Which is the most important station in Britain?

[Unixman]

"Important" is such a vague term so I am going to define it as "the station which if it went TU would cause the maximum inconvenience, either directly or indirectly through knock-on effects, to the greatest number of people" then it has to be New Street.

 

[colchesterken]

Colchester Town !!!!!!!

 

[J-2739]

What about Leeds???

 

[Yunchy]

Oops - looks like you forgot Leeds! I think it would come down to either Leeds, Birmingham New Street, Waterloo or Clapham Junction for these reasons:

Leeds - the busiest station in the north of England and the central hub of the rail network in the north. Also the centre of a busy commuter rail network. Of course it also serves the most important financial centre outside London.

Birmingham NS - the crossroads of the English rail network but points lost by its commuter importance being reduced somewhat by the existence of other stations in Birmingham.

Waterloo - the busiest station in Britain and so the station that matters the most to the most number of people.

Clapham Junction - the crossroads of the busiest rail franchises in the UK and the busiest interchange in the country. In terms of the number of people a station going down would affect, Clapham Junction would be far in the lead.

 

[Abpj17]

I'm not sure about having a list with both terminals and through stations in it.

Some stations are both of course.

St Pancras is terminus for three very different services (eurostar, MML and HS1) plus an increasingly complex through station for Thameslink, and soon to be expanded Great Northern.

 

[DanTrain]

I didn't forget about Leeds, I just didn't include it in place on Manchester Piccadilly. We do, of course need more options, but Manchester is a much more important city than Leeds, and Piccadilly is at least as busy. Whilst I know Manchester has other stations, Piccadilly is it's main one, with better connections than Leeds. It's 6 of one, half a dozen on the other, in hindsight, Crewe and York were probably unnecessary, but thenthey can be considered historically important.

 

[DelW]

New Street has regular direct services to London, Bournemouth, Plymouth, Cardiff, Hereford, Aberystwyth, Pwllheli, Holyhead, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Nottingham, and Stansted Airport, as well as all the intermediate stations on those routes and multiple local destinations. I don't think any other station can offer such a geographical spread of direct services.

 

[cle]

I'd probably say Birmingham as a single station, or Clapham Junction. The London ones are disperate, as is Manchester. Leeds is more of a regional hub, but from a railway ops and network point of view, Doncaster and York probably dilute it somewhat.

Not on here - but Reading is a modern-day Crewe/York, but far more important and busy these days...and with actual arrivals (jobs)! And that is pre-Crossrail, WRATH, GW wires etc etc - I'd really expect it to take off.

Stratford is another modern upstart too, which has come up in importance.

 

[fowler9]

I'd say at the end of the day the reason it is hard to say which is the most important is because we are lucky enough to have a very resilient railway network no matter how much we knock it and barring something hideously disastrous it would cope.

 

[Yunchy]

I didn't forget about Leeds, I just didn't include it in place on Manchester Piccadilly. We do, of course need more options, but Manchester is a much more important city than Leeds, and Piccadilly is at least as busy. Whilst I know Manchester has other stations, Piccadilly is it's main one, with better connections than Leeds. It's 6 of one, half a dozen on the other, in hindsight, Crewe and York were probably unnecessary, but thenthey can be considered historically important.

Unfortunately you're quite wrong on a few points there. It would be very hard to justify Piccadilly is a more important station than Leeds on really all the criteria you give.

It is highly debatable whether Manchester is a more important city than Leeds; if it is, its certainly only a little more important. It has a bigger airport and football team - that's about it. In the retail rankings, as a financial centre, as a legal centre, in population and as a digital centre it is most definitely less important. There are several cities that would rank above it on those merits but notably Leeds ranks above on all of them. We're not only talking numbers here, but noting that the Bank of England's only office outside of London is of course Leeds. That the only top 10 legal firm in the UK not based in London is in Leeds, and so on.

There's also both Network Rail stats and the Office of Rail and Road statistics, both of which inarguably place Leeds as a significantly busier station than Manchester Piccadilly. Nearly four times as many people use it as York, and Crewe doesn't even make the top 5 in the North West, let alone the country.

Put simply, there is a reason that the Government is prepared to spend many millions on rebuilding the whole of Leeds station to become a mega-hub that will be the biggest station in the UK, while only tacking on new HS2 platforms at Piccadilly. Indeed, Leeds is already the biggest non-London station in England, and the second largest after Edinburgh Waverley.

For the record, my station is Clapham Junction.

 

[cle]

Leeds as a city is far less important than Manchester.
The station is marginally busier due to it being the only one of note - add Victoria (Oxford Road is somewhat duplicative as almost all services run to Piccadilly, so I'm being generous) - and that falls apart. The fact even that Leeds has a sole station (of note) kind of testifies to its size and this point.

Hence why it isn't the London stations - that is the irony. The more important the city, the less likely to have just one main station... like Glasgow or Birmingham - both of which have much bigger commuter networks than Leeds (and thus more important to their place) - Liverpool also is spread, and has higher rail use overall.

