Trivia: Urban Areas with poor suburban services

[thenorthern]

I am trying to work out the Urban Area which has the worst suburban/commuter services and areas served relative to its population. For this thread I would include light rail as suburban services.

Because of the confusion of what is an Urban Area and what isn't I have included this list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom

The worst ones I have thought of are:

Stoke-on-Trent (Potteries) - Quite a large area however much of it including some of the main parts (Newcastle and Hanley) isn't served by any services and 3 of the 5 stations in the potteries are only served by the hourly semi-rural Crewe to Derby Line.

Three East Midlands Cities (Derby, Nottingham and Leicester) - Three fairly large cities which all have one main station and an additional number of small unstaffed stations served only by semi-rural local services most of which are run hourly or less. Nottingham does have the NET serving certain areas though.

Northampton - Only has 1 station and therefore no local services despite being a large town.

Telford - Quite a large town but the whole town is only served by 2 trains per hour.

Milton Keynes - Large Town although like other new town much of it is without a rail link and many of the local stations in the town don't have a direct link to the City Center as they are on the Marson Vale line.

Coventry - Large city although most of it including north Coventry isn't currently served by any train services although this is going to change soon.

What other urban areas would you say have poor suburban/commuter services?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Milton Keynes - Large Town although like other new town much of it is without a rail link and many of the local stations in the town don't have a direct link to the City Center as they are on the Marson Vale line.

I'm not sure whether even if this was connected to MKC (as was the original purpose of bay platform 2a, I think) it would attract much custom. It's only hourly, quite slow and the roads are fast (60/70mph) and uncongested making the car and the bus quicker, with cycling on the dedicated Redways also pleasant, not ignoring the fact that the station is at one end of the centre so inconvenient for shoppers.

 

[bradders1983]

The evening service out of Sheffield to the other towns in South Yorkshire is atrocious. Try getting to Barnsley after 11pm any day of the week by train (or even by bus), or back to Barnsley from Leeds on a weekend evening late on.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

I am trying to work out the Urban Area which has the worst suburban/commuter services and areas served relative to its population. For this thread I would include light rail as suburban services.

Because of the confusion of what is an Urban Area and what isn't I have included this list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom

The worst ones I have thought of are:

Stoke-on-Trent (Potteries) - Quite a large area however much of it including some of the main parts (Newcastle and Hanley) isn't served by any services and 3 of the 5 stations in the potteries are only served by the hourly semi-rural Crewe to Derby Line.

Three East Midlands Cities (Derby, Nottingham and Leicester) - Three fairly large cities which all have one main station and an additional number of small unstaffed stations served only by semi-rural local services most of which are run hourly or less. Nottingham does have the NET serving certain areas though.

Northampton - Only has 1 station and therefore no local services despite being a large town.

Telford - Quite a large town but the whole town is only served by 2 trains per hour.

Milton Keynes - Large Town although like other new town much of it is without a rail link and many of the local stations in the town don't have a direct link to the City Center as they are on the Marson Vale line.

Coventry - Large city although most of it including north Coventry isn't currently served by any train services although this is going to change soon.

What other urban areas would you say have poor suburban/commuter services?

Edinburgh? Southampton? Sheffield? Wolverhampton? Bristol?

 

[DarloRich]

I'm not sure whether even if this was connected to MKC (as was the original purpose of bay platform 2a, I think) it would attract much custom. It's only hourly, quite slow and the roads are fast (60/70mph) and uncongested making the car and the bus quicker, with cycling on the dedicated Redways also pleasant, not ignoring the fact that the station is at one end of the centre so inconvenient for shoppers.

It would with me -) ) and other Marston Valers - the lack of that direct link is a serious impediment to more passengers using the Vale. The rail user group surveys show that and LM acknowledge it.

Hell we put up with 2 months of no service to allow the infrastructure to be improved to deliver direct trains and we are still waiting!

 

[thenorthern]

Edinburgh? Southampton? Sheffield? Wolverhampton? Bristol?

Edinburgh and Sheffield aren't too bad in my opinion as they both have a number of stations an light rail systems although the south side of Sheffield could be better as its only served two-hourly off peak by Dore and Totley.

I would agree with you on Wolverhampton although the West Midlands conurbation as a whole is fairly well served except in certain areas like Dudley and Aldridge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hell we put up with 2 months of no service to allow the infrastructure to be improved to deliver direct trains and we are still waiting!

What's the issue now? Paths, or a reluctance to provide it now when it'll be taken away again with East West Rail?

