What determines station spacing in urban areas?

[miklcct]

There are some lines, such as North London line or Watford DC line, having a station nearly every km for their stopping services, which make the lines effectively metro lines which people walk to the station to take the train.

However, other lines, such as Midland main line, don't have so many stations in the urban area. For example, it takes so long to reach the next station, Hendon, travelling from Cricklewood, and it's again so long to the next station, Mill Hill Broadway.

What decides the station spacing on a certain urban line? Why don't all urban lines have short metro-like stop spacing in order to operate metro services in the lines?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Most 'main lines' were built before the areas that they passed through were built up, hence few wayside stations were needed originally.

Later some of the stations that did exist were closed either because their traffic had largely disappeared to trams and buses or because calls at those stations consumed disproportionate amounts of capacity. For example, some stations closed between Cricklewood and St Pancras.

Fundamentally metro-style services are incompatible with long-distance, high-speed, inter-city and freight services unless entirely separate tracks are available, such as the Euston-Waterford 'DC' lines.

 

[Tim M]

The location of a station is not simply ‘lets put one every 1000m’ but determined by local geography and need. An ideal city would be built on a grid pattern with streets spaced at even intervals, and whereas some cities in the USA come close to this principle most cities have grown up in an irregular pattern. Factors that need to be taken into account might include: if I put a station here is there convenient passenger access, e.g. is there a road at that position, is there demand, e..g. does this serve housing, industry, retail or a transport interchange, there’s no point in placing a station adjacent to a marsh.

For Mainline stations the situation is more likely to be historic, and in Victorian times may have been influenced by the landed gentry saying ‘no dirty railway near my stately pile thank you’, many other factors such as the geography, rural or town, development opportunities etc. will also come into play.

Then you could look at the Singapore example where the intention is to provide mass transit or light rail to within 200m of virtually the whole island

 

[Dai Corner]

In modern times, the ability to get developers to accommodate and fund new or resited stations.

 

[The exile]

Most 'main lines' were built before the areas that they passed through were built up, hence few wayside stations were needed originally.

Later some of the stations that did exist were closed either because their traffic had largely disappeared to trams and buses or because calls at those stations consumed disproportionate amounts of capacity. For example, some stations closed between Cricklewood and St Pancras.

Fundamentally metro-style services are incompatible with long-distance, high-speed, inter-city and freight services unless entirely separate tracks are available, such as the Euston-Waterford 'DC' lines.

It’s also worth pointing out that both examples given saw early electrification. Bit of a chicken and egg situation regarding passenger numbers - but “nice clean” electric trains could cope with frequent stops better than “dirty smelly old” steam trains and could usually run at higher frequency, having lower crewing costs- thus making them more attractive for short journeys.

 

[30907]

Significant numbers of inner South London stations closed in WW1 because their traffic had been lost to tram and tube, and it was a useful fuel and staff economy measure. Once past that, the ex SR suburban lines tend to have stations about a mile apart (only a handful being post WW1 "insertions") and the ex LNER similar, which is not very different from the Watford DC and tube lines..

The Midland Main Line is something of an exception, which may be owing to geography and very heavy freight traffic as well as competition - it certainly had a much less frequent offpeak service than most London area lines pre Bedpan electrification. The ex GW beyond Hanwell was similar, and geography certainly plays a part there.

Tim M's post is also relevant. For example, on the line I grew up on out of Victoria, Kent House was a late-Victorian addition, placed close to a crossroads and in an area of developing upmarket housing; the others all served existing settlements (or upmarket housing at Sydenham Hill) and had convenient road access.

 

[Snow1964]

Many of the closer stations are infills to serve developments, the Southern railway added quite a few in 1930s on electrified lines.
Earlier on stations had been added to serve new suburban areas.

As an example on main line out of Waterloo, was originally Nine Elms (terminus), then Wandsworth (now Clapham Junction), Wimbledon, Kingston (replaced by nearby Surbiton), Ditton Marsh (now Esher), Walton, Weybridge, Woking Common, Farnborough etc. (Vauxhall, Earlsfield, Raynes Park, New Malden, Hersham, Byfleet, West Byfleet, Brookwood were all added later).

 

[zwk500]

What decides the station spacing on a certain urban line?

Fundamentally, the potential traffic. As has been mentioned, this changes over time as populations change and other transport options become available.

Why don't all urban lines have short metro-like stop spacing in order to operate metro services in the lines?

Because the railway isn't designed in a maths exam. It's a constant compromise between having the money available (yes, even in 1870s), having a suitable site, and being able to operate the overall service in the most profitable way.