 

[urbophile]

New Street is far from being my favourite station but I voted for it because of its strategic position and connectivity.

 

[59CosG95]

I'd go for any fairly large station where a ton of major corridors converge/diverge. So Clapham Jct, Reading, B'ham NS, Crewe, London Bridge, Bristol TM, Stratford, Leeds, Derby...the list goes on.

 

[fowler9]

Unfortunately you're quite wrong on a few points there. It would be very hard to justify Piccadilly is a more important station than Leeds on really all the criteria you give.

It is highly debatable whether Manchester is a more important city than Leeds; if it is, its certainly only a little more important. It has a bigger airport and football team - that's about it. In the retail rankings, as a financial centre, as a legal centre, in population and as a digital centre it is most definitely less important. There are several cities that would rank above it on those merits but notably Leeds ranks above on all of them. We're not only talking numbers here, but noting that the Bank of England's only office outside of London is of course Leeds. That the only top 10 legal firm in the UK not based in London is in Leeds, and so on.

There's also both Network Rail stats and the Office of Rail and Road statistics, both of which inarguably place Leeds as a significantly busier station than Manchester Piccadilly. Nearly four times as many people use it as York, and Crewe doesn't even make the top 5 in the North West, let alone the country.

Put simply, there is a reason that the Government is prepared to spend many millions on rebuilding the whole of Leeds station to become a mega-hub that will be the biggest station in the UK, while only tacking on new HS2 platforms at Piccadilly. Indeed, Leeds is already the biggest non-London station in England, and the second largest after Edinburgh Waverley.

For the record, my station is Clapham Junction.

That is bobbins. Manchester is a far more important city than Leeds and that sticks in my throat being a Scouser, ha ha. Leeds is a cracking place but if you want to fly intercontinental you pretty much definitely have to go to Manchester. Yeah Leeds may or may not be busier than Manchester Piccadilly but Manchester also has Victoria and Oxford Road plus Metrolink connecting them all up and other heavy rail services connecting them. Taking other cities Sheffield is technically bigger than Liverpool but that ignores Knowsley and Sefton and parts of Cheshire which are parts of Liverpools commuter belt. Leeds Includes the whole Bradford area which makes it seem bigger. Manchester on the other hand is massive when you include its commuter belt.

 

[DanTrain]

Unfortunately you're quite wrong on a few points there. It would be very hard to justify Piccadilly is a more important station than Leeds on really all the criteria you give.

It is highly debatable whether Manchester is a more important city than Leeds; if it is, its certainly only a little more important. It has a bigger airport and football team - that's about it. In the retail rankings, as a financial centre, as a legal centre, in population and as a digital centre it is most definitely less important. There are several cities that would rank above it on those merits but notably Leeds ranks above on all of them. We're not only talking numbers here, but noting that the Bank of England's only office outside of London is of course Leeds. That the only top 10 legal firm in the UK not based in London is in Leeds, and so on.

There's also both Network Rail stats and the Office of Rail and Road statistics, both of which inarguably place Leeds as a significantly busier station than Manchester Piccadilly. Nearly four times as many people use it as York, and Crewe doesn't even make the top 5 in the North West, let alone the country.

Put simply, there is a reason that the Government is prepared to spend many millions on rebuilding the whole of Leeds station to become a mega-hub that will be the biggest station in the UK, while only tacking on new HS2 platforms at Piccadilly. Indeed, Leeds is already the biggest non-London station in England, and the second largest after Edinburgh Waverley.

For the record, my station is Clapham Junction.

So Leeds has a legal firm and a BoE office. Well done! Manchester has a proper international airport, half the BBC, the biggest uni in the country, three very busy stations, two world class football teams and a partridge in a pear tree (sorry, not xmas yet!). York and Crewe are in the list because of their historical significance, which could be considered 'importance'. Manchester also has a much larger population once Salford, Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale ect are considered.

 

[xotGD]

A city having multiple, unconnected mainline stations isn't a feature, it's a bug. In that regard, Leeds has an advantage over Manchester, Glasgow or Birmingham. (And of course Bradford.)

Having an extended walk, bus or tram ride to make a connection reduces the attraction of rail travel.

 

[Malcolmffc]

Judging by the attention it gets in this forum, Newhaven Marine

 

[Eccles1983]

A city having multiple, unconnected mainline stations isn't a feature, it's a bug. In that regard, Leeds has an advantage over Manchester, Glasgow or Birmingham. (And of course Bradford.)

Having an extended walk, bus or tram ride to make a connection reduces the attraction of rail travel.

And even now your point is out of date the second the chord opens.

Leeds is big in Leeds.

Manchester is the main city outside of London. It's importance to the country is obvious.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Manchester is the main city outside of London. It's importance to the country is obvious.

In England. Glasgow has a case for being "No 2" in the UK.
But it has 2 main terminal stations, so neither are as important to the rail network as the smaller Edinburgh Waverley.
Birmingham also has a case for being No 2 too, in economic terms (but also has 2 main stations).

