Trivia: worst connected cities?

[fireftrm]

Inverness...............?

 

[thenorthern]

Weighted population to connections Liverpool is quite bad. Yes it has the direct trains to Scarborough, York, Leeds and Norwich but Northbound there is no trains north of Preston on the WCML and there is only and hourly service to London and half hourly to Birmingham and no trains to Scotland, Wales or the South West.

In terms of best connected City London wins easy, in terms of best connected station I would say Birmingham New Street wins easily.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

:roll: Plymouth is not too well connected just now!

 

[tbtc]

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

I think that the catchment area is an interesting issue.

A number of the "worst connected" suggestions are coastal (Brighton, Portsmouth, Liverpool, Blackpool, Sunderland, Aberdeen) which often means that they aren't really on the way *to* anywhere and that (whilst their civic populations may be relatively high) a lot of the surrounding area is taken up by water instead of commuter towns.

Places closer to London seem to suffer from the "radial" nature of routes in the area - few lines that aren't directly to/from the capital - which means that you'd have to go via "Zone One" to get between Canterbury and Chelmsford (two of the other suggestions on this thread) - there's no direct line through Southend.

Then there's "places with a relatively high frequency but a limited range of destinations". Bradford has fourteen/fifteen departures an hour - which is in the same ballpark as well connected hubs like Derby/ Newcastle and not significantly fewer than well connected hubs like York/ Crewe/ Sheffield (each with around twenty per hour), but Bradford sees much less variety of destinations and much less variety of stock, so seems to be a poor relation. Also, Bradford's departures are split between two stations, which may make it seem poorer still.

 

[cuccir]

I think that the catchment area is an interesting issue.

A number of the "worst connected" suggestions are coastal (Brighton, Portsmouth, Liverpool, Blackpool, Sunderland, Aberdeen) which often means that they aren't really on the way *to* anywhere and that (whilst their civic populations may be relatively high) a lot of the surrounding area is taken up by water instead of commuter towns.

Places closer to London seem to suffer from the "radial" nature of routes in the area - few lines that aren't directly to/from the capital - which means that you'd have to go via "Zone One" to get between Canterbury and Chelmsford (two of the other suggestions on this thread) - there's no direct line through Southend.

Then there's "places with a relatively high frequency but a limited range of destinations". Bradford has fourteen/fifteen departures an hour - which is in the same ballpark as well connected hubs like Derby/ Newcastle and not significantly fewer than well connected hubs like York/ Crewe/ Sheffield (each with around twenty per hour), but Bradford sees much less variety of destinations and much less variety of stock, so seems to be a poor relation. Also, Bradford's departures are split between two stations, which may make it seem poorer still.

A very good summary!

 

[northwichcat]

A number of the "worst connected" suggestions are coastal (Brighton, Portsmouth, Liverpool, Blackpool, Sunderland, Aberdeen) which often means that they aren't really on the way *to* anywhere and that (whilst their civic populations may be relatively high) a lot of the surrounding area is taken up by water instead of commuter towns.

According to ORR the central Liverpool stations have a combined total of 1.8 million interchanges per annum. In comparison Hull which has a similar geographical position has 65,720 interchanges per annum and Blackpool North has 4,578.

 

[Clip]

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.

And of course the first two on that list are very well connected to other cities.

Tower Hamlets never got city status did it?

 

[northwichcat]

Tower Hamlets never got city status did it?

No St Asaph got awarded city status while Tower Hamlets missed out.

 

[Clip]

No St Asaph got awarded city status while Tower Hamlets missed out.

Ahh poor old Tower Hamlets eh. Dodgy mayor and lose out to a tiny little place not many people have heard of

 

[anti-pacer]

According to ORR the central Liverpool stations have a combined total of 1.8 million interchanges per annum. In comparison Hull which has a similar geographical position has 65,720 interchanges per annum and Blackpool North has 4,578.

