London railway network map - 1960s style

[whole diary]

[grahame]

http://www.citymetric.com/transport/1960s-british-rail-map-shows-all-londons-mainline-services-misses-out-tube-1436

Interesting - and probably correct - view of why the 1960s BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) Map of London Railways wasn't as widely used as one might have guessed:

The problem with the map, now I can actually see it, is it's not clear what it's actually for. It's quite useful if you want to know which order the stations on a particular line are in; it's quite useful if you want to know how to get to one of the city's many commuter suburbs that are only served by mainline trains.

But the fact it doesn't show the tube at all ^ Why not? Was it pique? Was it designed by an idiot map-obsessed 11 year old boy? ^ renders the map largely useless. If you want to travel from one side of the map to the other, or if your journey starts or ends anyway in central London other than right next to the relevant mainline station, then this map just doesn't contain the information you need to plan your route. For the vast majority of journeys, you need the tube map, too.

Which is silly. That's presumably why this map never caught on, and we got the London Connections map, which shows everything, instead.

Whole map at http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Reviews/Resources/Sixties%20London%20Network%20Map.jpg

[Richard Fairhurst]

Oh, wow. Trains from Paddington to Mid-Wales and Birkenhead... from Marylebone to Leicester and Nottingham... from Liverpool Street to Hunstanton... from St Pancras to Manchester... *weeps*

(and then there's Bourne End to High Wycombe...)

[IndustryInsider]

(and then there's Bourne End to High Wycombe...)

Yep, shame we lost that one as I'm sure it would be a popular link nowadays.  Not much chance of getting it back though IMO^▸ (in my opinion) due to the amount of housing and industrial buildings on the original formation and the undulating nature of the land making it very costly to build a new formation.

[ChrisB]

Railfuture has this route as annactive project to reinstate. The route is being protected & has recently succeeded in persuading Wycombe Council to refuse planning permission in Wycombe that would have affected it

[IndustryInsider]

Yes, indeed it does, but that does not alter the fact that significant building has already taken place on several sections of the route and substantial new structures would be required to bridge the A40 and link it with the Chiltern Line east of Wycombe which were demolished after the line closed.

So, for me, it will remain as aspiration.

[ellendune]

Yes, indeed it does, but that does not alter the fact that significant building has already taken place on several sections of the route and substantial new structures would be required to bridge the A40 and link it with the Chiltern Line east of Wycombe which were demolished after the line closed.

So, for me, it will remain as aspiration.

If it is to remain even an aspiration then the urgent task is to identify a new route and protect it!

[Phil]

If it is to remain even an aspiration then the urgent task is to identify a new route and protect it!

Even well established routes need protecting as well 

The TransWilts line through Melksham may well be the fastest growing route in the country, but that doesn't stop Network Rail ignoring its existence altogether.

Witness their current 2015 network map (version: C ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here) 06.15)

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/css/OfficialNationalRailmaplarge.pdf

No Melksham. No line, even.

To be fair I'm not sure if it was previously there and had been airbrushed out or whether it's never been there at all, but it's still frustrating.

[SandTEngineer]

Well thats strange as I can see the line from Chippenham to Trowbridge .  Agreed that Melksham isn't shown but nor are a lot of other stations.......

[grahame]

I think that may be the wrong link, Phil? It's on that particular map, but stylised / small an with Melksham Station missing - but then so are other stations.  

I have come across many maps that leave it out, though and the point about needing to protect is valid - indeed that's the strategy arm of TransWilts. Lest we forget - as a result of the activities of various parties   the service was increased from 2 to 5 trains each way per day in May 2001, and passenger numbers grew.  However, the services weren't a part of the main franchise (rather a "trial") and when the next franchise came along, the specification was without them - it was in general a very harsh specification across the region at that time.

I can quote two examples within the last couple of year where we've had to challenge too and one we lost ... so, Phil, you are totally correct to raise the flag.