Talk:Putney railway station

Trains: Stations / in UK / in London Low‑importance

	Trains Portal

	London Transport Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject London Transport (assessed as Low-importance).

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pax #s. Routes[edit]

The remarkable differences year by year shown at some stations, with no given cause, are strange even if they come from the same official source. Have counting criteria or methodology changed? Pumping in numbers with such differences unexplained can only raise doubts about their articles. There are always lies, damn lies, ans statistics.

Some trains going westish through Putney do indeed end up at Waterloo, via the Kingston and Hounslow loops, but to list their destinations as Waterloo is not helpful to anyone (if such a person should exist) who seeks information from WP about Putney station and its service. The service would be better explained by something like this (copied from another station):

"The typical off-peak hourly service frequency is:

8 (trains per hour) direct to Waterloo

2 fast to Clapham Junction
2 fast to Putney and Clapham Junction
4 stopping at all stations

2 to Reading
2 to Windsor & Eton Riverside
4 indirectly to Waterloo

2 via Hounslow & Brentford
2 via Kingston"--SilasW (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason i added the section about large growth was that for a station already on 6 million a year to rise to 13 million in one year is phenomonal. I thought it was just an interesting fact really so remove it if you so wish. It can be referenced to the ORR station use statistics but the spreadsheet takes some manipulating before it is shown as you have to calculate all the differences and then sort them lordmwa (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the counting that is dodgy in some way, I have seen the spreadsheet. Some increases seem more than ticket gates or revenue officers could bring. Putney's rise ought to ring bells tho whether of alarm or of rejoicing I don't know.--SilasW (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That data is as good as it is ever going to be. I assume Putney has ticket barriers in which case the data should be virtually perfect lordmwa (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) If Putney is perfect now, when did its imperfection cease? The ORR page leading to the spreadsheet says:

"... the methodology for calculating station usage data has improved since these data were first calculated." That tends to invalidate year by year comparisons.
"Care should be taken when using ... figures for stations within Travelcard zones. Where possible, journeys [there] are allocated ... on modelled assumptions."

So it seems figures for London, the busiest area, come from someone's ideas of what happens.

2) Gospel Oak and Kentish Town West report declined use and trains through them are less packed than before LO took over. But Mr Freeman has stopped using them.

How does that affect the counting of pax?--SilasW (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has added Increase or Decrease to the reported pax numbers but the point about those numbers, as ORR admits, is that they are unreliable for various reasons and so to talk about Increase or Decrease is not valid, even though the reported numbers do change up and down.--SilasW (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links to ORR doubts about figures are in Talk:Office of Rail Regulation#Station usage figures--SilasW (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]