underused or disused railway infrastructure, and station architecture used a kit-of-parts approach to save money.

The railway was formally opened by Queen Elizabeth II on 30 July 1987, and passenger services began on 31 August.

Initial system (1987–1990)
The initial system comprised two routes, from and Stratford to, with a total length of 12.1 km. It was mainly elevated on disused railway viaducts or new concrete viaducts, and adopted disused surface railway formations between Poplar and Stratford. The trains were fully automated, controlled by computer, and had no driver; a Passenger Service Agent (PSA) on each train, originally referred to as a "Train Captain", was responsible for patrolling the train, checking tickets, making announcements and controlling the doors. PSAs could take control of the train in circumstances including equipment failure and emergencies. A total of eleven units supplied by Linke-Hofmann-Busch comprised the first generation of the Docklands Light Railway rolling stock.

The system was lightweight, with stations designed for trains of only a single articulated vehicle. The three branches totalled 13 km, had 15 stations, and were connected by a flat triangular junction near. Services ran from Tower Gateway to Island Gardens and from Stratford to Island Gardens; the north side of the junction was used only for access to the Poplar depot. The stations were mostly of a common design and constructed from standard components. A common feature was a short half-cylindrical glazed blue canopy. All stations were above ground and were generally unstaffed. All stations featured lifts and level access into the train from platforms, catering for the disabled, people with small children and elderly people.

Extensions to the City and the Royal Docks (1991–1994)
The initial system had a relatively low capacity, but the Docklands area very quickly developed into a major financial centre and employment zone, increasing traffic. In particular Tower Gateway, at the edge of the City of London, attracted criticism for its poor connections, as it did not connect directly with the nearby Tower Hill tube station or Fenchurch Street railway station. The criticism arose partly because the system usage was higher than expected. Plans were developed, before the system opened, to extend it to in the west and Beckton in the east. Stations and trains were extended to two-unit length, and the system was expanded into the heart of the City of London to through a tunnel, which opened in 1991 at a cost of £295million. This extension left on a stub.

The original trains were not suitable for underground usage due to not meeting the fire safety laws for underground trains. They were operated for a time on the above-ground sections only, and were later sold.

As the Canary Wharf office complex grew, Canary Wharf DLR station was redeveloped from a small wayside station to a large one with six platforms serving three tracks and a large overall roof, fully integrated into the malls below the office towers.

The east of Docklands needed better transport connections to encourage development, and a fourth branch, towards Beckton, was planned, with several route options available. A route from via  and the north side of the Royal Docks complex was chosen, and opened in March 1994 at a cost of £280million. Initially it was thought the line was likely to be underutilised, due to the sparse development in the area and for this reason two additional stations at Thames Wharf (not to be confused with the later Thames Wharf proposal on the Woolwich branch) and Connaught were omitted. As part of this extension, one side of the original flat triangular junction was replaced by a grade-separated junction west of Poplar. Poplar was rebuilt to give cross-platform interchange between the Stratford and Beckton lines, with a new grade-separated junction built east of the station at the divergence of the Stratford and Beckton lines. As part of the extension, a new, larger, depot was built at Beckton.

Extension to Greenwich & Lewisham (1996–1999)
Early on, Lewisham London Borough Council commissioned a feasibility study into extending the system under the River Thames. This led the council to advocate an extension via Greenwich and Deptford, terminating at Lewisham railway station. The ambitions of the operators were supported by politicians in Parliament, including the future Labour Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, and Lord Whitty; and by 1996 construction work had begun.

The Lewisham extension opened on 20 November 1999, at a cost of £200million funded mostly by the private sector as a Private finance initiative. It left the Island Gardens route south of the Crossharbour turn-back sidings, and dropped gently to, where a street-level station replaced the high-level one on the former London & Blackwall Railway viaduct. The line then entered a tunnel, following the route of the viaduct to a shallow subsurface station at, accessible by stairs or a lift. It crossed under the Thames to in the centre of Greenwich, and surfaced at Greenwich railway station, with cross-platform interchange between the northbound track and the London-bound main line. The line snaked on a concrete viaduct to, before descending to at street level, close to Lewisham town centre, terminating in two platforms between and below the main-line platforms at Lewisham railway station, with buses stopping outside the station. The extension quickly proved profitable.

