Mudchute Terminators

The planning application stated that the third platform was required to "enable additional northbound services to commence from Mudchute station and relieve overcrowding during peak periods."

Not sure of commissioning date (yet - working on it!) but I am assured there are no plans yet to use the bay in normal service, just "as required" for service problems, etc.

Reversing at Crossharbour is by means of a non-passenger siding so the trains need to be tipped out potentially delaying the following service (this was the case on the most recent occasion I was on a Crossharbour terminator wanting to travel further south).
The platform at Mudchute means the the trains do not need to be tipped out and thus do not delay the following service in the same manor - although they do need to cross the northbound line, this (I presume) causes less of a delay.

I'd also like to know whether any remodelling is going to take place after Crossharbour siding goes. Crossharbour <-> Mudchute is (IMO) one of the worst parts of the DLR for comfort. I was too young to remember the building of the Lewisham extension but I suppose the old alignment prevented them from getting a good angle. Removing the middle road might give the opportunity to straighten that section a bit.

Considering the DLR is an entirely automatic railway, is there a need to "tip" trains out to go through such a siding? I know that on LU there is a requirement to do so because of signalling or somesuch. However, wouldn't it be possible to shout "all change" a few times, flash the lights, and then if anyone's still on then tough?!

That was poor writing on my part. The siding doesn't look like it could fit a 3 car train and once Stratford-Lewisham goes 3 car too; its use would seem to be very limited. Hence the assumption it will be removed one day.

The cars all have end doors, "for emergency and depot use" I think one sign on them says.

Sorry if this constitutes thread drift,BUT.....
This is one of those areas where the balance of responsibility has tipped too far,to the detriment not only of the running of the railways,but indicative of the change in thinking in this field over the last 20 years or so.
What the last few posts on this thread implicitly posit is a passenger not being aware that a train has terminated,presumably despite audible and visual indications,then disobeying a written instruction to not exit by an unauthorised route.
In an ideal world,in event of injury,this passenger shouldn't have a leg to stand on (haha) when it came to claiming damages.
Yes,railways are potentially dangerous environments,and the operators do have a duty of care toward their passengers,but must this duty extend to guarding against any possible incompetence,idiocy or even malice on the passengers' part?
Surely there should be some kind of trade-off.....whereby if passengers ignore instructions,however conveyed,they absolve the operator from any liability.
Surely the passenger also has a duty of care.....to himself at least,if not the rail operator and his fellow passengers?
Rant over....

Mudchute bay was commissioned from Monday 27 July 2009 with a special train for VIPs run into the bay the following day.

Looking at Crossharbour reversing siding today, I am sure there is room for 3-vehicle trains but at the moment only 2-vehicle trains can use it, as there is only a '2' stopping mark. If it is to made 3, then there is work to be done on it.