On 5 Mar, 19:42, MaxB wrote:
On 5 Mar, 14:30, wrote:

On 5 Mar, 12:52, MaxB wrote:

St Johns would have been at No 34, Ravensbourne is counted as Outer
London, but would have come in at 32! So well done St. Johns,
everyone's favourite station! But if you want to talk about neglected
stations, then you should be looking at Grove Park, along with
Elmstead Woods, Chislehurst and the Bromley North branch. *Half hourly
off peak service - pathetic!

Emerson Park, on the Romford-Upminster push-pull, gets about the same
service.

Jonn

And reasonably so, since it barely registers on the passenger count
scale, fitting in on the list I gave earlier at No 4 ! Also, I assume,
it has no other trains passing through.


Frankly, I'm suprised there are three quieter stations. It gets
moderate traffic during the peaks from city workers wanting the
Fenchurch or Liverpool Street lines, but outside that it's pretty
quiet.

Jonn

On 5 Mar, 19:42, MaxB wrote:
On 5 Mar, 14:30, wrote:

On 5 Mar, 12:52, MaxB wrote:

St Johns would have been at No 34, Ravensbourne is counted as Outer
London, but would have come in at 32! So well done St. Johns,
everyone's favourite station! But if you want to talk about neglected
stations, then you should be looking at Grove Park, along with
Elmstead Woods, Chislehurst and the Bromley North branch. Half hourly
off peak service - pathetic!

Emerson Park, on the Romford-Upminster push-pull, gets about the same
service.

Jonn

And reasonably so, since it barely registers on the passenger count
scale, fitting in on the list I gave earlier at No 4 ! Also, I assume,
it has no other trains passing through.

MaxB


Which does somewhat beg the chicken/egg question - rather than
considering that the present number of passengers justifies the
present service, instead perhaps one should ask whether an improved,
more frequent service would attract more passengers.

Note that I'm not specifically referring to the Romford - Upminster
line, and said line wouldn't be at the top of my list when it came to
increasing the frequency of services - I'd think that there are many
other more worthy candidates.

On 6 Mar, 11:18, Mizter T wrote:
On 5 Mar, 19:42, MaxB wrote:





On 5 Mar, 14:30, wrote:

On 5 Mar, 12:52, MaxB wrote:

St Johns would have been at No 34, Ravensbourne is counted as Outer
London, but would have come in at 32! So well done St. Johns,
everyone's favourite station! But if you want to talk about neglected
stations, then you should be looking at Grove Park, along with
Elmstead Woods, Chislehurst and the Bromley North branch. *Half hourly
off peak service - pathetic!

Emerson Park, on the Romford-Upminster push-pull, gets about the same
service.

Jonn

And reasonably so, since it barely registers on the passenger count
scale, fitting in on the list I gave earlier at No 4 ! Also, I assume,
it has no other trains passing through.

MaxB

Which does somewhat beg the chicken/egg question - rather than
considering that the present number of passengers justifies the
present service, instead perhaps one should ask whether an improved,
more frequent service would attract more passengers.

Note that I'm not specifically referring to the Romford - Upminster
line, and said line wouldn't be at the top of my list when it came to
increasing the frequency of services - I'd think that there are many
other more worthy candidates.

In the case of Emerson Park, it's probably not so much the frequency
of service as the early curtailment. I don't think you can arrive
there after about 2000 hours?

So anyone living there who isn't certain what time they will get out
of the office will take their car to Romford or Upminster rather than
be left stranded, and the latter get all the usage statistics.