Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
There definitely was. I recall a furore on "News North West" when it was withdrawn, I think it was mid 1990s.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Trivia: Large towns which deserve more trains per hour
- Thread starter SWRtrain_fan
- Start date
- Status
There definitely was. I recall a furore on "News North West" when it was withdrawn, I think it was mid 1990s.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
agbrs_Jack
Member
Looking at a September 1986 - May 1987 timetable I can see:
Manchester Picc 0845
Stockport 0855 (pick up only)
Macclesfield 0913
Congleton 0925
Stoke 0947
Stafford 1026 (seems a long journey time for Stoke-Stafford)
London Euston 1318
Can also see 17:00 from Euston calling Stoke (1844), Congleton (1903), Macclesfield (1912), Stockport (1928s), Manchester (1938) - 123 minutes Congleton - London (either direction) is about the journey time currently including the wait time at Stoke. Some of the Stafford/Stoke - Manchester stopping services are also listed as 'To Altrincham'.
Fact is though, Congleton is underserved. Busy commuter station to Manchester, Stoke, Stafford and Birmingham with immense amounts of housing being built. 1 tph is not enough and Sundays are abysmal.
A second train per hour is needed, probably semi fast, whether this be a call on an existing XC service, or an entirely new service. I do not know.
dk1
Veteran Member
Will stand more chance once the new down platform is finished.
FrankieGTH
Member
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2019
- Messages
- 14
I refer to my Number of Services Per Station Stats thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/number-of-services-per-station-stats.185652/
Bath Spa was the one that stuck out for me.
Bath Spa was the one that stuck out for me.
chefchenko
Member
Tis true up until
About 95
chefchenko
Member
It was XC
Wilts Wanderer
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2016
- Messages
- 2,488
That morning Manchester-Euston has bizarrely long journey times south of Stafford; the journey from there to Euston should be under 2 hours.
I wonder - is it possibly the combination of a Manchester-Stoke, Stoke-Stafford-Birmingham and Birmingham-Euston stopping / semi fast services? I recall there was once a similar train in the opposite direction, Bletchey-Man Picc via New Street which took a (nominally) NSE 310 unit to Manchester.
I'm always surprised the Stansted one dosen't stop at Hinckley as it then has dwell time at Leicester for about ten minutes.
Guess it's so close to Nuneaton argument would be made just to go there by car or bus as Nuneaton is decently served in all directions.
deanmachine
Member
Dunbar had a very good service, for such a small town.
The thing to bear in mind is that stations which are at the end of the line for services are likely to see higher numbers of passenger entry/exits than through stations, especially if there's a nearby station or other public transport interchange.
However a useful comparison. Much as people call for more services to be calling at Milton Keynes it's for a lower passenger/service value than Farnborough Main.
Having said that I would suggest that everywhere which is listed as being above 60 (about 1/3 of the biggest, but about 1/2 of anything which isn't a major London Terminal) should be investigated with the view to seeing if additional services would be justified.
Then a plan developed to work towards doing so. Now some would be fairly easy to achieve, whilst others would need significant investment.
coupwotcoup
Member
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 262
Harold Hill is of course served by Harold Wood - six tph [currently] in each direction up until midnight and beyond.
The area is also covered by multiple bus services that in the main start early and finish late, connecting Romford, Hornchurch etc plus a half hourly
night bus service, which starts at Stratford, so no lack of travel options around this area.
Not sure it if it's an urban myth but I can remember being told that there were plans to extend the Central Line to Harold Hill
from Hainault after the war when the estate was first built - 1948 - but post-war austerity put paid to those plans.
Yes, they stopped ever 2 hours in (I think) the old Manchester-Reading/Guildford/Gatwick/Brighton service pre-2008.
RealTrains07
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 1,761
Rugeley trent valley deserves more fast trains per hour
so does stone to be frank. One of the few stations on that part of the LNR network that still has 1 train an hour
so does stone to be frank. One of the few stations on that part of the LNR network that still has 1 train an hour
Obviously I'm biased but I think all the services between Derby and Birmingham should stop at Burton on Trent (pop 70,000 and rapidly growing).
That would mitigate somewhat the lack of a direct service to London and the fairly low probability of the Ivanhoe line reopening anytime soon.
But I guess we'd all like better rail services, if you don't you're probably on the wrong forum!!
That would mitigate somewhat the lack of a direct service to London and the fairly low probability of the Ivanhoe line reopening anytime soon.
But I guess we'd all like better rail services, if you don't you're probably on the wrong forum!!
chefchenko
Member
It was generally Brum international services that stopped though we did get a manc - Paddington stop at peak and I think a Paddington -Glasgow for a short time
scotrail158713
Established Member
I’d agree. It gets an hourly service to and from Edinburgh, and many southbound destinations are available direct. It’s not any bigger than any other East Lothian town with a station, and they get an hourly service.
