Were trains a common form of transportation in 1858 England?

Question

I am writing a book and am trying to determine if trains were a common mode of transportation during this time period, between 1855 and 1865.

Answer 1

This might be a little help

Railroads and Suburban Growth

Dramatic population growth contributed to the outward sweep of the city and it forced the city into a technical revolution incolving modes of transport.

Because of geography, london's growth was in an east-west direction along the Thames; in the 18th century, the City was densely inhabited, Westminster less so; the rest along the river was a sequence of villages like Highgate or Hampstead or Richmond.  Hence, 1800-1840: most of the inner districts of present-day London were still rural parishes.  The pattern of growth in the 19th century was called "leapfrogging;" it was not systematic, spreading in concentric circles from the center; rather a new center of settlement or a pre-exisitng one would be targeted; then it would be connected to London by a high way and the intervening space would be filled in.  The invention of the railroad and the Underground had a critical impact on this population growth.

Only in the 1870s and the 1880s did the railroad become the favored mode of transport for the commuter; prior to that, it had been the horse-drawn omnibus, which was introduced in 1829 and which moved at about 5 mph.

The introduction of the commuter train helped determine patterns of suburban development; towns grew up around the suburban stations; fit in with the British desire to live in the country; also made possible north-south development and ended the Thames' role as the determinant of the direction or urban development.

Development of the rail road within London was different from the suburbs; land was more difficult and expensive to come by; but by the midst of the 19th century, 10% of the valuable land in central London was in the hands of the railroad companies; but they never were able to build in the actual center, and the rail lines do not connect; stations dotted the periphery of central London; hence a traveller must often change stations to continue a journey (same is true in Paris and Moscow); hence the need for a means of rapid transit.  The London Underground was born in the early 1860s, with the opening of the Baker Street Station of the Metropolitan Railway, connecting the mainline station of Paddington to Farringdon Street and then to Moorgate.  The opeing was preceded by a decade of political and financial discussion.  Plans had to go through Parliament.  Plus there were the technical problems of actually constructing the Underground.  In 1862, the Lond Times complained "of dark, noisome tunnels, buried many fathoms deep beyond the reach of light or life; passages inhabited by rats, soaked with sewer drippings, and poisoned by the escape of gas mains."

But by the end of the 19th century, the Underground was complete; the result was the linking of the railway termini in the city center and an acceleration of settlement on the city's periphery, away from the Center.

The direct and indirect impact of the railroads on the economy of London is difficult to underestimate.  In 1861, 23,000 people were directly employed by the railways; by 1891, the figure was almost 70,000.  In addition, 48,000 people were employed in ancillary transport industries.  The add families and dependents.  Result is the conclusion that 250,000 people depended on the rail industry for their livelihood.  Other industries grew up near the rail lines; also service industries like hotels, restaurants, refreshment stands, etc.

Aesthetic and social costs were high.  Architecture of railroad

Answer 2

Trains were a common mode of travel everywhere during this time frame, so far as I know.  Of course some couldn't afford it or it was impracticle for other reasons.