Great Western Coffee Shop

[This topic has been split off from "Background to the Forum" in the Introductions and Chat section -
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10011.0
- Graham]

I travelled from East Grinstead to Melksham by rail on December 10 2011, changing mid-afternoon to the TransWilts train at Swindon. The journey took about three and a half hours. I made a similar journey by rail to Melksham on December 24, and left Melksham at 15:21 on December 27 to return to East Grinstead . It was a delight to make these journeys by rail. The trains were clean, the staff were attentive, and all the connections were efficient and on time. As I often travel to Melksham, I started thinking how nice it would be always to travel by rail. However, when I investigated the timetable I realised that I'd been lucky to choose trains that suited my travel plans, because not many trains run through Melksham. I'd like to ask: will more trains daily be using the TransWilts line during 2012?

Hi, jtrak, and welcome to the forum.

Reliability and cleanliness have hugely improved on the line in the last three or four years - under the previous franchise that finished on 31st March 2006, both were in need of that improvement.   Alas - reliability got worse - a LOT worse over the winter of 2006 / 2007 as the new train operating company struggled to learn about the metrics of (and run) the services it had taken over.

Staff on the line - and indeed virtually all operations staff with FGW - are gems.  Really friendly, professional, and they make it a pleasure to travel.  Under the previous franchise, where the TransWilts service was run by Wessex Trains, but Swindon station run by First Great Western, there were some unfortunate situations where incorrect advise was given to passengers (FGW staff not seeming being aware of the Melksham train sitting in the station, and sending people on the First train to change to a First bus at Bath), but those days are long since gone - thank goodness. However, the service we were left with after the last franchise change is, frankly, inapprorpriate in its sparsity and timing.  You were very fortunate that there was a Saturday service running on Tuesday, 17th - thus a 15:21 train.   On a normal Tuesday, you would have had a choice of 07:17, or 19:47, with the 07:17 putting to onto a peak-fare connection at Swindon, and the 19:47 possible connecting into the very last service to East Grinstead!

To answer your question - "Will there be more trains daily using the TransWilts line during 2012" - I doubt it.  We may see an extra round trip again on Sunday mornings in high summer - that was run for most of July and August and resulted in a packed train to Weymouth each time, and correspondingly busy trains in the evening.   There was a prospect of a change a few weeks back - early December 2011 - but our suggestion that 2% of extra carriages provided to First should be used to run something more appropriate didn't win the day, even though it would also have relieved peak overcrowding from Trowbridge to Bath, where people were being denied boarding because the trains were that full.   Our logic went that if they ran another TransWilts service at that time, it would pull the 50 or so people doing a Trowbridge - Bath - Swindon dogleg onto a direct train, making space on that train, cutting journey times for 50 commuters, adding a service with immediate growth potential, and leaving a unit in Swindon from where it could run daytime TransWilts trains.   However, what actually happened was much more "bull at a gate" - a strengthening of the existing train to Bath, so missing the opportunity of those other benefits.

Looking further ahead, I would be somewhat more optimistic for 2013 than 2012 for improved daily services.   We're currently jumping deep into a refranchising exercise in the South West, and the door is open under a consultation for serious suggestions to be put forward.    There are an awful lot of ducks to line up for a suggestion to be taken seriously, but we may get there.   There has certainly been a sea change in support from many quarters since the last franchise was let, and that's all for the good too.

If the Trans Wilts service is still 2 trains each direction per day as per document would it be possible to retime a little later on the morning and a little earlier in the evening to provide a more conveniently timed service.

Bit of background

Under Wessex trains, there was an arrival into Swindon at around 08:30 and a departure at about 17:45 (it varied by a few minutes over the years), and this is within the bounds actually set for the current (First group) franchise.  In our naivety from reading the specification, we assumed that we would be retaining this train and getting one other.   

