Title: Populations of towns campaigning for improvements, and some comparisons Post by: grahame on April 19, 2008, 13:04:40 I'm working on some TransWilts population / passenger flow stuff at the moment ... of course one of the factors involved in how busy a service will be / how much call there is for it is the size of the local population. I thought that folks here might find the following interesting. I've tried to include all towns which the been given serious mention in this section of the site, including those such as Stone and Avonmouth who have seen or have promise of improvement, and those such as Melksham and Okehampton which have suffered cutbacks.
Some populations from the 2001 census 34000 Barnstaple 33000 Exmouth 25000 Maesteg 22000 Evesham 21000 Norton / Radstock 21000 Falmouth 20000 Melksham 19000 Newquay 17000 Portishead 14000 Stone 14000 Marlow 12000 Corsham 12000 Avonmouth 12000 Aberystwyth 11000 Tavistock 11000 Henley-on-Thames 10000 Helston 7000 Pembroke 6000 Okehampton 5000 Looe 3000 Moreton-in-Marsh 2000 Gunnislake I could add strings of provisos, ifs and buts - but it makes interesting reading. Please feel free to add any other places! Title: Re: Populations of towns campaigning for improvements, and some comparisons Post by: John R on April 19, 2008, 17:26:55 Of course, the geography of where a place is, in particular with relation to the existing rail network and other centres of population, is key. So a town with 10,000 inhabitants is much more likely to get a service if a) its on an existing line or b) it's on a closed or freight line which doesn't involve reopening to passenger traffic a sizeable length of route, than if it is 30 miles from anywhere.
Come to think of it, both Melksham and Portishead fit those criteria. Title: Re: Populations of towns campaigning for improvements, and some comparisons Post by: Chris from Nailsea on April 19, 2008, 23:42:39 A very good point, John: Melksham, with a population of 20,000 and Portishead (now actually 18,000, apparently - see http://www.portishead.gov.uk/about-portishead/aboutportishead.htm ) would certainly benefit from a proper railway service!
??? Title: Re: Populations of towns campaigning for improvements, and some comparisons Post by: grahame on April 20, 2008, 07:45:13 Many (most?) of those populations have grown in the 8 years since 2001. My home town has grown 20%, and there's approval for another750 houses to be built soon, plus a further 150 hectares earmarked; so 20000 has become (now) around 23000 and that will rise to around 32000 within the time frame of the Regional Spatial Strategty which has some 18 years to run. You only have to see the new housing development around the station.
2005: (http://www.wellho.net/pix/westwiltstrain.jpg) 2008: (http://www.wellho.net/pix/westwiltshousing.jpg) I chose to quote the figures from a comparable source, rather than trying to update figures Title: Re: Populations of towns campaigning for improvements, and some comparisons Post by: Karl on April 20, 2008, 15:57:30 Afternoon
Since 2001 there has been some considerable growth of Falmouth, so reaching somewhere nearer to Maesteg; probably c25.000. Although we all need a home whether that be afforable or not, the one thing that narks me off is that they have to build it all over railway land, disused and sometimes not. Then esspecially in the case of disused, they realise that traffic is a problem and growth is ripe and a railway/station is needed, but they can't do because someones developed the site of the railway land. A case is The "Bodmin and Wenford Rly", they want to get into Wadebridge, but would need to create a diversion off the original ine, then build a brand new station all because someone thought it was a good idea put a housing development on the site. Why? Could they built it somewhere else? The same now for the "Helston Railway" project. I think the sale of railway shouldn't be done, it should be kept open in case there is a need in the future for either train or light rail system; or even if its frieght only. They are too many cars and HGVs on our roads anyway. Go and Google disused stations (the sub brit site), this may work: http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations.shtml and look at some of the things we have lost to development. Sorry if this has wayed slightly off the original subject. Regards Karl. Title: Re: Populations of towns campaigning for improvements, and some comparisons Post by: Karl on April 20, 2008, 17:19:03 Hello again
Correct link for subbrit website is; http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/sites.shtml This should take you straight to the list of stations on the database. The list is always growing, probably the best website to date for out of way never recorded stations and pictures! Regards Karl. Title: Re: Populations of towns campaigning for improvements, and some comparisons Post by: Andy on April 20, 2008, 21:09:00 Afternoon Since 2001 there has been some considerable growth of Falmouth, so reaching somewhere nearer to Maesteg; probably c25.000. Although we all need a home whether that be afforable or not, the one thing that narks me off is that they have to build it all over railway land, disused and sometimes not. Then esspecially in the case of disused, they realise that traffic is a problem and growth is ripe and a railway/station is needed, but they can't do because someones developed the site of the railway land. A case is The "Bodmin and Wenford Rly", they want to get into Wadebridge, but would need to create a diversion off the original ine, then build a brand new station all because someone thought it was a good idea put a housing development on the site. Why? Could they built it somewhere else? The same now for the "Helston Railway" project. I think the sale of railway shouldn't be done, it should be kept open in case there is a need in the future for either train or light rail system; or even if its frieght only. They are too many cars and HGVs on our roads anyway. Go and Google disused stations (the sub brit site), this may work: http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations.shtml and look at some of the things we have lost to development. Sorry if this has wayed slightly off the original subject. Regards Karl. Totally agree, Karl F-O-P. In the case of Helston, the last half mile of the branch has been 'redeveloped' but most of the trackbed over that distance is not under housing but under a very wide road and then a playing field. At Wadebridge the case is more severe; what's doubly agonising is that Wadebridge closed to freight so much more recently. This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net |