Should more trains call at Sudbury & Harrow Road?

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From the Brent and Kilburn Times

Councillors have started a petition after their campaign to upgrade Sudbury & Harrow Road, one of London’s least used stations, fell short.

Chiltern Railways has now started a new term of contract which will see trains continue to call at the facility just four times per day in each direction.

The business was last month re-awarded the franchise for London to Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and the West Midlands until the end of 2027.

[ChrisB]

Indeed, I know the Councillor involved as he was on the old Passenger Board.

They now need to approach the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) as the service schedule is fixed within the new contract. There's also the problem of it costing a train path in the peaks as they are passing through almost at 3 minute intervals.

[paul7575]

I think it’s hardly used because it’s only about 400m from a Piccadilly Line station.  It may be heresy but perhaps it’s not actually necessary?

[stuving]

I think it’s hardly used because it’s only about 400m from a Piccadilly Line station.  It may be heresy but perhaps it’s not actually necessary?

Well, it was one of my local stations as a child in the 1950s and 60s. (Along with the other Sudbury Hill, South Harrow, and Greenford - so not so very local.) I never used it, and didn't notice anyone else doing so either - it was a backwate0 evenr then.

[Ralph Ayres]

The nearby Picc line station (similarly at Sudbury Hill) is a bit of a red herring as the two lines go in very different directions; the Picc is a much slower way to reach many parts of central London so the Chiltern service does have its uses.

The problem is that Chiltern make most of their money from the fast Birmingham trains, with the local service scuttling along like Thomas the Tank Engine, scared to stop too often as that will delay Gordon, whistling frantically behind.  That will only change if Chiltern are incentivised/compelled to improve their local services or HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) eventually takes much of the longer distance traffic away.  Reinstating the old long-removed passing loops wouldn't help much as the slow train would spend at least 5 minutes sitting in each one waiting for the fast train to catch up and get past.

[brooklea]

Electrification, so that the stopping train wasn’t so slow pulling away from each stop it makes would surely help? It does seem crazy that this hasn’t already happened, although I suppose it’s not all that long ago (in the scheme of things) that Marylebone was going to cease to have any mainline rail service at all?

[eightf48544]

ElectrificationIt  it does seem crazy that ’t already happened, although I suppose it’s not all that long ago (in the scheme of things) that Marylebone was going to cease to have any mainline rail service at all?

When built Sudbury and Harrow had platform loops to allow fast rains to pass. As did around 11 other stations on the lines from OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot))/Neasden to Aynho Jn.

After Beeching it was proposed that Marylebone should become a coach terminal with dedicated route in over the railway. I seem to recall that the scheme lasted until someone pointed out two coaches couldn't pass in the tunnels out of Marylebone.

I agree electrification would be ideal especialy if Bicester Oxford, Aylesburt Blechley and Bedford coupled with Didcot Banbury and Bordesly to  New Street. Which would give several diversionary routes,

I suppose one would have  put up with 4 rail from Harrow to Amersham unless TFL^▸ (Transport for London) could be to go with Dual voltage stock North of Harrow which would mean wires to Watford North and Chesham as well.

What chance a rolling programme of electricfication?



   

[paul7575]

ElectrificationIt  it does seem crazy that ’t already happened, although I suppose it’s not all that long ago (in the scheme of things) that Marylebone was going to cease to have any mainline rail service at all?

When built Sudbury and Harrow had platform loops to allow fast rains to pass. As did around 11 other stations on the lines from OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot))/Neasden to Aynho Jn.

After Beeching it was proposed that Marylebone should become a coach terminal with dedicated route in over the railway. I seem to recall that the scheme lasted until someone pointed out two coaches couldn't pass in the tunnels out of Marylebone.

Coaches into Marylebone was still being seriously proposed by one particular objector when the improved Chiltern Oxford route was going through its TWA inquiry.

[stuving]

On second thoughts, I was thinking of Sudbury Hill, not the other one. More of an obvious place than Harrow Road (or Northolt Park) though shops were built around all these Underground stations. But as I recall it, the service was then much the same at all three. Mind you, when I was at school I don't remember ever using this line; if I was going somewhere for an activity or to see someone and not by bike it was almost always by Tube. Out of working hours especially, there were just so few of the others.

This line was always a Cinderella, right from the start. When the GCR^» (Gloucester - next trains) was built, what demand did it meet? Almost none, in this area - the tidal wave of house-building that was London at the time (and for decades to come) had barely reached Wembley at the time. Wembley's station still had "Sudbury" in its name until 1948, since that was at least a tiny place back in 1860. The stopping service in 1912 was only a couple of trains a day at Sudbury Harrow Road and South Harrow (as it was), both built with bays.

By 1920 the GCR were still only running two stoppers per weekday to South Harrow, though some longer distance trains also called there. The Underground (District Line at the time) was running three trains an hour, but Sudbury Hill and Sudbury Town were request stops, and further out only South Harrow (the real one), Ruislip, and Uxbridge were proper stations: the other four were halts.

The houses turned up en masse in the 30s, so by 1939 the service was much fuller - more trains than hours (though very uneven) and even half that many on Sundays. Northolt Park had been built by then (no loops - it's on an embankment) but it and Sudbury & Harrow Road got just a few fewer trains than Sudbury Hill.

It's obvious that all the railway building in this area was based on the Metroland principle - "build it (the station) and they (the houses) will come". There were good reasons to expect that, but you wonder how much effort went into carefully estimating their number and which lines passenger would prefer. After the war, once most of the market gardens had houses on them, there were only so many passengers to go round. Plus of course the fully-developed electric Underground and buses, as well as the beginnings of car use, which were perhaps harder to foresee in 1905.

In 1955 the service had declined, to 8-10 trains a day and only the odd extra one at Sudbury Hill, and it was similar in 1965. Looking forward to today, I think the "competition" from other railways is still the issue. At Sudbury & Harrow Road not only is there the Piccadilly next door, but half the catchment is as nearer Wembley. So it's back to a limited to-and-from work service. Sudbury Hill Harrow has only the Piccadilly, but why it gets the same commuters' service plus trains all day but nothing on Saturdays is a hard to fathom. The surprise performer is Northolt Park, which now gets a better service than either, weekends included. OK it's not so close to either South Harrow or Northolt, but it's still a big promotion.


All timetable data from Timetable World.