Trivia: worst connected cities?

[thenorthern]

The other day I was thinking what is the worst connected city to the rail network i.e. one that reaches the fewest places.

The one I thought of is Bradford, despite being one of the largest cities in the country the majority of trains only go as far as Manchester and York with the exception of the 5 trains per day to London which is much less than smaller places such as Stoke-on-Trent.

Can anyone think of any others places, there is no right or wrong.

 

[Bald Rick]

The other day I was thinking what is the worst connected city to the rail network i.e. one that reaches the fewest places.

The one I thought of is Bradford, despite being one of the largest cities in the country the majority of trains only go as far as Manchester and York with the exception of the 5 trains per day to London which is much less than smaller places such as Stoke-on-Trent.

Can anyone think of any others places, there is no right or wrong.

Wells?

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Sunderland isn't exactly blessed either.

 

[snowball]

St David's
St Asaph

 

[anti-pacer]

Bradford and Sunderland are probably the most obvious.

Hull's not cracking either.

Liverpool has got to be the least connected city by rail of the core cities, with the absence of direct access to the Cross Country network.

 

[transmanche]

Sunderland isn't exactly blessed either.

Indeed. Just five Grand Central trains per day to York and London. Otherwise, since the arrival of T&W Metro, it's hourly Northern Pacer services to Middlesbrough/Nunthorpe and Newcastle/Hexham, with the last trains from Middlesbrough and Newcastle at around 9pm.

 

[scotsman]

Middlesbrough, Perth, Stirling, Inverness

 

[transmanche]

Middlesbrough

... is not a city.

 

[Starmill]

... is not a city.

And has pretty good connections!

Lichfield does not get an amazing deal for it's railway location (compared to the towns of Crewe and Stafford!).

Lincoln always feels very off the beaten track.

And if we are being strict about direct trains from this city to other cities, Salford comes out pretty crap too!

St David's
St Asaph

Is Ripon, N Yorks, a City?

 

[thenorthern]

I would agree about Sunderland.

Another one I would suggest is Portsmouth.

 

[transmanche]

Liverpool has got to be the least connected city by rail of the core cities, with the absence of direct access to the Cross Country network.

It may not be on the CrossCountry network, but it does have inter-regional[*] express services (which is what CrossCountry services are) operated by TPE, EMT and arguably LM - as well as the VT LDHS service.

Off the top of my head: Manchester, Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds, York, Durham, Newcastle, London, Nottingham, Peterborough and Norwich are all cities that have direct express services from Liverpool.

* Regions of the country, not railway operating regions.

 

[Carlisle]

Wells?

Armagh

 

[jopsuk]

For reference, a complete list of the official cities of the UK. You can click on column headings to sort by (eg) population. Smallest city in England is of course London.

Alternatively, there's the Office of National Statistics defined "Urban areas" or the EU defined "Metropolitan Areas"

 

[pompeyfan]

I would agree about Sunderland.

Another one I would suggest is Portsmouth.

I'd say portsmouth gets a pretty good deal, granted it's not on the direct XC network, but there's 9 trains an hour off the island, 5 of which go to London. Also got the Cardiff abs Brighton trains as well as other local services.

It depends how we're judging poorly connected, are we on about lack of frequency (I.e Plymouth) or are we on about lack of destinations?

 

[harry42]

Lincoln, yes definitely.

 

[crispy1978]

Armagh

Beat me to that one!

 

[4SRKT]

I'm sure the OP meant cities in the sense of larger ones and not places like St Davids, Ripon or Armagh. Of 'proper' cities with large populations it's got to be Bradford and Sunderland.

 

[MK Tom]

For the purposes of talking about connectivity and good transport, comparing Lichfield as a ''city'' with Stafford as a ''town'' when Stafford is about three times bigger isn't entirely fair. Lichfield is the only ''city'' on the WCML between London and Preston. But Watford, MK, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Stafford, Crewe, Warrington and Wigan are all bigger, all more important and all better served.

At the other extreme we have the ''towns'' that are of such size and importance that to compare them with anything other than cities would be absurd. MK is obviously that, as are Reading, Northampton, Warrington, the Medway conurbation, and several others.

 

[thenorthern]

I was meaning the larger ones yes.

One I thought of is Leicester, yes it does have 4 trains per hour to London and the Birmingham to Stansted Airport trains but it doesn't have any connections to the North West, North East, Scotland or the South West.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Of 'proper' cities with large populations it's got to be Bradford and Sunderland.

I'd say Lincoln has worse transport connections than either of those places.

Bradford and Sunderland may not have great direct trains, but they both have 6tph to the "bigger" city a few miles up the road.

