The simply typed, and, especialy, the dependently typed lambda calculi are extremely versatile and powerful subsets of untyped lambda calculus which do not admit the Y combinator. Their usefulness does not at all require universality, and are, perhaps, more useful for being typed.
There are many useful things that are not "the lambda calculus". "The lambda calculus" is more widely known and important, largely because it is universal, hence Church-Turing thesis.
Of course there are other useful things. But a comment argued that the presence of Y is what makes untyped lambda calculus useful. My rebuttal is that certain subsets which (intentionally) lack Y are more useful. Applications of typed calculi abound, but one rarely sees applications of the untyped calculus. Universality is not so important, it would seem. For example, infinite computations can still be modeled in typed calculi, but one has more control over them in that setting than running on "bare metal" untyped lambda calculus.
Ok, "useless" is a slight exaggeration; non-universal calculi can be useful. But the thing that makes the lambda calculus so important and famous - the thing that makes it "the lambda calculus - is universality, and that's the ur-application that makes all of the subsequent application of calculi to mechanical computation possible.
