SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
ENTJ 8w9
Joined
·
11,993 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Following on from gothicform's bus station thread.

What are the largest towns or cities not serviced by a railway line?


I'm up first with Dudley, over 300,000 in population and has no rail services.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,878 Posts
There is actually a whole Wikipedia page devoted to this question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_towns_with_no_railway_station

Now, how exactly do you define a 'railway line'? I would say Oldham has been removed from the rail network as the tram is an entirely separate transport system without interchangeable ticketing - no different to a bus route. But I understand others may not agree with my definition.

What about Whitley Bay or Uxbridge - they have railways, but aren't part of the national network anymore.
 

·
wind-up merchant
Joined
·
15,971 Posts
There is actually a whole Wikipedia page devoted to this question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_towns_with_no_railway_station

Now, how exactly do you define a 'railway line'? I would say Oldham has been removed from the rail network as the tram is an entirely separate transport system without interchangeable ticketing - no different to a bus route. But I understand others may not agree with my definition.

What about Whitley Bay or Uxbridge - they have railways, but aren't part of the national network anymore.
On the interchangeable ticketing, you can buy three different types of zoned tickets from any metrolink machine on system to Greater Manchesters railway stations. You can also buy Rail tickets to Metrolink stations from ticket offices and certain websites. Should become much easier as smart ticketing is rolled out across Greater Manchester.
 

·
ENTJ 8w9
Joined
·
11,993 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Yes, they are 4 miles away from the town centre and are in a different council, if you are in the Dudley centre, the number 688 bus takes 30 minutes.

Dudley is almost as big as Manchester. It's like saying "oh you want the train in Manchester city centre, there isn't any, you'll have to travel to the Trafford Centre by bus"
 

·
Violently happy
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
Leigh in Lancashire. Hasn't been part of the rail network since 1969 & there seems no intention of rectifying this, due to the (godawful) Leigh Guided Busway proposals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,248 Posts
Yes, they are 4 miles away from the town centre and are in a different council, if you are in the Dudley centre, the number 688 bus takes 30 minutes.

Dudley is almost as big as Manchester. It's like saying "oh you want the train in Manchester city centre, there isn't any, you'll have to travel to the Trafford Centre by bus"
Yeah, I'm just saying it doesn't literally have no station at all. It's much like Thame in Oxfordshire, which does HAVE a station, it's just over into Buckinghamshire and about three miles from the town. If you visit the US and Canada a lot of cities there have their main stations miles from the centre of town. Totally not a model to be followed I'd agree! But I interpret this question as meaning places like Buckingham, Southam, Lutterworth and so on that literally have nothing.

Skelmersdale is an interesting question... I often see it said that Skem has no station yet I managed to visit it by train without any difficulty. It took me 30 minutes to walk into town from Upholland station, which is in the town as far as I can tell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,066 Posts
Yeah maybe Dudley doesn't have one conveniently, but it is in the middle of a massive unbroken conurbation with plenty of stations. I think the OP was probably referring to more self-contained towns, such as Corby pre-station. Washington, Skem and Leigh are good examples too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,273 Posts
Dudley has Sandwell and Dudley station serving it though, and Dudley Port. I tend to take this question as meaning places that literally have nothing at all. An example would be Washington, Tyne and Wear.
They're both in Sandwell. By that logic, Washington has a station at Chester-le-Street! I'd also say that Thame and Tring don't have a station, and Haddenham has a rather oddly named one. You can't just go about naming stations after places miles away and then tell the inhabitants how well connected they are.

Part of the problem has always been identifying just how big Dudley is (and which parts of it don't have stations). The borough has a population of about300,000, but also benefits from stations at Coseley, Lye, Stourbridge Junction and Stourbridge Town (I think that's the lot?). Realistically though, Stourbridge is a separate town in all but local authority and Coseley is also a different - though much smaller - settlement.

For me, Dudley is a borough of 300,000 with four stations, but also a self-contained town of nearly 200,000 without one.

I think the OP was probably referring to more self-contained towns, such as Corby pre-station. Washington, Skem and Leigh are good examples too.
Probably not, seeing as it was him who suggested Dudley!

I do take your point, but I stil think it's unfair to rule out Dudley because it's half an hour's walk from a railway station in a different authority. In a large conurbation that's a long way.
 

·
culled
Joined
·
20,352 Posts
Yes, Chester-le-Street isn't so daft when you measure it and compare with Dudley. Dudley town has no station, just pointing out the 300,000 Dudley does. :) Coseley and Stourbridge are seperate towns but lie (at least partially in the case of Coseley) within the metropolitan district of Dudley. 200,000 Dudley does not.

The two oft-quoted are Dudley and Newcastle-under-Lyme (which similarly "has a station" at Stoke-on-Trent).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,733 Posts
Gosport (60,000) does not, but it is part of the Portsmouth Urban Area and the town centre has a direct ferry to Portsmouth Harbour Station which takes 5 minutes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
764 Posts
Daventry has reached about 30,000, is being expanded to 50,000, and still has no station. It is a separate town and is not adjacent to any urban areas with stations. 5 miles to Long Buckby.
 

·
King of Bernicia
Joined
·
1,343 Posts
Washington is the largest town without a station isn't it? Sure I've heard that as a fact somewhere.
Never heard of Dudley not having one, though I suppose if it technically does in some greater Dudley area then so does Washington, it being technically part of Sunderland.

If we're on about truly remote and cut off places...Consett? Around 30,000 but lost its line years ago, its alone in the Pennines, a good hour or so on the bus to Newcastle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
Coalville in Leicestershire - population in excess of 35,000 and has no train station (although it does have a freight line going through it). There is also the town of Ashby de la Zouch next door (approx 15,000 and growing) with no station.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
686 Posts
Ilkeston west of Nottingham is another one that's always claiming it's the largest town without a station (population 38,000), although I think it might get one with the latest railway investment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,335 Posts
There are lots of places with previously closed lines which have now grown in size considerably. The seaside resort of Maldon, population 15,000 had two lines, the one to South Woodham Ferrers could easily be re-opened. The second line to Witham is built over but is notable for an intact temporary small wooden viaduct which was never replaced by brick.
Maldon_branch_line
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
740 Posts
There are many 'major' urban areas without access to rail, there are many smaller towns such as Gosport and Daventry that are lacking in rail access, though in the majority of cases it isn't easily rectifiable as former lines have been built over....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
552 Posts
Newcastle-under-Lyme is another large town with no train station. Population of ~74,000. But as Stoke-on-Trent is on the doorstep it's not a big issue.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top