 

[kevconnor]

Isn't the definition being used not about which city is more 'important' but which station if found itself up #### creek without a paddle would have the biggest impact on the railways.

On that score Leeds wins over Manchester as Manchester can use Manchester Oxford Road and Manchester Victoria to take some of the burdon whereas there are no other stations in Leeds.

 

[Eccles1983]

I'm not on about solely stations.

In terms of significance Manchester is now really the second city. It has all the links needed for business, from land and air.

It sits centrally as the crux of the North. I think its a very drab boring place but in terms of importance Leeds is a backwater.

 

[AndrewE]

I'm not on about solely stations. In terms of significance Manchester is now really the second city. It has all the links needed for business, from land and air. It sits centrally as the crux of the North. I think its a very drab boring place but in terms of importance Leeds is a backwater.

However this is a rail forum and the question was solely about stations. As I said before, I think Bham New St is the most important on the network (like 52% of us) even though lots of stations like the London and Glasgow termini (and Waverley and Leeds)are essential in their own conurbations.

 

[Iskra]

I'm not on about solely stations.

In terms of significance Manchester is now really the second city. It has all the links needed for business, from land and air.

It sits centrally as the crux of the North. I think its a very drab boring place but in terms of importance Leeds is a backwater.

So which Manchester station are you nominating as more important than Leeds station? This is about stations, not cities.

Leeds is the transport hub for Yorkshire and the Humber, Manchester Piccadilly is one of four major stations in Greater Manchester, that's before you start considering Liverpool Lime Street, Preston and Stockport in the wider area.

To say Manchester sits centrally as the crux of the North is a joke. To start with it's not central, it's geographically remote from a lot of it- especially the North East. Even from most places in the North West to travel to London you wouldn't go anywhere near Manchester!

 

[xotGD]

And even now your point is out of date the second the chord opens.

Leeds is big in Leeds.

Manchester is the main city outside of London. It's importance to the country is obvious.

The second the chord opens there will be one train per hour to Oxford Road. So if you arrive into Victoria and want to catch a train to (say) London you have to catch two trains to get to Piccadilly. At Leeds you can stroll round from the bay platforms to 6 or 8 and away you go.

 

[ivanhoe]

I thought it was a good question. Whilst what you could vote for was limited (just by the limitations of the platform we are working on) it has opened up an interesting discussion. I voted Waterloo because I thought it had the highest footfall. New Street is massively important. West Allerton closely followed by Lime Street are my most important.

Ah well, there’s West Allertons vote in. Close the ballot box.

 

[DanTrain]

Leeds is the transport hub for Yorkshire and the Humber, Manchester Piccadilly is one of four major stations in Greater Manchester, that's before you start considering Liverpool Lime Street, Preston and Stockport in the wider area.

To say Manchester sits centrally as the crux of the North is a joke. To start with it's not central, it's geographically remote from a lot of it- especially the North East. Even from most places in the North West to travel to London you wouldn't go anywhere near Manchester!

Sorry, but what? Leeds is indeed the hub for West Yorkshire but to extend that to the whole county is simply untrue, Sheffield, York, Hull and Doncaster are also vitally important. In the same way Man Picc is important to the Manchester Conurbation (with Vic admittedly), and Liverpool and Preston are also important.

To say whether Man Picc or Leeds is more important is hard, and depends where you live. From Sheffield or Nottingham, Manchester provides a gateway to the entire of the north west whilst Leeds is only needed to access West Yorks. Equally, for those in Bradford or Hull, Leeds is a central station to access much of the country. Looks to me like a case of 6 of one 1/2 a dozen of the other.

 

[bb21]

"Important" is such a vague term so I am going to define it as "the station which if it went TU would cause the maximum inconvenience, either directly or indirectly through knock-on effects, to the greatest number of people" then it has to be New Street.

If that were your criteria then Clapham Junction singularly has to be the one that stands out.

New Street wouldn't come anywhere near.

 

[Mag_seven]

As has been evidenced by the statements above I don't think there "is" a correct answer to the question posed.

 

[xotGD]

If that were your criteria then Clapham Junction singularly has to be the one that stands out.

New Street wouldn't come anywhere near.

If everything ran non-stop through Clapham Junction this would cause minor inconvenience to passengers who normally alight, board or change there. Other routings are available. If everything ran non-stop through New Street passengers would be stuffed.

 

[bb21]

If everything ran non-stop through Clapham Junction this would cause minor inconvenience to passengers who normally alight, board or change there. Other routings are available. If everything ran non-stop through New Street passengers would be stuffed.

OK, I'm more thinking of the station being bombed out and lines closed.

However even if trains ran non-stop through New Street, people won't be stuffed if that were the only problem. They'll just change at a nearby station and SSOs being put in. Minor inconvenience.

The sheer number at Clapham Junction will still beat New Street hands down.