Place with the smallest need for its current London service

[A S Leib]

Out of the places which currently have direct trains to London, which ones need them the least? This is intended as a corollary to the post on where most needs a London service. I'd say that it would probably be somewhere with a small population, far from London, with good connections to other places with more justifiable London services.

I'm not sure if GWR extending half of its Swansea to Paddington services to Carmarthen was essential or just trying to get demand ahead of Lumo. On the other hand, passenger numbers from Carmarthen are 35,000 to Swansea, 32,000 to Cardiff and 20,000 to Paddington and I doubt TfW could have provided as much extra capacity to Cardiff as the GWR services do.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Somewhere like Ardlui, if you include the Caledonian Sleeper?

 

[The exile]

As the Keynsham stops on London services are actually designed as Bristol commuter services (ie from London in the morning and to London in the evening), I imagine the number of through passengers who use the direct trains in both directions is minimal.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

St. Germans in Cornwall (population c1,500) is graced with a couple calls by Paddington trains filling the gaps in the stopping service. To be fair, it has respectable passenger numbers for a small village. Menheniot (not much larger) has had London calls in the recent past.

 

[frankmoh]

Little Kimble is very close to having a direct service to Marylebone via Chiltern. Given how the timetables line up and walking about 10 steps to the southbound train, I'd count it.

I also think operating 165s and 168s on a line that small and slow is a waste of resources. Then again so was sourcing Class 121 parts.

 

[Brubulus]

Thinking more about termini, some GA peak extras reach Walton on the Naze, which is a bit of a weird place to terminate given how much better the facilities (and demand) is at Clacton.

 

[frankmoh]

Westbound trains from Birkbeck heading towards Beckenham Junction is probably the least needed train service in London considering Tramlink goes in the same direction, is way more frequent and also cheaper.

Given how Southern (or even going back to NSE SouthCentral) have neglected the station so much it's clear that they are only stopping there because it's "on the way".

 

[A S Leib]

Somewhere like Ardlui, if you include the Caledonian Sleeper?

I'd count the Caledonian Sleeper, but I'd count Ardlui combined with Fort William and the other stops on that leg.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I'd count the Caledonian Sleeper, but I'd count Ardlui combined with Fort William and the other stops on that leg.

Eh? It's well over 70 miles by rail from Fort William to Ardlui.

 

[RPM]

Little Kimble is very close to having a direct service to Marylebone via Chiltern. Given how the timetables line up and walking about 10 steps to the southbound train, I'd count it.

I also think operating 165s and 168s on a line that small and slow is a waste of resources. Then again so was sourcing Class 121 parts.

It does have direct London services, as well as the branch shuttles. Definitely a contender.

 

[A S Leib]

Eh? It's well over 70 miles by rail from Fort William to Ardlui.

If Fort William didn't have London services, I don't think anywhere between Glasgow Queen Street and it would either; effectively, where could have its London service withdrawn with the fewest issues? Just counting settlements separately might be easier though.

I think Wrexham's Euston service is largely a leftover of competition with Wrexham and Shropshire, with Wrexham General to Euston averaging out as 27 passengers per day, albeit likely unpopular to get rid of.

 

[frankmoh]

It does have direct London services, as well as the branch shuttles. Definitely a contender.

Oh really? I thought it was just that shuttle. It's also funny to think that a few people still did one leg of their commute on a Class 121 in 2017.

 

[RPM]

Oh really? I thought it was just that shuttle. It's also funny to think that a few people still did one leg of their commute on a Class 121 in 2017.

I had the great privilege of driving the 121s. So glad I did. (Sorry, getting off-topic).

 

[frankmoh]

I had the great privilege of driving the 121s. So glad I did. (Sorry, getting off-topic).

Getting back on topic, did Chiltern operate 121's on the Aylesbury–Princes Risborough Line because of how underused it was? (not wanting to wear out their 165/168s for a line with less than 25,000 people?)

 

[465fan]

Out of the places which currently have direct trains to London, which ones need them the least? This is intended as a corollary to the post on where most needs a London service. I'd say that it would probably be somewhere with a small population, far from London, with good connections to other places with more justifiable London services.