Extensions to London City Airport & Woolwich (2004–2009)
An extension to London City Airport from the existing Beckton branch was explored in the mid-90s, at first via travelator from Royal Albert, and then in 1998 via a proposed lift-bridge over the dock with an intermediate station at West Silvertown. The government initially supported this proposal, and in 1999 was developed to the route known today with a further extension to King George V. At this time, the further route to Woolwich Arsenal was developed with an intermediate station at Woolwich Reach, but was viewed as a longer term aspiration. The Woolwich Reach station (on the south bank of the Thames, at the site of the Marlborough Road ventilation and escape shaft), was descoped in 2000.

The extension was aided by a five-year programme of investment for public transport across London that was unveiled by Mayor of London Ken Livingstone on 12 October 2004. On 2 December 2005, an eastward branch along the approximate route of the former Eastern Counties and Thames Junction Railway on the southern side of the Royal Docks complex opened from Canning Town to via.

A further extension from to Woolwich Arsenal opened on 10 January 2009, providing interchange with the North Kent main line, close to the stop on the Elizabeth line  to Abbey Wood via West India and Royal Docks, met by Private Finance Initiative funding. Construction began in June 2005, the same month that the contracts were finalised, and the tunnels were completed on 23 July 2007, and formally opened by Boris Johnson, Mayor of London on 12 January 2009. Following completion, the project was shortlisted for the 2009 Prime Minister's Better Public Building Award.

The original station was closed in mid-2008 for complete reconstruction. The two terminal tracks either side of a narrow island platform were replaced by a single track between two platforms, one for arriving passengers and the other for departing (Spanish solution). It reopened on 2 March 2009.

As part of an upgrade to allow three-car trains, strengthening work was necessary at the Delta Junction north of. It was decided to include this in a plan for further grade separation to eliminate the conflict between services to Stratford and from Bank. A new timetable was introduced, with improved frequencies at peak hours. The new grade-separated route from Bank to Canary Wharf is used throughout the day, bypassing West India Quay station until mid-evening. Work on this project proceeded concurrently with the three-car upgrade work and the 'diveunder' (sometimes referred to as a flyunder but DLR have coined the term in this instance 'diveunder'), and the improved timetable came into use on 24 August 2009.

Upgrade to three-car trains (2007–2011)
With the development of the eastern Docklands as part of the Thames Gateway initiative and London's staging of the 2012 Summer Olympics, several extensions and enhancements were undertaken.

Capacity was increased by upgrading for trains with three cars, each with four doors per side. The alternative of more frequent trains was rejected as the signalling changes needed would have cost no less than upgrading to longer trains and with fewer benefits. The railway had been built for single-car operation, and the upgrade required both strengthening viaducts to take heavier trains and lengthening many platforms. The extra capacity was useful for the 2012 Summer Olympics, which increased the use of London's transport network. The main contractor for the expansion and alteration works was Taylor Woodrow.

Elverson Road, Royal Albert, Gallions Reach and Cutty Sark have not been extended for three-car trains; such extension may be impossible in some cases. Selective door operation is used, with emergency walkways in case a door fails to remain shut. station is underground, and both costs and the risk to nearby historic buildings prevent platform extension. The tunnel has an emergency walkway. Additional work beyond that needed to take the three-car trains was also carried out at some stations. This included replacing canopies with more substantial ones along the full platform length. A new station has been built 200 m east of the former location as nearby curves precluded lengthening. now has a third platform.

For this upgrade DLR purchased an additional 31 cars compatible with existing rolling stock. The works were originally planned as three phases: Bank-Lewisham, Poplar-Stratford, and the Beckton branch. The original £200million contract was awarded on 3 May 2007. Work started in 2007 and Bank-Lewisham was originally due to be completed in 2009. However, the work programme for the first two phases was merged and the infrastructure work was completed by the end of January 2010. The Lewisham-Bank route now runs three-car trains exclusively. They started running on the Beckton branch on 9 May 2011. Stratford to Lewisham and Bank to Woolwich Arsenal services sometimes operate as three-car trains; other routes run the longer trains when required.

Extension to Stratford International (2011)
In addition to the three-car station extensions, partly funded from the 2012 Olympics budget, a line was opened from Canning Town to Stratford and Stratford International railway station along the former North London Line of the national railway system, with additional stations. It parallels the London Underground Jubilee line for much of its length.

The extension to Stratford International, taking over the North London Line from Canning Town to Stratford, links the Docklands area with domestic high-speed services on High Speed 1. It was an important part of transport improvements for the 2012 Olympic Games, much of which were held on a site adjoining Stratford International.