 

[thenorthern]

With Milton Keynes and Telford I suppose they designated as New Towns in the 1960s which was in the years of the Beaching Axe and the main priority was roads rather than the railways and had Milton Keynes been designated today I would imagine Milton Keynes would contain a suburban system or a light rail.

 

[yorksrob]

Leicester and Nottingham would have rather better suburban services had the Great Central mainline not been destroyed.

I would also like to add a large sweep of North East Leeds, through which no one bothered to build a railway line !

 

[westv]

Hull?

 

[northwichcat]

Warrington. 1tph to Crewe but no service to any of the stations on the way to Crewe, no direct service to any town in East Cheshire and currently one of the few large towns in the North without a direct service to Manchester Airport, despite the Airport being within a commutable distance.

 

[Haydn1971]

The evening service out of Sheffield to the other towns in South Yorkshire is atrocious. Try getting to Barnsley after 11pm any day of the week by train (or even by bus), or back to Barnsley from Leeds on a weekend evening late on.

Sheffield was on the tip of my tongue !

Other than the main Sheffield and secondary Meadowhall Stations, services to other parts of the city are mediocre - Dore has poor fast connectivity to Manchester, even worse beyond Piccadilly, Rotherham isn't connected to anything but Northern local services, Darnall/Woodhouse is little more than an hourly service between Sheffield and Worksop.

Obviously the hills are a big problem, plus the heavy rail lines aren't really the best for the best trip generation. However, with a lot of fantasy, some relatively low cost investment in four tracking Dore-Sheffield and Attercliffe-Meadowhall, some tram-train extensions, some more stations (Woodseats Road, Lowfield, Brightside, Orgreave, Beighton, Spitalfields, Wadsley Bridge, Oughtibridge, Deepcar all have potential to varying degrees for heavy, tram-train or both).

Time to buy some more tram-trains and get some small trains such as Alstoms TER and get Sheffield moving again
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would also like to add a large sweep of North East Leeds, through which no one bothered to build a railway line !

Via an airport by any chance ?

 

[yorksrob]

Via an airport by any chance ?

Ah, that's North West Leeds !

 

[thenorthern]

Which one would you say is the worst overall? Personally I think the 3 worst are Stoke-on-Trent (Potteries), Leicester and Hull in that order.

The best suburban network for its size I reckon is Birkenhead (The Wirral) simply because of the Merseyrail.

 

[VisualAcid]

The Severn Beach line isn't terrible and has a lot of potential but really needs a more regular service with some better connections.

 

[dysonsphere]

Which one would you say is the worst overall? Personally I think the 3 worst are Stoke-on-Trent (Potteries), Leicester and Hull in that order.

The best suburban network for its size I reckon is Birkenhead (The Wirral) simply because of the Merseyrail.

Before they closed the loop line in the 60`s the potteries had a great local system very short sighted closing it

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Aberdeen has few stations and is quite large.

 

[thirdriding]

Sheffield and South Yorkshire is very poorly served compared to the other major Northern cities. Just one example; the last train back from Leeds to Doncaster on a Saturday night (which I'll be catching tonight) departs at 10:20. Alright when I'm meeting up with friends for a drink, but no use if I want to go to the theatre....I could probably get a much later train back from London - I haven't actually checked though.

 

[edwin_m]

This is largely a question of history and demographics. The advent of the electric tram in the early 20th century provided a better means of transport for travel within medium-sized cities. Although they were slower than trains, they were a lot more frequent and usually stopped nearer to where people wanted to travel from and to, so took most of the custom from the trains. Many of these cities had suburban railways built in Victorian times, which usually struggled on carrying fewer and fewer passengers until closure in the Beeching era or sometimes even earlier. So our medium-sized cities generally have no purely suburban services and any stations in the suburbs survive only because it is possible for longer-distance trains to stop there. The very largest cities were big enough to sustain a suburban rail service where the greater distance made trams uncompetitive, so most retain suburban networks although some of the shorter routes have disappeared. Another factor is topography - in places such as Edinburgh and Sheffield the hills made it difficult to build suburban routes that would have attractive station locations and journey times.

All this was before road traffic congestion became a significant issue from the 1960s onwards, and the value of a segregated alignment was really appreciated. Unfortunately most of them had disappeared by that time, and where reinstatement has happened it has mainly been for light rail which has less capacity but is more accessible than heavy rail.

 

[northwichcat]

Which one would you say is the worst overall? Personally I think the 3 worst are Stoke-on-Trent (Potteries), Leicester and Hull in that order.

