Why is train travel so Londoncentric?

[whole diary]

[grahame]

"70% of all rail users start or end their journey in London" ... so says one of the banners that comes up on the top of Network Rail web pages ... for example http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/653.aspx

OK ... is that because:
a) Those are the journeys that people want to make by train
b) Those are the journeys for which a rail route and trains are available and competitive
c) People are being priced off the trains on Cross Country services

Personal answer ... and I travel from Wiltshire to Milton Keynes and Cambridge quite often, and sometimes to London too. "I travel to Cambridge by road because there's no rail route / trains available.  True, I could travel into London, across, and out again ... but the hassle with what would often be a lot of luggage, and the fact that it would ytake so long and cost so much rules it out for me on most occasions.  Now if only there were a line from Oxford via Milton Keynes and on to ..."

[John R]

Couple of thoughts:-

Driving in London is (and has been for so long) so awful that train is the only sensible alternative, even for confirmed petrolheads.

The flows on the routes into London are the only ones which have had large enough volumes to warrant investment to make the journey times more attractive. Thus they become relatively more popular, and the cycle repeats itself.     

[eightf48544]

I think it's a combination of all three.

a. There are probably 10 million people within realatively easy reach of a London terminal, plus it's a comparatively affluent work force.

b You can get almost any where from one or other of the London terminals.

c.  Yes.

Plus d which is that are few cross country lines left, certainly South of Leicester.

Certainly Oxford Cambridge is the big gap.

Then there are the lost lines (mostly LNW) from Northamton to Peterborough, Bedford Wellingborough and Market Harborough which linked with the line from Rugby.

The Kettering Huntington line which could have formd part of a Felixstow Birmingham route is now the A14.

Also all the original railways strived to get to London or have through trains to London.

John R has also made a good point about drivng in London, I wouldn't drive in London if I could possibly avoid it. However, on the other hand I have freind who thinks the Congestion Charge (and any extension there of)  is a bigger threat to his civil liberties than ID cards which he also against.

[Electric train]

The UK^▸ (United Kingdom) rail system was built by the Victorians as a London centric system was not designed that way if they had designed it we would have had one or two major stations and or through lines; compound that with the Marples designed Beeching implemented system cuts in the 1960's / 70's which removed some much of the cross country system there view being people travel into London and back out because the new diesel and electric trains were so much faster.

I can not remember now what the London commuter numbers are but its huge as big if not bigger than Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds added together

[Trowres]

The above points are all valid, but don't give the full answer. The rail network around London is very dense and serves a high population.

If you look at the passenger numbers from a station somewhere in the West, London will probably not be the most popular destination.

[Btline]

It's not just a British problem. France is the same - difficult to travel by rail between the spokes (and virtually impossible by TGV^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse)).

Remember, London is our capital, Europe's biggest city, major world financial centre, has the West End, etc - it's no surprise that people want to go there!

But I agree. A Didcot to Norwich service is a major gap. As is a higher speed Reading to Tonbridge service. But other than these, in most cases it is quicker to go via London, and the number of passengers using a cross country route would not justify building the infrastructure.

[paul7575]

I can not remember now what the London commuter numbers are but its huge as big if not bigger than Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds added together

Waterloo (100,306,690) on its own is far bigger than those three together (55,891,951)

So are Victoria (77,462,118) and Liverpool St (57,789,977)


ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) station usage comparison 2007/08 - only the main stations compared, which is fair because if for instance you added Snow Hill and Moor St to 'Birmingham' - you'd only have to add another 7 million for Waterloo East...  

Paul

[IndustryInsider]

Most will probably know this one, but one stat that never fails to surprise me is that, in terms of journeys per annum, there's nearly as many made on the London Underground network as the whole of the National Rail network combined. Roughly 1.1bn against 1.3bn.

[Btline]

Waterloo (100,306,690) on its own is far bigger than those three together (55,891,951)

So are Victoria (77,462,118) and Liverpool St (57,789,977)

ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) station usage comparison 2007/08 - only the main stations compared, which is fair because if for instance you added Snow Hill and Moor St to 'Birmingham' - you'd only have to add another 7 million for Waterloo East...  

There's nearly as many made on the London Underground network as the whole of the National Rail network combined. Roughly 1.1bn against 1.3bn.

Well, I think these stats pretty much answer the question in the title!