The first contract for construction work was awarded on 10 January 2007 and construction started in mid-2007. Originally scheduled to open in mid-2010, the line opened on 31 August 2011. On 11 November 2015 the Mayor of London announced that all stations on this line would be rezoned from zone 3 to zone 2/3.

New stations were, , , , and Stratford International. Of these, Canning Town, West Ham and Stratford are former North London Line stations, and Stratford High Street was built on the site of Stratford Market railway station.

From Canning Town to Stratford the extension runs parallel to the Jubilee line of the London Underground. As well as providing interchange with the adjacent Jubilee line stations, there are additional DLR stations at Star Lane, Abbey Road and Stratford High Street.

At Stratford new platforms were built for the North London Line at the northern end of the station. The old platforms (formerly 1 and 2) adjacent to the Jubilee line were rebuilt for the DLR, renumbered 16 (towards Stratford International) and 17 (towards Beckton/Woolwich Arsenal). Interchange between the Stratford International branch and DLR trains via Poplar is possible although the platforms are widely separated and at different levels. There is no physical connection between the two branches.

Relocation of Pudding Mill Lane station (2014)
One of the tunnel portals for Elizabeth line is on the original site of Pudding Mill Lane station. As a consequence, work was carried out to divert the DLR between City Mill River and the River Lea onto a new viaduct further south. This included a replacement station, which opened on 28 April 2014. The former station stood on the only significant section of single track on the system, between Bow Church and Stratford. The opportunity was 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.

Network
The DLR has 38 km of tracks, with 45 stations. There are six branches: to Lewisham in the south, and Stratford International in the north,  and Woolwich Arsenal in the east, and Central London in the west, splitting to  and.

The northern, southern and south-eastern branches terminate at the National Rail stations at Stratford, Stratford International, Lewisham and Woolwich Arsenal. Other interchanges with National Rail are at Limehouse, Greenwich and West Ham, while out-of-station interchanges for Oyster card holders are available between Shadwell DLR station and London Overground's station of the same name, and between Fenchurch Street and the DLR's western termini of Tower Gateway and Bank.

Between Limehouse and Tower Gateway, the DLR runs parallel to the London, Tilbury and Southend line.

Services
The following services are operated in normal off-peak service from 26 September 2022:

At peak times, these same services run, but with the frequency increased by 25 per cent. Additionally, in the morning peak, alternate Stratford – Canary Wharf services extend to Lewisham.

At terminal stations, trains reverse direction in the platforms, except at Bank where there is a reversing headshunt in the tunnel beyond the station. During service disruption or planned engineering work, trains can also turn back at and. There is also capability for an additional shuttle from Canning Town to Prince Regent when exhibitions are in progress at the ExCeL exhibition centre, although this is not supported by any additional turnback infrastructure. Trains serve every station on the route, but trains from Bank to Lewisham do not call at because they are routed along the diveunder track to avoid junction conflicts. When required, such as during engineering works or for special events, other routes may be operated, such as Beckton to Lewisham if the Bank and Tower Gateway branch is closed.

Future services
The new rolling stock to be introduced from 2024 onwards will support service improvements.

Stations

Most stations are elevated, with others at street level, in cutting or underground. Access to the platforms is mostly by staircase and lift, with escalators at some stations. From the outset the system has been fully accessible to wheelchairs; much attention was paid to quick and effective accessibility for all passengers. The station platforms match the floor height of the cars, giving level access for passengers with wheelchairs or pushchairs.

Most stations are of a modular design dating back to the initial system, extended and improved with two side platforms, each with separate access from the street, and platform canopies, although few examples remain of the original, distinctive rounded roof design. Stations are unstaffed, except the underground stations at, Stratford International and Woolwich Arsenal for safety reasons, a few of the busier interchange stations, Canning Town, West Ham, and City Airport, which has a ticket office for passengers unfamiliar with the system. Canning Town, Custom House and Prince Regent are normally staffed on the platform whenever there is a significant exhibition at the ExCeL exhibition centre.

On 3 July 2007, DLR officially launched an art programme called DLR Art, similar to that on the London Underground, Art on the Underground. Alan Williams was appointed to produce the first temporary commission, called "Sidetrack", which portrays the ordinary and extraordinary sights, often unfamiliar to passengers, on the system and was displayed throughout the network.