That's some very interesting data.
I'd be inclined to look at the top 5% (130 station) to investigate adding extra services.
However it should be noted that some stations with fairly low passenger numbers and very low train numbers are unlikely to justify extra services.
It should also be noted that some of the very busy stations (i.e. the London terminai) may be very expensive to make changes to. Also they are going to have higher figures than others as changing trains (i.e. to the tube) will likely count as an exit/entry whilst that wouldn't be the case elsewhere.
Interestingly both Fleet and Farnborough Main are within the top 5% and Basingstoke just outside (but within the top 10%, likewise Guildford and Woking), which would imply building the Southern Approach to Heathrow would be a fairly good idea.
If you are running 2tph Basingstoke, Fleet, Farnborough, Woking to Heathrow then you're running on the slow lines and so it would probably make sense to call 1tph at Hook and the other 1tph at Winchfield.
Although Winchfield is only just in the top 50% whilst Hook is within the top 20% both are due to see population growth. As Hook is currently seeing ~800 new homes being built and Winchfield is likely to be a garden village and gain 5,000 new homes over the next 20 years.
The two stations are closer enough that catching a train to one and then back to the other is still close enough that friends or family will pick you up or a taxi isn't very much and you'll still be home faster than waiting for the next service.
70014IronDuke
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 3,699
Really? (Serious question.) Of course, had the Brum - Leicester stopper been extended as once planned, presumably they would have got 2 TPH.
Would you merely replicate the current service (at least to Peterborough), or would it make sense to join it up with the Peterborough - Ipswich service? (Yes, I realise that is a different TOC, and currently only 1 TP2H).
Or what about Ipswich - Melton - Loughborough - Derby?
Of the three stations listed Stamford ranks highest at just within the top 15% of stations based on entries/exits per service with 30.
If you double the services you'll still be in the upper 50%, but not by very much.
Adding 1tp2h probably isn't that bad, it'll show what will happen with a better service.
Although it does depend on when those extra services are, if they increase frequencies during the busy hours then that'll be most helpful.
From observation, the demand to/from Leicester could warrant 2tph - I think that's a more logical traffic objective on the route than Loughborough/Derby. Only 'northward' potential might be a regular Nottingham-bound service.
Quakers Yard
Member
Ebbw Vale and Maesteg.
I can confirm that in BR days, the odd London service did stop there, local door job from all accounts of my colleagues at Manchester Picc (both Drivers and TM’s)
snookertam
Member
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 779
I get the point you are making re: towns definitiions, however East Kilbride's population of over 80,000 is considerably more than each of Stirling, Perth and Inverness. It is the sixth largest settlement in Scotland.
However, I think whether a town with a large population a better service can depend on a number of factors, including what places are around it. A town with a relatively large population may not get a regular service if it is, for example, outwith commuting distances to other major places, and doesn't necessarily have a commuter flow into it either. So a basic 'trains per hour' versus 'population size' doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. (EDIT: To illustrate this point - Dumfries is slightly bigger than Motherwell...)
Returning to East Kilbride - I think it absolutely fulfills the definition of the thread. Basically a large dormitory town for Glasgow (you could even call it an extension of Glasgow's southern suburbs if it wasn't for the strip of greenery between the two places), it does have a good bus service into Glasgow from most parts of the town, and could easily justify a 15 minute service into the city, let alone an extension of the railway line itself to better serve more of the town. It is a victim of the 60's planning where the car was deemed to be the transport of the future and opportunity to build the railway into the developing new town was, scandalously, never taken.
Last edited:
snookertam
Member
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 779
I'd argue Kilmarnock probably warrants more of a service than it gets also, especially when compared to Ayr.
I wish St Helens Central had a proper link to Manchester rather than a suburb of it. It’s pretty bad that even the village of Rainford at the top end of the borough has a link (admittedly not a very good one) but the main town doesn’t. I think it’s links to Liverpool are undoubtedly still the weak link in Merseyside when the rest of the system has a clockwork 4 an hour service but ours is 2 slow and 1 semi fast. (St Helens Junction is a suburb at the southern end of the borough some way from the actual town). I appreciate though, that it could be worse and be like Oldham, Bury or Leigh which don’t now have any heavy rail links at all and should really be fully integrated into the national ticketing network fully. No doubt someone will mention the bus service which is good from the town, but it is slow, with no express bus anymore and has to go through some comically rough parts of Liverpool. (I think even it’s biggest supporters would not defend the Sheil Road area of Kenny and Page Moss!)
- Status