Lincoln basically has an hourly service to Sheffield, Nottingham and Peterborough (although the service is anything but clockface), with a very irregular service to Doncaster or Grimsby. There are two London trains a day which depart within a few minutes of each other, and that's your lot.

 

[Philip C]

May I make mention of four cities trapped in the south east? They all have frequent services to London but few options for direct travel to other parts of the country:

Brighton : Fine as far as London, Bedford, Ashford or Southampton but only two trains per day creeping through to Bristol and further up the Severn Valley.

Canterbury : Just London plus local destinations.

Chelmsford : Just London, Norwich and places in between plus a few minor, directly served branches.

Chichester : London, local and those two trains further west than Southampton.

None of these cities is particularly "cut-off" and in many people's eyes may be seen as being well served; however what is gained from frequency is lost in terms of variety.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Wells?

Agreed. Having lived there for a while, hourly buses to Bristol, Weston and Frome just don't cut it, each of which take over an hour to get to their destination for what amounts to less than 20 miles as the crow flies.

 

[northwichcat]

The problem with saying cities is it includes places such as Wakefield, Hereford and Chester but excludes larger places like Huddersfield, Walsall and Warrington and that before the extreme examples like Ripon and Wells.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Smallest city in England is of course London.

When a lot of people say London they mean City of London, City of Westminister, Tower Hamlets (who applied to become a city) and many others.

 

[Taunton]

Aberdeen only has routes north and south, and probably the least rail departures of any of the "proper" cities, despite having a relatively large and spacious station.

Liverpool has much influence across North Wales but the connection on all-stations Merseyrail through Chester is a tedious start. More than an hour later, as the North Wales coast train rounds the curve at Talacre from alongside the Dee Estuary to the Irish Sea, Liverpool's docks are still visible on the skyline.

 

[MotorcycleAlan]

I would agree about Sunderland.

Another one I would suggest is Portsmouth.

Don't think Portsmouth does too badly for connections to cities actually. 3 different routes to London, direct trains to Bristol, Cardiff, Bath, Salisbury, coastway to Chichester, Brighton (& Hove if cities only) and near neighbours Southampton. Now if we are talking rolling stock then yes generally poor or very poor!

 

[Lockwood]

It's been mentioned as a destination, but not as an example.

Chichester.
You can go to Portsmouth, Southampton, Brighton or Victoria.
You can't go to the next town up the road without having to change.

 

[Sheepy1209]

There's also the question of 'catchment area'; Lincoln and Shrewsbury are two examples of important regional centres which are themselves not particularly big.

Then there's my current stomping ground, Blackpool - the urban area, at around a quarter of a million, is I think big enough to justify more variety in destinations (York, Manchester, Liverpool and that's about it - everything else you need to change at Preston); but it suffers from its shape - that population is spread along a long thin strip and while Blackpool North might be halfway along, residents to the north and south (especially Lytham and St Annes) often find it just as convenient to go to Preston which of course has plenty of parking and a pretty good trains service.

 

[Deerfold]

The other day I was thinking what is the worst connected city to the rail network i.e. one that reaches the fewest places.

The one I thought of is Bradford, despite being one of the largest cities in the country the majority of trains only go as far as Manchester and York with the exception of the 5 trains per day to London which is much less than smaller places such as Stoke-on-Trent.

There's effectively quite a few lines trains go on from Bradford - to Leeds via New Pudsey, Manchester, Blackpool, Huddersfield, Leeds via Shipley, Skipton, Ilkley, and London via Brighouse.

It's not horrendously badly connected (though Bradford crossrail might help).

 

[ASharpe]

I agree with Deerfold, Bradford isn't that badly connected at all.

And with Leeds less than a half hour away connections to very distant places are not a problem.

 

[adrock1976]

For the purposes of talking about connectivity and good transport, comparing Lichfield as a ''city'' with Stafford as a ''town'' when Stafford is about three times bigger isn't entirely fair. Lichfield is the only ''city'' on the WCML between London and Preston. But Watford, MK, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Stafford, Crewe, Warrington and Wigan are all bigger, all more important and all better served.

At the other extreme we have the ''towns'' that are of such size and importance that to compare them with anything other than cities would be absurd. MK is obviously that, as are Reading, Northampton, Warrington, the Medway conurbation, and several others.

It depends on how you define the WCML. If you include the original route of the London & Birmingham Railway, and the Grand Junction Railway, cities between London and Preston are Coventry, Birmingham, and Wolverhampton. I should know, as I am originally from the West Midlands.

In peace

Adam