 

[miklcct]

Significant numbers of inner South London stations closed in WW1 because their traffic had been lost to tram and tube, and it was a useful fuel and staff economy measure.

Why wasn't it the opposite that the traffic on tram losing to the heavy rail? Trams are a relatively slow and low-capacity mean of transportation compared to heavy rail, and there weren't many tube lines in South London as well. Frequent electric trains on suburban railways basically perform the same function as the tube, like the current London Overground.

 

[The exile]

Why wasn't it the opposite that the traffic on tram losing to the heavy rail? Trams are a relatively slow and low-capacity mean of transportation compared to heavy rail, and there weren't many tube lines in South London as well. Frequent electric trains on suburban railways basically perform the same function as the tube, like the current London Overground.

Trams were far more frequent - inevitably had more stops closer to people’s start point or destination. The speed of the journey itself is only one of the factors ; frequency and length of walk at either end are just as important.

 

[Dai Corner]

Trams were far more frequent - inevitably had more stops closer to people’s start point or destination. The speed of the journey itself is only one of the factors ; frequency and length of walk at either end are just as important.

I believe tram fares were cheaper than rail fares too.

 

[miklcct]

Trams were far more frequent - inevitably had more stops closer to people’s start point or destination. The speed of the journey itself is only one of the factors ; frequency and length of walk at either end are just as important.

So were the normal journey distances in South London not long enough for the heavy rail to be competitive based on the journey time and the fact that heavy rail travel avoids traffic congestion on the road?

 

[Dr Hoo]

I believe tram fares were cheaper than rail fares too.

And easier to buy too. Just pay the conductor. Much easier than having to queue up in a gloomy booking hall, queue again to get it clipped at a barrier. Enjoy the doubtful pleasures of lurching along in a gas lit four-wheeler before alighting and queuing again to get your ticket collected.

 

[zwk500]

Why wasn't it the opposite that the traffic on tram losing to the heavy rail? Trams are a relatively slow and low-capacity mean of transportation compared to heavy rail, and there weren't many tube lines in South London as well. Frequent electric trains on suburban railways basically perform the same function as the tube, like the current London Overground.

In addition to the above, trams went right into the heart of London, so would often end up closer to the office than the Mainline terminals.

 

[SynthD]

If the railway cut through a known path would they be expected to build a bridge to restore the path? Now there’s a bridge, which is a good place for a station.

 

[30907]

So were the normal journey distances in South London not long enough for the heavy rail to be competitive based on the journey time and the fact that heavy rail travel avoids traffic congestion on the road?

Correct. And not only in South London.

The City and South London tube ran close enough to most of the closed stations to abstract traffic too. It is no coincidence that the Brighton and LSW, which were most affected by competition from electrified "underground" lines, were first to electrify, while the LNW produced a brand-new railway jointly with the Bakerloo. If you can't beat 'em....

 

[stuu]

In addition to the above, trams went right into the heart of London, so would often end up closer to the office than the Mainline terminals.

They didn't really, they never crossed into the City or West end. The Kingsway subway was the only route across Central London

 

[The exile]

So were the normal journey distances in South London not long enough for the heavy rail to be competitive based on the journey time and the fact that heavy rail travel avoids traffic congestion on the road?

Outside of central London traffic congestion wasn't really an issue and as mentioned above, London was unusual in that even the trams didn't really penetrate the centre. However, electric trams were clean and modern - which the railways weren't until suburban electrification came along - which was really aimed at the next distance out (Hampton Court, Kingston etc). "Close in" stations stood little chance unless they were destinations in their own right - as a source of traffic they weren't really worth the restricitons they usually imposed on traffic.

If the railway cut through a known path would they be expected to build a bridge to restore the path? Now there’s a bridge, which is a good place for a station.

In urban areas most of the "paths" would already have been roads necessitating a bridge or level crossing - outside of urban areas a foot crossing (many of which still survive) would suffice. The existence of a right of way is no guarantee that there is actually much "traffic" using it.

 

[Watershed]

A lot of it is down to politics. For instance you could ask why the Heart of Wales Line survived whilst the Waverley route didn't. The answer - the HoWL went through several marginal constituencies and saving it was deemed important in the General Election.

It's also worth considering how built-up an area was when the line was opened. Being a relatively "low radius" circle line, the North London Line went through suburbia pretty much all the way, basically from the day it opened. So it made sense that it would have lots of stations, as there were potential sources of demand along pretty much its entire route.

By contrast, the Midland Main Line heads pretty much straight out of London - and whilst there are quite a few stations in inner London (Kentish Town, Cricklewood, Hendon etc.), again these were in suburbia when the line was built. But the contiguous built-up area of London didn't extend as far as the M25 when the line opened.

