• 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!

Smallest Official UK City with a Rail Station

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
8 Jun 2006
Messages
622
Location
Hopton Heath
Surprised Ely hasn't been mentioned. Population of 15,000 and obviously has a railway station. An electrified one at that!

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The City of London is smaller with a population of 7,185. Some would claim it is not a city, Yet it hold's a city charter which has never been revoked.

Why would it have been revoked?!

And how anyone could claim that The CITY of London - usually referred to as simply The City or even "City" (on road signs for instance) - isn't a city... duhhh.

I mean it doesn't just have a cathedral - it has the national cathedral of St Paul's! And whilst its resident population is about 9-10,000 the working population (Mon-Fri anyway) is about 300,000.

Westminster is also a city, but has quite a large population as it (in local authority terms) extends way out, including Marylebone for instance.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,857
London is the smallest city with a station ;) Assuming this answer is barred, I believe the answer is Armagh (or Ely if it has to be British).

Armagh doesn't have a railway station, unless you're getting confused with Antrim, on the Londonderry line, which isn't a city.
 

Ivo

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Messages
7,307
Location
Bath (or Southend)
I gather that the largest city without a station is Gosport which has a population of 79,900

Come again? :shock:

Surprised Ely hasn't been mentioned. Population of 15,000 and obviously has a railway station. An electrified one at that!

Hey! I already mentioned Ely!

Armagh doesn't have a railway station, unless you're getting confused with Antrim, on the Londonderry line, which isn't a city.

I think I skewed the questions there. I definitely meant Armagh, but was thinking of the other clue for which it doesn't even beat Ripon. Fail.
 

tbone

Member
Joined
19 May 2011
Messages
323
Location
Derbyshire
It is a chartered city, whatever that may mean, it is listed 2nd on the list of smallest cities in the UK on Wikipedia...

It's probably a reference to the fact that it was one of three towns granted city status by the Queen to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee year
 

ModChod

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
35
The City of London is the smallest with a station. That square mile in the middle has City Status, as does Westminster, but the rest does not. Greater London could easly be seen as a county, albeit a very large, densely populated one (In fact Greater London has had a status similar to that of modern Counties such as Gloucestershire or Worcesershire)

Bangor is the smallest without a railway station outside the big smoke.

Most cities are chartered cities, it means they have been granted city status by a monarch, this is the only way to obtain city status, a Cathedral does not mean city (Brecon and Brechin for example).
 

Mutant Lemming

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
3,194
Location
London
The City of London is the smallest with a station. That square mile in the middle has City Status, as does Westminster, but the rest does not. Greater London could easly be seen as a county, albeit a very large, densely populated one (In fact Greater London has had a status similar to that of modern Counties such as Gloucestershire or Worcesershire)

.

So by that reckoning Brimingham is the largest populated city in Britain and we shouldn't refer to it as 'The Second City'.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
The City of London is the smallest with a station. That square mile in the middle has City Status, as does Westminster, but the rest does not. Greater London could easly be seen as a county, albeit a very large, densely populated one (In fact Greater London has had a status similar to that of modern Counties such as Gloucestershire or Worcesershire)
Greater London is a ceremonial county, the current Lord Lieutenant is Sir David Brewer.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Does Southwark still have city status? It has a cathedral, and contains London Bridge, the south end of Blackfriars and Waterloo East, but not Waterloo.
 

Ivo

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Messages
7,307
Location
Bath (or Southend)
Does Southwark still have city status? It has a cathedral, and contains London Bridge, the south end of Blackfriars and Waterloo East, but not Waterloo.

Did Southwark ever have City Status? They have applied in at least two of the recent competitions but failed.

As indicated previously, except in instances of cities declared in Time Immemorial having a cathedral counts for nothing.
 

Bungle73

On Moderation
Joined
19 Aug 2011
Messages
3,040
Location
Kent
Did Southwark ever have City Status?
Not that I'm aware of. It's never been a proper city "city" like Westminster or the City of London, anyway.

Southwark Cathedral has only been a cathedral since 1905.
 

junglejames

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2010
Messages
2,069
Surely its time to enlarge the City of London? I dont mean too much, like right out into the suburbs, but there are parts which everybody sees as London, but in fact isnt. Waterloo for example. Are we trying to say thats not in a city? Not in our capital?
You could also say London and Westminster should be combined. Try telling a tourist wandering around Westminster, that they arent in the capital, or arent even in London at all!
 