Fares and ticketing
The system is part of the London fare zone system, and Travelcards that cover the appropriate zones are valid. There are one-day and season DLR-only "Rover" tickets, plus a one-day DLR "Rail and River Rover" ticket for the DLR and City Cruises river boats. Tickets can be purchased from ticket machines at the entrances to platforms, and are required before accessing the platform. Passengers using Oyster pay-as-you-go and contactless bank-cards need to touch both in and out of the system using card readers on automatic gates and platforms. There are no ticket barriers at DLR-only stations: correct ticketing is enforced by random on-train inspections by PSAs. There are barriers at Bank,, Woolwich Arsenal, West Ham and , where the DLR platforms are within a London Underground or National Rail barrier line. Users of payment cards who have failed to touch in at the start of the journey, and other passengers without a correct ticket, may be liable to a £80 penalty fare or prosecution for fare evasion.

Rolling stock

The DLR is equipped with 149 high-floor bi-directional single-articulated electric multiple units (EMUs). Each car has four double doors on each side, and two or three cars make up a train. There are no cabs because normal operations are automated; a small driver's console is concealed behind a locked panel at each end, from which the PSA can drive the car. Consoles at each door opening allow the PSA to control door closure and make announcements whilst patrolling the train. With the absence of a driver's position, the fully glazed car ends provide a forward and rear view for passengers. The operational top speed is 64 km/h.

Despite having high floors and being automated, the cars are derived from a German light-rail design intended for street running. All cars look similar but there have been several different types, some still in service, others sold to other operators. Units were purchased from Bombardier in 2005 and delivered between 2007 and 2010.

Future rolling stock
In 2017, TfL opened bidding for new full-length, walk-through trains, subsequently awarded to CAF in 2019 and expected in service between 2024 and 2026, following delivery and testing on the network of the initial units from January 2023. Fifty-four 5-car trains were ordered, 33 to replace the existing stock and the rest to increase service capacity. The design of the train increases internal capacity by 10%, which combined with service improvements will bring about a 65% increase in capacity from Stratford to Lewisham, and a doubling of capacity between Canning Town and Beckton/Woolwich Arsenal. The trains will feature charging points and air-conditioning.

Depots
The network has two depots, at Poplar and Beckton. Poplar was opened with the initial line in 1987. Due to the constrained site, a new, larger, depot at Beckton was opened in 1994 – and is now the main maintenance depot and primary control centre for the network. Track maintenance, off-peak train stabling, as well as the Operating and Maintenance Centre (OMC for TfL Staff) and the Hilton, Ritz and Dorchester Buildings houses the KeolisAmey Docklands franchise staff and the secondary back-up control centre are based at Poplar.

Buckingham Group was awarded a £35m contract in 2021 to upgrade the Beckton DLR depot to accommodate the new B23 rolling stock. Works include construction of a new carriage wash, extension and modification to existing track, and new sidings for the new trains. This was scheduled for completion in September 2023, but Buckingham went into administration the previous month (August 2023). TfL appointed Morgan Sindall to complete the work, alongside a £90m deal to build a new train shed and deliver further sidings.

Electrification
Traction power is provided at 750 V DC via an unusual bottom contact third rail system.

Signalling technology
Originally, the DLR used signalling based on a fixed-block technology developed by GEC-General Signal and General Railway Signal. This was replaced in 1994 with a moving-block TBTC (Transmission Based Train Control) system developed by Alcatel, called SelTrac. The SelTrac system was bought by Thales in 2007 and updates are provided by Thales Rail Signalling Solutions. The same technology is used by rapid transit systems including Vancouver's SkyTrain, Toronto's SRT, the San Francisco Municipal Railway and Hong Kong's MTR. The SelTrac S40 system has also been adopted by the London Underground Jubilee line and Northern line. Transmissions occur via an inductive loop cable between each train's Vehicle On-Board Controller (VOBC) and the control centre (VCC, SMC) at Beckton. If this link is broken and communication is lost between the VOBC and VCC, SMC, the train stops until it is authorised to move again. If the whole system fails the train can run in restricted manual at 12 mph for safety until the system is restored and communication is re-established. Emergency brakes can be applied if the train breaks the speed limit during manual control or overshoots a fixed stopping point, or if it leaves the station when the route has not been set. A secondary control centre is based at Poplar, the location of the original control centre, which can operate immediately should there be any issues with the primary at Beckton.

Ownership and operators
Initially, DLR was a wholly owned subsidiary of London Regional Transport. In 1992, it was transferred to the London Docklands Development Corporation.