The best suburban network for its size I reckon is Birkenhead (The Wirral) simply because of the Merseyrail.

Stoke itself has local/regional services to Crewe, Derby, Manchester via Macclesfield and the Trent Valley via Stone. I think the main problem is the line via Stone effectively has some closed stations on it.

I'm not really sure why that qualifies it for being worst overall, to me that seems comparable to many large towns and smaller cities. The difference being other places have lines and stations which have officially closed to passenger trains and don't still have replacement bus services which accept rail tickets. Norton Bridge and Barlaston are smaller than many towns and villages which have lost their stations.

 

[Solaris]

All the current HR stations in Cardiff are on the western side; there are none in the East. That's half the city or ~180,000 people with limited no rail access....
Newport, a city with 170,000 people has one major station and until recently only one other at Rogerstone. The recent opening of Pye Corner on Ebbw branch has alleviated the situation a little.... but that currently only serves Cardiff and does not provide a direct link to Newport City Centre

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Before they closed the loop line in the 60`s the potteries had a great local system very short sighted closing it

Weren't there issues with the Potteries loop line in terms of restricted clearances and the like? I'd hazard a guess that had it survived the Beeching era it would have been a strong contender for conversion to tramway or light-rail.

Stoke itself has local/regional services to Crewe, Derby, Manchester via Macclesfield and the Trent Valley via Stone. I think the main problem is the line via Stone effectively has some closed stations on it.

I'm not really sure why that qualifies it for being worst overall, to me that seems comparable to many large towns and smaller cities. The difference being other places have lines and stations which have officially closed to passenger trains and don't still have replacement bus services which accept rail tickets. Norton Bridge and Barlaston are smaller than many towns and villages which have lost their stations.

AIUI the city of Stoke-on-Trent is in reality an amalgamation of several smaller overlapping towns, the traditional commercial centre being Hanley which is a fair distance from Stoke station. The present day Stoke station would struggle to support a suburban network in addition to the current regional and intercity services I'd have thought.

 

[thenorthern]

Stoke itself has local/regional services to Crewe, Derby, Manchester via Macclesfield and the Trent Valley via Stone. I think the main problem is the line via Stone effectively has some closed stations on it.

I'm not really sure why that qualifies it for being worst overall, to me that seems comparable to many large towns and smaller cities. The difference being other places have lines and stations which have officially closed to passenger trains and don't still have replacement bus services which accept rail tickets. Norton Bridge and Barlaston are smaller than many towns and villages which have lost their stations.

Inter-City connections into Stoke-on-Trent I would argree are better than most cities but the big problem is getting round the city as the main area (Hanley) has no rail connection and neither does Burslem, Tunstall, Fenton which are some of the 6 towns of Stoke. Also all of Newcastle-under-Lyme proper isn't served by any rail links whatsoever which is poor considering it has a population of 75,000

Weren't there issues with the Potteries loop line in terms of restricted clearances and the like? I'd hazard a guess that had it survived the Beeching era it would have been a strong contender for conversion to tramway or light-rail.


AIUI the city of Stoke-on-Trent is in reality an amalgamation of several smaller overlapping towns, the traditional commercial centre being Hanley which is a fair distance from Stoke station. The present day Stoke station would struggle to support a suburban network in addition to the current regional and intercity services I'd have thought.

The main town in Stoke-on-Trent at the time of the federation of 1910 was Stoke-upon-Trent which is now commonly called Stoke Town by the locals and is located just to the west of Stoke-on-Trent station. Since the federation though Hanley has become the main town and is where the "City Center" is although each of the 6 towns still have their own town center.

Agree with the Potteries Loop Line and I would also add the Stoke - Market Drayton line as far as Newcastle-under-Lyme should have stayed open for the same reason.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Merseyrail gives a lot of places a very good service that would otherwise be unthinkable simply because of the desire for a simple, consistent timetable. Aughton Park, my home station as a kid, is an excellent example - on a more traditional line where everything wasn't an all stations stopper I very much doubt it would justify any better than hourly if that, and possibly even closure.

 

[damo44]

All the current HR stations in Cardiff are on the western side; there are none in the East. That's half the city or ~180,000 people with limited no rail access....

Yes Cardiff's a very unbalanced city it terms of its railways.

On one hand you've got perhaps the most concentrated line of stations in the UK between Coryton and Heath (6 stations in 2.5 miles). Also possibly the shortest heavy rail branch line (Queen St to Bute Road - still not happy calling it Cardiff Bay). But much of the city to the East (Ely) and East (Rumney, Llanrumney) are without any rail service.

