RAILWAYS (WEMBLEY—MARYLEBONE) (Hansard, 20 March 1967)

§ Sir Ronald Russell (Wembley, South)
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you and to the House for being able to raise a problem which concerns some of my constituents, even at this late hour, and I promise to be as brief as I can. I thank both the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries, one of them for being here to answer the debate.
The subject of the debate is British Railways' service between Wembley stations and Marylebone. The two stations are Wembley Hill and Sudbury and Harrow Road on the London Midland Region of British Railways, and such trains as do stop at these two stations are those which provide the diesel service between High Wycombe and Marylebone. There are only five up-trains in the morning which stop at each of these two stations between 7.14 and 9.41, and one of these was introduced, I think, 1399 on 6th March, which was a slight improvement.
Of the evening down trains, five stop at Wembley Hill between 3.57 and 7.27 and six at Sudbury and Harrow Road between those same times, but for those commuters who travel in the opposite direction there are five down trains which stop at each station, and only 3 up-trains which do so in the evening.
On Saturdays there is no up-service stopping at these two stations after the train at 9.19 a.m. from Wembley Hill, and no down service after 1.26 p.m. from Marylebone, so no one who lives in London and works in Wembley—and there may be some who do—can get home by this route on Saturday mid-day or in the afternoon. On Sundays there is no service at all.
I know that the number of passengers using this line is small, but it is small wonder that this is so when the service is so infrequent, and nothing is done to advertise it. I suggest that the service could be improved without much inconvenience to passengers from other stations further up the line.
The journey from High Wycombe to Marylebone takes 61 minutes according to the timetable by trains that stop at all stations. It takes from 52 to 54 minutes by the trains which miss four stations, including the two Wembley ones, and it takes only 48 minutes if it misses five stations, so High Wycombe has a separate non-stop service to Paddington.
South Ruislip and West Ruislip, the other stations on this line, are also on the Central Line of London Transport, and Sudbury Hill station of British Railways on this line is very close to Sudbury Hill station on the Piccadilly tube, and the line has an hourly service in off-peak hours, missing all five stations between West Ruislip and Marylebone.
I suggest that it would add only two or three minutes if each train stopped at Sudbury, or Harrow Road, or Wembley Hill, plus possibly one other station at which it does not now stop. It would help particularly if one or two late evening trains from Marylebone stopped at these two Wembley stations.
There are five trains after the 7.16 in the evening, which is the last train which 1400 does stop. All these go non-stop to West Ruislip, taking from 49 to 52 minutes to reach High Wycombe. Although they all stop at the same stations, there is a time lag of two or three minutes between them, but this small gap does not matter.
I have visited all these stations in the past week. Sudbury and Harrow Road has two platforms, waiting rooms, lavatories and part of the platform is covered over. There is gaslighting, dating from the time that the line was built 60 or 70 years ago. Wembley Hill has two open platforms without a building or cover of any kind. I understand that they were demolished last year because of maintenance costs. The path from the road to the up platform is also uncovered. The main footbridge and two of the three station entrances are closed. Another footbridge to the east of the station is concrete and therefore fairly modern, but has no roof. The roof was presumably taken away some time ago, but the supports are still in position.
Therefore, any luckless passenger for Marylebone who alights from the front of the down train has to walk the length of the platform, cross the footbridge, walk part of the up platform and up a slope before reaching the exit to Wembley Road—all without any cover. At the foot of the steps leading to the bridge, he is greeted by a British Rail advertisement, saying: "You Are Now Closer To The Heart Of England." But that is very little encouragement in these surroundings.
There are some buildings, including lavatories, at the top of the up side, but whether one could wait there without risk of missing one's train is a matter of some doubt. Outside the station, on British Rail property, is a derelict house with its bottom storeys boarded up and is upper windows broken. It is not more than 40 years old, and it is a shame that it should not have a tenant when there is such a shortage of houses in the neighbourhood.
I know that few passengers use the line, but what has been done to obtain more? After all, the excellent London Transport and British Rail Services from other Wembley stations are hopelessly overcrowded in peak hours. Why not try to siphon some traffic from Wembley Park to Wembley Hill and possibly some 1401 from Stonebridge Park and from Sudbury Town on the Piccadilly line to Sudbury and Harrow Road on British Railways, which would relieve some of the congestion on these routes?
Marylebone is only 11 or 12 minutes from Wembley Hill and 13 to 16 minutes from Sudbury and Harrow Road, depending on whether it stops en route at Wembley Hill. Marylebone is on the Bakerloo Tube. Why not issue through season tickets to underground stations, improve the service and advertise? There is a bridge over Harrow Road outside the station which needs painting. Why not have an advertisement on it along the lines of: Marylebone in 15 minutes. Seasons Available to Every Station on the London Transport System."? Garish colours might offend the local planning authority, but it might be suitable to have light lettering on a dark brown background, as British Rail uses for its other advertisements. Similar advertisements could be placed in local shops, and why not a house-to-house distribution of leaflets to advertise the service?
The track and the space which it occupies are wasted in Wembley except in the mornings and evenings. There are four lines where it passes through each station, each platform being on a loop line which allows the train to stop, if necessary, in the station to be overtaken by an express. What is saved by not stopping more trains here? British Rail should pull up its socks and do something about the service. One of my constituents describes it as the worst train service in London. Wembley Hill Station must, from the point of view of lack of amenities, be one of the worst stations in the world. It is a reminder of what one probably found on the Canadian prairies or in the Australian outback in the early days of the railways. It must be the only station in use in Britain which has no cover of any kind from the elements.
This station is a disgrace to British Railways. Some cover, even if only of the carport type, should be provided over the platforms, footbridge and ramp leading down to the platforms. The service should be made more frequent and it should be advertised. More use should be made of this main line which leads to 1402 a convenient London station and the least crowded terminal of all London terminals.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler)
This is a well-known confrontation. It is the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) versus the Ministry of Transport. I very much admire the hon. Gentleman's assiduity. I wish I could say the same about his sense of reality.
The hon. Gentleman and his constituents know that these issues are matters of management for either the British Railways Board or the London Transport Board. If not, then they are matters about the quality of service, in which case they can be raised with the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, which provides the appropriate machinery.
I will go over the facts, and in view of the hon. Gentleman's allegations I trust that close attention will be paid to these remarks. In 1962 the London Midland Region introduced as an experiment an hourly off-peak shuttle service between West Ruislip and Marylebone. This was intended particularly to benefit passengers wishing to travel from or to four suburban stations; Wembley Hill, Sudbury and Harrow Road, Sudbury Hill and Northolt Park. The experiment completely failed and very few people used the service.

