I get why the change happened but the point is that rail travel should be promoted regionally and nationally, not just for journeys to london, even if it is the majority heading there.
The current changes are
all about journeys to London, I'm afraid. Chris Heaton-Harris told us that at the
GWR▸ Stakeholder meeting - it's on more and faster journeys that the investment's based.
From Henley, yes, I suspect London is the most popular destination.
Further out, where London is NOT the most popular destination (in passenger numbers), it has still been prioritised over other services to the extent of having them pulled back / made less good. It is, though, likely that London generates the most income even from those further out points - Chippenham return to London, peak, £178 - and up from 2 to 3 trains in the peak hour; Chippenham return to Swindon, peak, £10.20 - gap between peak services up from 23 minutes to 41 minutes.
Only when you get out to Devon and Cornwall does the magnetism of London reduce, and there we see some very welcome local service improvements on trains within the SubNational Region. Of course whether that's a factor just of distance, or also because of the excellent thinking they do down there about what they need, I couldn't say!
The result of a private railway, I suppose it was inevitable. Of course many railways only had london in mind from day one and any railway between two towns/cities will always favour the larger of the two (much like
HS2▸ will). I’ve never been overly pro re-nationalisation for the railways but I might be changing my mind.
Click on the map to explore geographics