Most of Liverpool's "interchanges" will be from Mainline to Merseyrail (and vice versa) or Merseyrail to Merseyrail.

By "Mainline", I mean trains coming in/out of Lime Street upper level.

 

[northwichcat]

Most of Liverpool's "interchanges" will be from Mainline to Merseyrail (and vice versa) or Merseyrail to Merseyrail.

By "Mainline", I mean trains coming in/out of Lime Street upper level.

Mainline to Mainline would probably be higher at South Parkway to allow journeys such as Winsford to Widnes. The extension of the Blackpool to Liverpool service to South Parkway has probably resulted in a slight decrease in mainline to mainline changes at Lime Street but some journeys still need a mainline interchange at Lime Street.

 

[BantamMenace]

For its size Lancaster is quite well served although one of the TPE services continuing east of Manchester would be beneficial. Maybe an hourly barrow to Sheffield or beyond would be good as the barrow branch is likely to be diesel operated for a good few years to come.

 

[anti-pacer]

Mainline to Mainline would probably be higher at South Parkway to allow journeys such as Winsford to Widnes. The extension of the Blackpool to Liverpool service to South Parkway has probably resulted in a slight decrease in mainline to mainline changes at Lime Street but some journeys still need a mainline interchange at Lime Street.

Yes, I suppose journeys such as Huyton to London Euston would be a "mainline" change at Lime Street.

 

[matchmaker]

Middlesbrough, Perth, Stirling, Inverness

Stirling has very good connections!

 

[7griffinjack]

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.

Well there isn't a great deal in terms of population to the west and, well the east speaks for itself...

—

I think we can all agree that it would be easier to compare metropolitan/urban areas rather than cities.

 

[4SRKT]

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.

Lincoln's only a small place though. As someone pointed out upthread this only has any meaning if couched in terms of population. Bradford, with a population of 450,000, has I would say worse connectivity than anywhere its size, or even half its size. And to those who would say that 6 trains per hour to the 'bigger city up the road' makes up for this, I would advise never to say this or otherwise conflate Leeds and Bradford if you are actually here!

 

[Deerfold]

Lincoln's only a small place though. As someone pointed out upthread this only has any meaning if couched in terms of population. Bradford, with a population of 450,000, has I would say worse connectivity than anywhere its size, or even half its size. And to those who would say that 6 trains per hour to the 'bigger city up the road' makes up for this, I would advise never to say this or otherwise conflate Leeds and Bradford if you are actually here!

450,000 is the size of Bradford District though which includes perhaps a dozen stations some with direct services to Carlisle and Morecambe to add to the others previously listed.

The 6 trains an hour to Leeds makes it easy to connect whenever your train leaves Leeds though unlike on the lines with an hourly service to Leeds.

 

[Julian Hornby]

But Portsmouth has links to Brighton, London and Southampton all of which are major interchanges.

 

[4SRKT]

450,000 is the size of Bradford District though which includes perhaps a dozen stations some with direct services to Carlisle and Morecambe to add to the others previously listed.

The 6 trains an hour to Leeds makes it easy to connect whenever your train leaves Leeds though unlike on the lines with an hourly service to Leeds.

Nonetheless it is still a very poor service for a city of its size. Let's say 350,000 in the city itself. Direct services from Shipley to Carlisle and Morecambe (4 a day) is hardly great shakes in terms of wider connectivity. Huddersfield for example is less than half this population and (by an accident of history) has a much better service, and as for York..... The residents of these places would not be content if suddenly they had to change at Leeds, even if they did have 6 tph.

 

[northwichcat]

Nonetheless it is still a very poor service for a city of its size. Let's say 350,000 in the city itself. Direct services from Shipley to Carlisle and Morecambe (4 a day) is hardly great shakes in terms of wider connectivity. Huddersfield for example is less than half this population and (by an accident of history) has a much better service, and as for York..... The residents of these places would not be content if suddenly they had to change at Leeds, even if they did have 6 tph.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because Cumbria has a greater population than Huddersfield it should have a more frequent service to York? For a place with a population of 146,000 Huddersfield doesn't have particularly good rail links unless you're going to somewhere on the North TPE network.