It's also worth noting that service patterns on most lines have stayed broadly the same over the years - so if a line opened with a lot of stations, it's likely to have kept them, provided the traffic was reasonable - whereas if it opened with few stations, that means more capacity for express/freight trains and so you would have to sacrifice something to open more stations.

 

[The exile]

A lot of it is down to politics. For instance you could ask why the Heart of Wales Line survived whilst the Waverley route didn't. The answer - the HoWL went through several marginal constituencies and saving it was deemed important in the General Election.

It's also worth considering how built-up an area was when the line was opened. Being a relatively "low radius" circle line, the North London Line went through suburbia pretty much all the way, basically from the day it opened. So it made sense that it would have lots of stations, as there were potential sources of demand along pretty much its entire route.

By contrast, the Midland Main Line heads pretty much straight out of London - and whilst there are quite a few stations in inner London (Kentish Town, Cricklewood, Hendon etc.), again these were in suburbia when the line was built. But the contiguous built-up area of London didn't extend as far as the M25 when the line opened.

It's also worth noting that service patterns on most lines have stayed broadly the same over the years - so if a line opened with a lot of stations, it's likely to have kept them, provided the traffic was reasonable - whereas if it opened with few stations, that means more capacity for express/freight trains and so you would have to sacrifice something to open more stations.

Also the fact that for many of the main line companies north of London their main raison d’etre was the movement of freight - with passengers at best “the icing on the cake” but short distance, low fare passengers merely tolerated as an inevitability of the railways’ status as common carriers. Stopping passenger trains took up paths that were needed for freight.

 

[Ken H]

Also the fact that for many of the main line companies north of London their main raison d’etre was the movement of freight - with passengers at best “the icing on the cake” but short distance, low fare passengers merely tolerated as an inevitability of the railways’ status as common carriers. Stopping passenger trains took up paths that were needed for freight.

Even thats depends. LNER were keen to provide for commuters. GWR regarded them as a nuisance.LMS were happy to provide for them in the tilbury & Southend line, less so out of Euston & Paddington.
But the main line railways were happy for the tube to take over lines in the 30's.

 

[Magdalia]

It is important to remember that the Midland Main Line was built from the Midlands towards London, not from London northwards. Its main purpose was to get freight traffic from the Midlands to London, not to provide a London suburban passenger service. The line south from Bedford was also built in the 1860s, later than most London arterial routes.

In the particular case of the gap between Cricklewood and Hendon, it was (and partly still is) used extensively for railway yards which took precedence over residential development.

 

[Mikey C]

It's interesting that a couple of gaps on mainline services out of London are being filled by new stations, Brent Cross West and Old Oak Common, making use of all the land used by the railways.

Also, it's worth noting that a number of stations have been closed. On the MML, Welsh Harp, Finchley Road and Camden Road all closed a long time ago, this is the "Disused Stations" for Finchley Road on the Midland

Disused Stations: Finchley Road station

 

[DarloRich]

What decides the station spacing on a certain urban line? Why don't all urban lines have short metro-like stop spacing in order to operate metro services in the lines?

A brief look at the history of the railways in the UK will provide your answer. That answer is that nothing decides on station spacing except where the promotors of the individual lines wanted to put the stations.

I am sure nowadays there will be complicated assessments of population density/development plans/expected return on investment/political requirements etc etc.

 

[RT4038]

And easier to buy too. Just pay the conductor. Much easier than having to queue up in a gloomy booking hall, queue again to get it clipped at a barrier. Enjoy the doubtful pleasures of lurching along in a gas lit four-wheeler before alighting and queuing again to get your ticket collected.

Not forgetting how dirty everything was on steam railways, compared to an electric tramcar.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2022 ==

A brief look at the history of the railways in the UK will provide your answer. That answer is that nothing decides on station spacing except where the promotors of the individual lines wanted to put the stations.

I am sure nowadays there will be complicated assessments of population density/development plans/expected return on investment/political requirements etc etc.

Not forgetting the technical limitations of using steam locomotives, which are not particularly efficient when stopping at short intervals.

 

[Tim M]

Why wasn't it the opposite that the traffic on tram losing to the heavy rail? Trams are a relatively slow and low-capacity mean of transportation compared to heavy rail, and there weren't many tube lines in South London as well. Frequent electric trains on suburban railways basically perform the same function as the tube, like the current London Overground.

There is an interesting example of a tram not loosing traffic to a new heavy rail line. In Hong Kong when the MTR Island Line was opened in the 1980’s it was expected that the parallel tram system would be redundant. The tram is still there and flourishing, with people using the MTR for longer journeys with stations about 1km apart and transferring to the tram for the last few hundred meters.