The infrastructure is owned by Docklands Light Railway Ltd, part of the London Rail division of Transport for London (TfL), which also manages London Overground, London Trams, the IFS Cloud Cable Car and the Elizabeth line.

From 1997, DLR has been operated under franchise by the private sector. The first franchise was awarded to Serco Docklands Limited for seven years; operations began in April 1997. A management buyout backed by Serco management later sold its shares to Serco. A two-year extension was granted in 2002. In February 2005 TfL announced that Balfour Beatty/Keolis, First Carillion, RATP/Transdev and Serco had been shortlisted to operate the franchise, and in November 2005 TfL announced that Serco had retained the franchise for seven years from May 2006.

The Lewisham, City Airport and Woolwich Arsenal extensions were designed, financed, built and maintained by private companies (concessionnaires): City Greenwich Lewisham (CGL) Rail, City Airport Rail Enterprises (CARE), and Woolwich Arsenal Rail Enterprises (WARE). In 2011, Transport Trading Limited (a subsidiary of TfL) bought out the companies responsible for the City Airport and Woolwich Arsenal extensions, leaving only the Lewisham extension under private ownership until 31 March 2021.

In July 2012, TfL called for expressions of interest in bidding for the next DLR franchise, and in January 2013 Serco's contract was extended until September 2014.

In April 2013, TfL announced that Go-Ahead/Colas Rail, Keolis/Amey, Serco and Stagecoach had been shortlisted to bid for the next franchise. However, on 30 August, just before the bid submission date of 9 September 2013, Go-Ahead/Colas Rail pulled out. The franchise was awarded to KeolisAmey Docklands Limited, with a handover date of 7 December 2014, expiring in April 2021 with an option for extension without going to tender. The franchise was duly extended to 2025, with TfL beginning the process of finding the next franchise in 2023.

Performance
Within a year of launch, annual passenger numbers reached 17 million, increasing to 64 million in 2009, and more than 80 million in 2011. The most recent figures show 116.8 million annual passengers in the financial year to 31 March 2020. The first five years had unreliability and operational problems, but the system has since become highly reliable. Research in 2008 showed 87% of the population of North Woolwich were in favour of the DLR.

The Parliamentary Transport Select Committee favourably reviewed light rail in 2005, and due to the success of the DLR, proposals for similar systems elsewhere emerged. The North and West London Light Railway was a plan for an orbital railway serving the other side of London. The DLR has been successful, as have other recent light rail systems, although it was earlier criticised for having been designed with insufficient capacity to meet the demand that quickly arose.

Until 1 July 2013, the only bicycles that were allowed were folding ones. DLR stated that this is because if evacuation is required, they would slow down the process. DLR cars, especially older rolling stock, were not designed with bicycles in mind – if they were allowed, they might obstruct doors and emergency exits. Since January 2014, full-size bicycles have been allowed on DLR trains at off-peak hours and weekends (except Bank Station, where bicycles are not permitted for safety reasons).

Business trends
The key available trends in recent years for the Docklands Light Railway are (years ending 31 March):

Activities in financial years 2020/21 and 2021/22 were severely reduced by the impact of the coronavirus pandemic.

Thamesmead extension
Mooted throughout the 2010s, an extension across the River Thames to Thamesmead was first proposed in November 2019 as part of the Thamesmead and Abbey Wood OAPF (Opportunity Area Planning Framework). Technical and feasibility work began in late 2020. Stations would be located at Beckton Riverside and Thamesmead. Public consultation into the extension began in 2024. Estimated to cost around £1bn, the extension could open in the "early 2030s".

Thames Wharf station
As part of the construction of the London City Airport extension, a gap in the viaduct due west of the western end of Royal Victoria Dock, between and  stations, was passively safeguarded for a future station when development came forward on the brownfield and industrial sites. A station was also initially proposed at Oriental Road; however this was discounted at an early stage and the site is now flanked by several developments. The potential of development on the land at Thames Wharf was on hold for until the late 2010s, as the area was being safeguarded for the route of the Silvertown Tunnel, a new Thames river crossing currently under construction on the site.

As part of the 2018 budget, the Chancellor announced funding for the DLR to support development in the Royal Docks. Following completion of the Silvertown Tunnel in the mid 2020s, around 5,000 homes will be built on the site, and a new DLR station constructed.