I'm not sure if GWR extending half of its Swansea to Paddington services to Carmarthen was essential or just trying to get demand ahead of Lumo. On the other hand, passenger numbers from Carmarthen are 35,000 to Swansea, 32,000 to Cardiff and 20,000 to Paddington and I doubt TfW could have provided as much extra capacity to Cardiff as the GWR services do.

I actually question the wisdom of Open Access or GWR for Carmarthen. Chiefly because of the fact that if you've got an hourly service to Cardiff by TfW, and can then factor in a second service (at least every 2 hours), then I assume that's perfectly fine. I doubt those trains are leaving Carmarthen very full and, even if they do, if people are going much beyond Swansea.

Little Kimble is very close to having a direct service to Marylebone via Chiltern. Given how the timetables line up and walking about 10 steps to the southbound train, I'd count it.

I also think operating 165s and 168s on a line that small and slow is a waste of resources. Then again so was sourcing Class 121 parts.

If we had got our bums in gear as a country, the Princes Risborough bay platform would have been the starting point for a half-hourly EWR service. It was perfect: no terminating at Aylesbury, great place to park the train out of the way, and options of onward connections to Wycombe and the like. Running through services from London to Aylesbury via Wycombe is daft.

Westbound trains from Birkbeck heading towards Beckenham Junction is probably the least needed train service in London considering Tramlink goes in the same direction, is way more frequent and also cheaper.

Given how Southern (or even going back to NSE SouthCentral) have neglected the station so much it's clear that they are only stopping there because it's "on the way".

I don't think there is an ideal solution for Crystal Palace to Beckenham Junction. Quite honestly, it is a Cinderella route that probably should be closed, albeit you'd need something to replace it. One could probably suggest as part of a wider programme including the Tramlink extension to Bromley North and Grove Park from Beckenham, you could find a way to thread a short stub to Crystal Palace whilst retaining the heavy rail connectivity from Palace to Norwood Junction. I doubt it's impossible.

Thinking more about termini, some GA peak extras reach Walton on the Naze, which is a bit of a weird place to terminate given how much better the facilities (and demand) is at Clacton.

Would this have been like some other obscure peak services from a variety of places in the days of old, where there was a requirement to provide one service direct in the franchise spec between say 16:30 and 18:30, leading to services to places like Southminster as well?

 

[The Planner]

If we had got our bums in gear as a country, the Princes Risborough bay platform would have been the starting point for a half-hourly EWR service. It was perfect: no terminating at Aylesbury, great place to park the train out of the way, and options of onward connections to Wycombe and the like. Running through services from London to Aylesbury via Wycombe is daft.

Why? Doing that forces anyone from the Chiltern mainline to Aylesbury to change. The E-W train would just be the same one with a long dwell at Aylesbury anyway.

 

[465fan]

Why? Doing that forces anyone from the Chiltern mainline to Aylesbury to change. The E-W train would just be the same one with a long dwell at Aylesbury anyway.

And? If the frequency is increased (e.g. to half-hourly with a suitable dynamic loop), and that is running through to at least Bletchley, it can just be matched by a better mainline service. An extra Banbury, or an extra Bicester North (terminating and going into that siding). Less conflicts through Risborough, more trains for the likes of Haddenham.

 

[Magdalia]

Thinking more about termini, some GA peak extras reach Walton on the Naze, which is a bit of a weird place to terminate given how much better the facilities (and demand) is at Clacton.

In days when portion working was common nearly all Liverpool Street-Clacton trains had a Walton on the Naze portion.

 

[The Planner]

And? If the frequency is increased (e.g. to half-hourly with a suitable dynamic loop), and that is running through to at least Bletchley, it can just be matched by a better mainline service. An extra Banbury, or an extra Bicester North (terminating and going into that siding). Less conflicts through Risborough, more trains for the likes of Haddenham.

Nothing is planned to be done between Risborough and Aylesbury, that was decided many years ago. Hence the service planned.

 

[Gloster]

Getting back on topic, did Chiltern operate 121's on the Aylesbury–Princes Risborough Line because of how underused it was? (not wanting to wear out their 165/168s for a line with less than 25,000 people?)