Joined
8 Jun 2006
Messages
622
Location
Hopton Heath
Surely its time to enlarge the City of London? I dont mean too much, like right out into the suburbs, but there are parts which everybody sees as London, but in fact isnt. Waterloo for example. Are we trying to say thats not in a city? Not in our capital?
You could also say London and Westminster should be combined. Try telling a tourist wandering around Westminster, that they arent in the capital, or arent even in London at all!

It's actually much easier (and this has been official policy since the 19th century - read up on it on Wikipedia) to distinguish "London" from the "City of London".

We all know London is more than just the City. Much more. London consists of the City and the 32 boroughs (one of which is Westminster, a city in its own right) and arguably (though not in local government terms) other connected areas. On a day-to-day basis, especially for the average tourist, it simply doesn't matter. London is obviously the city in the general "large settlement" terminology. But it's important to retain the City of London as that historic core which London was for centuries and which remains to this day the financial heart of the wider city (and the UK and indeed the World).

When you cross over into the City of London, passing the dragon symbols on the border, there is a change. You are entering that ancient heart of the now much wider conurbation. It has its own unique government and traditions and police force and so on. I'm very much a strong believer in retaining historic boundaries, especially where it does mean something "on the ground", such as many of our (English) counties and in this case the City.

As for "what is the capital" - there is no official document saying "X is the capital of the UK" or "of England" - London is the capital because that's what everyone has deemed it to be for about a thousand years (previously it was Winchester). And London means the whole metropolis. (It should be noted that the seat of government is - and has always been, at least since the time of the Normans - Westminster, not the City of London.) So the City of London is not the capital, if anything it's Westminster, but actually it's the wider notion of "London".
 
Last edited:

junglejames

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2010
Messages
2,069
It's actually much easier (and this has been official policy since the 19th century - read up on it on Wikipedia) to distinguish "London" from the "City of London".

We all know London is more than just the City. Much more. London consists of the City and the 32 boroughs (one of which is Westminster, a city in its own right) and arguably (though not in local government terms) other connected areas. On a day-to-day basis, especially for the average tourist, it simply doesn't matter. London is obviously the city in the general "large settlement" terminology. But it's important to retain the City of London as that historic core which London was for centuries and which remains to this day the financial heart of the wider city (and the UK and indeed the World).

When you cross over into the City of London, passing the dragon symbols on the border, there is a change. You are entering that ancient heart of the now much wider conurbation. It has its own unique government and traditions and police force and so on. I'm very much a strong believer in retaining historic boundaries, especially where it does mean something "on the ground", such as many of our (English) counties and in this case the City.

As for "what is the capital" - there is no official document saying "X is the capital of the UK" or "of England" - London is the capital because that's what everyone has deemed it to be for about a thousand years (previously it was Winchester). And London means the whole metropolis. (It should be noted that the seat of government is - and has always been, at least since the time of the Normans - Westminster, not the City of London.) So the City of London is not the capital, if anything it's Westminster, but actually it's the wider notion of "London".

Oh i agree historically its important to retain the historic City Of London, but what about the rest of London? Is that a city? I know its known as a city, but what about officially?
One of the fantastic anomalies in the country. Suppose we should keep it as it is just because it is such a quirk!
 
Joined
8 Jun 2006
Messages
622
Location
Hopton Heath
Oh i agree historically its important to retain the historic City Of London, but what about the rest of London? Is that a city? I know its known as a city, but what about officially?

The only cities in London are the City of London and Westminster. The rest of London is "the metropolis" (hence the Metropolitan Police), made up of London boroughs (Westminister is also part of this "metropolis" and is a London borough - but the City isn't: it's a unique entity). It would be a bit daft giving the rest of London city status as then you'd have two cities called London (plus Westminster), and this new city would either contain the two older cities (ie City of London and Westminster) or would be Greater London minus those two cities (ie it would actually exclude much of central London). You can see how messy it would all get.

Instead we have a region called London/Greater London with its own elected Mayor and Assembly, which is a city in the more usual geographical sense, consisting of 32 boroughs and the City. I think it works pretty well as it is. And beyond all this administrative/legal lark "London" is the urban conurbation consisting of whatever people regard as London: this can be quite wide and less well defined.