Tower Gateway station to Tower Hill interchange
In July 2014, a Transport Supporting Paper from the London Infrastructure Plan 2050 by the Mayor of London considered the closure of Tower Gateway DLR station and the branch serving it, with a replacement interchange being provided via new platforms at Tower Hill Underground station. This would increase train frequencies to Bank by approximately 30 per cent, thereby unlocking more capacity on the Bank branch.

Gallions Reach to Dagenham Dock
The extension to Dagenham Dock in East London, via the Barking Riverside development was first proposed in 2003, and was anticipated that the project could be completed and open for use by 2017, at a cost of around £750million. In November 2008, the Mayor of London Boris Johnson announced that due to financial constraints the extension, along with a number of other transport projects, had been cancelled. The Barking Riverside development is instead served by an extension of the London Overground to the new Barking Riverside station, which opened in July 2022.

Bank to Charing Cross
In February 2006 a proposal to extend the DLR to station from  DLR branch was revealed. The idea originates from a DLR "Horizon Study".

While not confirmed, it is probable that the Charing Cross scheme would use the overrun tunnels between Charing Cross Jubilee platforms and slightly west of. These tunnels were intended to be incorporated into the abandoned Phase 2 of the Fleet Line (Phase 1 became the original Jubilee line, prior to the Jubilee line Extension). However they would need enlargement because the DLR loading gauge is larger than tube gauge and current safety regulations require an emergency walkway in the tunnel.

Two reasons driving the proposal are capacity problems at Bank, having just one interchange between the DLR and the central portion of Underground, and the difficult journeys faced by passengers from Kent and South Coast between their rail termini and the DLR. Intermediate stations would be at City Thameslink/Ludgate Circus and Aldwych, which was intended for future connection with the proposed but now abandoned Cross River Tram.

City Thameslink to Euston and St Pancras
In 2011, strategy documents proposed a DLR extension to Euston and St Pancras. Transport for London have considered driving a line from City Thameslink via north to the rail termini. The main benefit of such an extension would be to broaden the available direct transport links to the Canary Wharf site. It would create a new artery in central London and help relieve the Northern and Circle lines and provide another metro line to serve the High Speed line into Euston.

Lewisham to Catford and Beckenham Junction
This possible extension was considered during the latest Horizon Study. The route would follow the Southeastern line and terminate between Catford and Catford Bridge stations. It has been seen as attractive to the district, as has the current terminus at Lewisham, built in an earlier extension. A map published in 2010 by Transport for London suggests that a further extension from Catford to Forest Hill has also been considered.

However, early plans showed problems due to station being only marginally lower than the busy A20 road, which impedes any extension. The plan is however being revised. When the Lewisham extension was first completed there were proposals to continue further to Beckenham to link it up with the Tramlink system. However, the way in which Lewisham station was built impedes this possible extension and it would prove costly to redevelop.

Lewisham to Bromley North
Another proposal is to Bromley North by taking over the Bromley North Line, a short National Rail branch line which has no direct services into Central London. The scheme being considered by Transport for London and the London Borough of Bromley would convert the branch line to DLR operation. Although Lewisham Council planned to re-route the A20 road and redevelop the area south of Lewisham DLR station, the plans published in 2012 have no safeguarded route for an extension, making one unlikely.

Accidents and incidents

 * On 10 March 1987, before the system opened, a test train crashed through buffer stops at the original high-level terminus and was left hanging from the end of the elevated track. The accident has largely been attributed to unauthorised tests being run before the correct installation of the wayside safety system had been verified; an omission in the wayside system allowed the train to travel too fast on the approach to the terminus. The train was being driven manually at the time.    However, inside sources have stated these tests were being done to test the ATP if the train was entering the station too quickly, and after six successful tests, a software issue involving asynchronous computer systems caused the train to not receive the instructions to activate the ATP, cut off power from the motors, and apply the brakes soon enough to prevent the train from slowing down, causing the train to go through the buffers. Following this, the software was reworked and the braking distance was changed to ensure such incidents wouldn't happen in practice, and as a result may have possibly prevented a far more tragic incident from occurring.
 * On 22 April 1991, two trains collided at a junction on the bridge during morning rush hour, requiring a shutdown of the system and evacuation of passengers by ladder.  One train was travelling automatically; the other was under manual control.
 * On 9 February 1996, the Provisional IRA blew up a lorry under a bridge near, killing two people and injuring many others. This caused £85 million of damage and marked an end to an IRA ceasefire in force at the time. Significant disruption was caused and a train was stranded at Island Gardens, unable to move until the track was rebuilt.

title: Docklands Light Railway