§ Sir R. Russell
It was not advertised.

§ Mr. Swingler
It is well known in the district that this hourly off-peak service came into existence, but very few people used it and, as a consequence, it was withdrawn in September, 1964. The matter was raised with the T.U.C.C., which considered the complaints of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and all the evidence about the service was put to the T.U.C.C. during 1965 and 1966.
After careful study of all the evidence, the T.U.C.C. came to the conclusion that the decision to withdraw the service was justified for three reasons. The first was that very few people had used the off-peak shuttle service—only, on average, 2.3 passengers per train per station. The second was that any adjustment of the timetable to provide more stops at these stations would have meant slower journeys for the larger number of passengers living further out on the line to High 1403 Wycombe. The third was that there were alternative services by underground, on the Piccadilly, Metropolitan and Bakerloo lines, and by local bus services.
For these reasons it was agreed by the appropriate body, the T.U.C.C., that this service should be withdrawn because it was beneficial to only a very small number of people but very inconvenient and discomforting to a larger number of people who were making the longer journey. This being the position, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can reasonably complain that the London Midland Region did not try to experiment with a better service for these areas. The experiment was tried for a considerable period, but experience proved that very few people required or were prepared to use it and that a larger number of people were being discomforted in the process.
Of course, my right hon. Friend is trying by every means in her power to improve public transport in London. That is a major reason for the London Bill we hope to introduce in the next Session of Parliament. But in London, as elsewhere in the country, I am afraid there will always be circumstances in which a small number of users will have to sacrifice services especially convenient to them in the interest of a larger number of users who want faster through services.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin)
rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.