Just to add: two London boroughs recently applied for city status: Croydon and Tower Hamlets. They didn't succeed, but I can see one day another London borough (than Westminster) getting city status. And that would fit perfectly well within the "model". Some London boroughs are also Royal boroughs: Greenwich will become one this year.
 
Last edited:

junglejames

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2010
Messages
2,069
The only cities in London are the City of London and Westminster. The rest of London is "the metropolis" (hence the Metropolitan Police), made up of London boroughs (Westminister is also part of this "metropolis" and is a London borough - but the City isn't: it's a unique entity). It would be a bit daft giving the rest of London city status as then you'd have two cities called London (plus Westminster), and this new city would either contain the two older cities (ie City of London and Westminster) or would be Greater London minus those two cities (ie it would actually exclude much of central London). You can see how messy it would all get.

Just as i thought! Sounds quite messy now, and also sounds quite odd, but its probably less messy than the other possibilities. As you say, maybe just keep it as is. It is a good pub quiz question though.
 

Mutant Lemming

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
3,194
Location
London
If you were to base a city purely on population then 32 out of the 33 London boroughs would be cities in their own right - the only one not being a city would be the City of London.
 

Cherry_Picker

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
2,796
Location
Birmingham
And of course, a nice bit of trivia that not a lot of people who dont live or work in the capital seem to know, the City of London actually has its own police force. The Metropolitan police look after the rest of the capital, but that square mile has its own dedicated force. I'd imagine they are very busy too, because the population of the city of London explodes to about half a million once you factor in all of the office workers and tourists are milling about the place for most of the day.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
If you were to base a city purely on population then 32 out of the 33 London boroughs would be cities in their own right - the only one not being a city would be the City of London.
The City of London isn't actually a borough though. There are 32 boroughs.
 

D841 Roebuck

Established Member
Joined
16 Mar 2012
Messages
1,891
Location
Rochdale
May I throw into the ring Sherborne (pop 9350) which has a station and was the seat of a diocesian (as opposed to suffragen) bishop in anglo-saxon times.
 

Mutant Lemming

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
3,194
Location
London
And of course, a nice bit of trivia that not a lot of people who dont live or work in the capital seem to know, the City of London actually has its own police force.

... slightly veering away from the original topic - but even less people probably know that the Mersey Tunnel has it's own police force.
(Cue another thread about other obscure police forces)
 

supervc-10

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2012
Messages
701
Regarding the City of London Police Force and the Mersey Tunnels Police Force, surely in this age of budget cuts etc, it would be worth merging them with the main police forces?
 
Joined
8 Jun 2006
Messages
622
Location
Hopton Heath
Regarding the City of London Police Force and the Mersey Tunnels Police Force, surely in this age of budget cuts etc, it would be worth merging them with the main police forces?

The City of London Police IS a main police force! It has 813 police officers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Police

Anyway your line of argument would surely result in one UK police force? Don't like the sound of that.

I say smaller police forces are better. And the City of London one is also "specialised" in that it deals with the UK's financial-related crime, even if its outside the City. (Bit like the Transport or Nuclear police forces.)
 

Mutant Lemming

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
3,194
Location
London
Regarding the City of London Police Force and the Mersey Tunnels Police Force, surely in this age of budget cuts etc, it would be worth merging them with the main police forces?

Merging, consolidating, amlagamating.... isn't this the crux of the problem ? We can't have things local anymore it has to be taken over or controlled by some big conglomerate ? Why do things have to be sacrificed for what are often dubious savings in order to create great a bigger 'empire' for someone else ?
 

Cherry_Picker

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
2,796
Location
Birmingham
Well sometimes it makes a lot of sense to merge things, you can cut down on a lot of unnecessary expense if you pool resources. The City of London police is an odd example though because it is a very large force. It's small compared to the Met, obviously but it is bigger than some of the Scottish and Welsh forces and about the same size as Warwickshire police in England (Warwickshire of course having lost its major centres of population to the West Midlands county in the 1970s) and despite the small residential population of the area the City almost always has several hundred thousand people working and taking leisure within its boundaries and it is a rather unique place with unique needs, even compared to the rest of London. The City is arguably the financial capital of the world and would see significantly more serious white collar crime than anywhere else in the UK and an extremely high risk of terrorism, remember 9/11 was targeted against the worlds other big financial district. Having people with expertise in policing that kind of thing is probably good for the country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top