Wouldn’t Washington come under the category of ‘doesn’t have a railway station but close to a settlement that does’ i.e Sunderland?Peterlee, 28000 people without a rail link (and mostly without a job too ) Ashington- 27000, Consett- 24000, Stanley -20000. But the north eastern winner has to be Washington area, with a population of 70000.
There is a continuous urban area from Sunderland through to Chester-le-Street via Washington and much of Washington isn't very far away from Chester-le-Street station.Wouldn’t Washington come under the category of ‘doesn’t have a railway station but close to a settlement that does’ i.e Sunderland?
Yes, it does - because I know well two of the places on that list - Dudley and Halesowen - that are part of a large continuous urban area, with well-served stations that are 'just over the boundary' of the towns in question. Also the normal railway passenger services at Halesowen ceased so long ago - in 1927 - that I doubt there are many people in the town who are aware it ever had a station!Does this include towns that don’t have a rail station but are very close to another settlement that does?
Nah very VERY different in my opinion. That's almost like saying we can't use Bridgenorth because the Severn Valley Railway trains stop there. Not sure that's what the OP meant.Oswestry station is still open as part of the preservation scheme. Admittedly you can only go for a short ride along the line and back (no platforms at the other end), but the town still has a station.