Recollection is that by using a 121 on a couple of relatively quiet trains at the end of the peaks, Chiltern were able to release a full length unit so that it could work through to Marylebone in the full peak. It was simply a way of increasing the number of seats on other trains.

 

[465fan]

Nothing is planned to be done between Risborough and Aylesbury, that was decided many years ago. Hence the service planned.

And even then, running a through service to London is daft. A shuttle is perfectly adequate, if the path from London can be 'recycled' for an alternative destination.

 

[The Planner]

And even then, running a through service to London is daft. A shuttle is perfectly adequate, if the path from London can be 'recycled' for an alternative destination.

What is that based off? Aylesbury has 50-60% more usage than Haddenham.

 

[465fan]

What is that based off? Aylesbury has 50-60% more usage than Haddenham.

So what you're saying is just offer an improved Aylesbury to London via Amersham service?

 

[The Planner]

So what you're saying is just offer an improved Aylesbury to London via Amersham service?

You can't get much more down that way without altering the signalling between Mantles Lane and Aylesbury.

 

[465fan]

You can't get much more down that way without altering the signalling between Mantles Lane and Aylesbury.

4tph run during peaks. Ergo, 4tph could run all day as a proper Metro service.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

I'm not sure if GWR extending half of its Swansea to Paddington services to Carmarthen was essential or just trying to get demand ahead of Lumo. On the other hand, passenger numbers from Carmarthen are 35,000 to Swansea, 32,000 to Cardiff and 20,000 to Paddington and I doubt TfW could have provided as much extra capacity to Cardiff as the GWR services do.

Um, don't forget the dining car! Us Welsh love our food and the GWR Carmarthen grub is up there with TfW's Manchester and Holyhead services. I know a lot of Cardiff passengers choose the Carmarthen bound trains so that they can enjoy a proper meal while they travel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are no longer London to Aylesbury services via Risborough except late evening.

 

[frankmoh]

There are no longer London to Aylesbury services via Risborough except late evening.

Well that does still mean there's a service! If everyone was packed onto the trains, sitting and standing, 3 3-car 165s could carry all of Little Kimble's population inside.

 

[A S Leib]

Well that does still mean there's a service! If everyone was packed onto the trains, sitting and standing, 3 3-car 165s could carry all of Little Kimble's population inside.

Could you fit the entirety of Crianlarich's population onto the Fort William portion of the sleeper including those standing, given thirty seats per carriage and a population of 185?

 

[Brubulus]

I actually question the wisdom of Open Access or GWR for Carmarthen. Chiefly because of the fact that if you've got an hourly service to Cardiff by TfW, and can then factor in a second service (at least every 2 hours), then I assume that's perfectly fine. I doubt those trains are leaving Carmarthen very full and, even if they do, if people are going much beyond Swansea.

If we had got our bums in gear as a country, the Princes Risborough bay platform would have been the starting point for a half-hourly EWR service. It was perfect: no terminating at Aylesbury, great place to park the train out of the way, and options of onward connections to Wycombe and the like. Running through services from London to Aylesbury via Wycombe is daft.

I don't think there is an ideal solution for Crystal Palace to Beckenham Junction. Quite honestly, it is a Cinderella route that probably should be closed, albeit you'd need something to replace it. One could probably suggest as part of a wider programme including the Tramlink extension to Bromley North and Grove Park from Beckenham, you could find a way to thread a short stub to Crystal Palace whilst retaining the heavy rail connectivity from Palace to Norwood Junction. I doubt it's impossible.

Would this have been like some other obscure peak services from a variety of places in the days of old, where there was a requirement to provide one service direct in the franchise spec between say 16:30 and 18:30, leading to services to places like Southminster as well?

There's also still a direct service to Southminster in the peaks - however I'd suspect there are substantially more London commuters between Wickford and Southminster than in Walton, Frinton and Kirkby Cross.

Long term there should be a substantial line speed improvement on Princes Risbrough to Aylesbury (currently 40mph) and the route should become part of an OOC-MKC service, once HS2 finally opens.