EDIT: Just realised you were talking about Bradford.

 

[Deerfold]

Nonetheless it is still a very poor service for a city of its size. Let's say 350,000 in the city itself. Direct services from Shipley to Carlisle and Morecambe (4 a day) is hardly great shakes in terms of wider connectivity. Huddersfield for example is less than half this population and (by an accident of history) has a much better service, and as for York..... The residents of these places would not be content if suddenly they had to change at Leeds, even if they did have 6 tph.

There's 5 a day to Lancaster and Morecambe and 6 to Carlisle. As a resident of Bradford Borough I've found these links to be very useful on occasion. Sure I'd love them to be more frequent but they can be quite useful as they are - and both connect to the WCML without having to change in Bradford and Manchester.

Huddersfield is great if you're going East/West but there's no direct services to London from the main station - and it takes about as long to get to Leeds or London as it does from Bradford. It has about the same number of services going South to Sheffield as Bradford has on its two northbound services.

 

[corin paul]

Lincoln, yes definitely.

100% total the worst city to anywhere after the morning London trains have gone out, a hour to Nottingham, Grimsby and a hour and half to Peterborough.

 

[johnnychips]

I think we can all agree...

Not on this forum!

 

[thenorthern]

Norwich isn't brilliant, yes there is the direct train to Liverpool other than that all only seem to go to Norfolk, Suffolk and London.

 

[43074]

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.

Yes, I agree with that. Regional links within the East Midlands, i.e. the Derby - Nottingham - Leicester triangle are pretty good, with 2tph between each of them, but if you are travelling to anywhere that isn't the West Midlands, London or East Anglia then it is poorly connected.

It also depends how you define ''connected'': if you mean by direct trains then it is poorly connected, but the number of places you can get to with just one change is much greater, via Birmingham New Street, Peterborough or Derby/Sheffield.

 

[Green Lane]

Yes, I suppose journeys such as Huyton to London Euston would be a "mainline" change at Lime Street.

True, although from Huyton it's often a little bit quicker to change at Warrington Bank Quay instead of going via Lime Street.

 

[306024]

Norwich isn't brilliant, yes there is the direct train to Liverpool other than that all only seem to go to Norfolk, Suffolk and London.

[Sarcasm] Maybe that is because Norfolk has a long coastline. Trains don't work so well in the sea. [/Sarcasm]

Norwich is a fine city, and very well connected given where it appears to be on my map

 

[Spandau]

Salford?

 

[Northern_Light]

Well there isn't a great deal in terms of population to the west of Aberdeen and, well the east speaks for itself...

—

I think we can all agree that it would be easier to compare metropolitan/urban areas rather than cities.

Is Aberdeen really all that badly served? Let's take a look and see...

To the south, FSR offers 1tph to each of GLQ and EDI. In addition to this, East Coast run 3tpd from KGX and 1tpd from LDS. And there is of course the additional daily service from Cross Country.

Up north, FSR run 11tpd to INV and 22tpd to INR and DYC.

With a population of around 230,000 and a metro of not even half a million, Aberdeen isn't ever going to be a major strategic rail hub. Last years passenger number figures are at a record level, but just over 3.3 million can hardly be called hugely impressive in the grand scheme of things.

With this in mind, I think that service levels offered by the respective TOCs are fully adequate. If any of them thought that there was significant extra demand to and from ABD, I'm pretty convinced that they wouldn't be slow to state their case!

So in my considered opinion, Aberdeen is hardly one of the worst served cities on the rail network.

 

[7griffinjack]

Is Aberdeen really all that badly served?

I'm not saying it is, I completely agree with you. I was just referring to Taunton's comment about there only being rail links to the north and south...