New stations on the South Wales main line at Ely, St Fagans, Rover Way and Mardy Road would help, but that still leaves some areas with no heavy rail.

 

[northwichcat]

Inter-City connections into Stoke-on-Trent I would argree are better than most cities but the big problem is getting round the city as the main area (Hanley) has no rail connection and neither does Burslem, Tunstall, Fenton which are some of the 6 towns of Stoke. Also all of Newcastle-under-Lyme proper isn't served by any rail links whatsoever which is poor considering it has a population of 75,000

One problem with railways in general is stations weren't always built in the best locations. In some places that's resulted in new settlements being created but in others it resulted in stations being underused and closing.

I'm sure if anyone to analysed my suggestion of Warrington they would point out a new station was built at Birchwood, which gives Warrington an advantage over other large towns. However, there are also many instances where the commuter network is poor. For instance,

• Trains to Wigan and Crewe don't call at intermediate stations
• Trying to make a journey like Birchwood to Newton-le-Willows by train involves an approx. 1 mile walk between the two stations in Warrington.
• To go between Runcorn (not Halton Lea where Runcorn East station is) and Warrington you have to initially go in the wrong direction and then change at Liverpool South Parkway
• The line between Warrington and Altrincham via Lymm closed
• There is no line out towards Culcheth and Leigh.
• You can't get a train to St Helens, only St Helens Junction which is outside the town, unless you go via Liverpool.
• No passenger services run over Weaver Junction, only freight.

Looking at a map of the Stoke area, there's one big densely populated area and then to the South of that it's very rural. Maybe what's needed is a light rail system for Stoke, Hanley and Newcastle?

 

[47271]

Aberdeen is very poor - near 250k population and only the main station and Dyce within the city boundary. The bus service doesn't have a great reputation either.

 

[Haydn1971]

One problem with railways in general is stations weren't always built in the best locations. In some places that's resulted in new settlements being created but in others it resulted in stations being underused and closing.

I'd suggest that much of the "wrong" place comes historically, in that it was an appropriate location for the time of construction but became less appropriate as demographics change in an area.

The prime example in my mind being the route of Sheffield's Supertram network in that it was more or less fixed in the late 70's to service huge areas of local authority homes, but by the time it was laid before parliament in 86 these areas were either changing the demographic to driving from public transport (Mosborough/Stannington) or worse, nearing end of life (Manor/Kelvin) and by the time services went fully live in the mid 90's, the route was servicing vast areas of demolished housing estates or highly car dependent blue/white collar workers.

 

[70014IronDuke]

This is largely a question of history and demographics. .........

Which could be said or more or less any issue under the sun But I know what you mean.

All this was before road traffic congestion became a significant issue from the 1960s onwards, and the value of a segregated alignment was really appreciated. Unfortunately most of them had disappeared by that time, and where reinstatement has happened it has mainly been for light rail which has less capacity but is more accessible than heavy rail.

1960s? More like 1990s, I'd have thought - and they were still building on trackbeds even then.

If you think about it, it's only 'luck' that many lines in London are 4-track and capable of taking heavy suburban traffic. Many of those slow lines were really built for freight and mineral traffic. And by chance, as that largely disappeared in the 1960s, suburban traffic was building up.

Where there were only two-tracks, it is much more difficult to serve suburban stoppers, or re-instate now closed suburban stations, I'm thinking, eg of he one in Derby (was it Derby London Rd? Closed about 1962.)

I think the discussion about Stoke is fascinating. I never really knew the place, but I do remember there was a series of goods lines going all over the place to the back of Hanley, even in the early 70s.

I'm not sure why this has been designated 'trivia' - a most serious subject. I'm surprised I've never seen a thread like this before anywhere. X

 

[northwichcat]

I'd suggest that much of the "wrong" place comes historically, in that it was an appropriate location for the time of construction but became less appropriate as demographics change in an area.

In the 1800s rich landowners dictated where the railways went. I know for my own local line Lord Egerton (who owned Tatton Park) effectively told the Cheshire Lines Committee what route the train line between Knutsford and Altrincham would follow. Following a shorter route via Rostherne was not an option because Lord Egerton said so.

Down the road in Northwich, the station was built over 1 mile from where the town centre was at the time (The Bull Ring area), again due to what the landowners said. As a result of where the station was built, the town centre expanded towards Rudheath, rather than expanding towards Winnington.