The initial proposal from First was (as I recall) for a Swindon arrival just after 8, and the return service to run at 18:45, fitting in to the 08:00 to 08:45 arrival and 17:30 to 19:00 return of the SLC2 section of the franchise.  First consulted on the service, and clear inputs were made from the TransWilts corridor for the morning train to be a little later, and the evening one about an hour earlier.    So we were shocked to find in the final timetable that the arrival into Swindon had gone even earlier - i.e. it had been shifted in the exact opposite direction to the inputs that had been made.  We were doubly disappointed that the Department for Transport allowed a change in SLC2 to allow an arrival at Swindon as early as 07:30 ...

Conspiracy theory would suggest that this was an example of deliberate provision of an inappropriately timed service.  However, it turned out to be rather more complex.   Firstly, by running the train early in the morning and at the very tail end of the afternoon peak, the hiring of a train could be saved - the set used on the TransWilts, if very early, can also provide the Golden Valley (Swindon to Gloucester / Cheltenham) commuter run, and this saving was just too tempting not to take up.  The Golden Valley crowd had also complained that their train was too late for their use, and they put a strong case that schoolkids wouldn't be able to get to school, and got their MP (who held a marginal seat for the government) to press the case, and they / he "won".

Answering your question directly

Yes, it would be possible to run a service that arrives in Swindon at 08:18, and also to run a returning service at 17:35 or at 18:19.  Those paths were all cleared by Network Rail for passenger service operation in February this year.

But

There are serious concerns at simply moving the service a bit, and there are far better alternatives.

a) If you simply move the services, you are going to re-create Golden Valley problems, or leave a unit sitting at Swindon all day doing diddly-squat.
b) Even the current unlikely times have built up a clientelle, and I would hate to see them disenfranchised
c) Would people use the new service, knowing the again-recent (see (b) ) history of service being retimed out of usabiity for people?
d) Very little corridor analysis has recently been done concerning a two-trains-a-day service at the previous times - so we don't know how it would be used.

The better - MUCH better - alternative is to leave the exisiting trains as they are, and to add in the 08:18 arrival and the 17:35 departures ... but not to leave it at that - to make use of the extra rolling stock provided to provide a service to run during the day at least every 2 hours. This was actually suggested by Jacobs in the run up to the 2006 refranchise, in an otherwise very negative report across the South West, but for some reason the suggestion wasn't included in the franchise.

By running two well spaced services to Swindon in the morning, 2 well spaced returns at the end of the day, you give no fewer than four working day opportunities. By running that 18:19 train as well, and an earlier arrival into Swindon at 07:02, you're up to nine working day opportunities.  Not only does this suit many, many more people who travel to Swindon to work, but it also gives all of them the flexibility of being able to start and finish a little earlier of later and to know there's a train they can catch.  And that's made all the more powerfully the case by running service during the day with the extra stock.  Working late is possible, and a line which (paradoxically) links all the major population centres of Wiltshire but is scarcely used becomes a backbone that ties the communities together. I have an inch-thick set of documents making this case. The majority of those documents are professional analyses looking at the case to industry / DfT standards, and it's my belief that they should be implemented at the first timetable change of the new franchise (or before would be nice).

I have been reading a bit over Christmas, and have posted some of my personal throughts on the TransWilts line for the next franchise at:

http://wellho.info/3566

A lot of it's very theoretic stuff, so I've also worked out a sample of what it could mean in terms of services at:

http://wellho.info/3565

Almost all of what's written is pretty well agreed / accepted by many parties, and all the ducks seem to be coming into line.  An optimistic end to 2011 from me!

Does the pre 2006 service level and usuage provide any further evidence to supoort the case?

There is, indeed, evidence from prior to December 2006 - I've made some mention of it when referring to the Jacobs report. 

I was on the 17:45 from Swindon to Westbury on the last day it ran. There *were* a few unoccupied seats, but it was sufficiently crowded that some people chose to stand.   The majority of people came from Swindon, a good number joined the train at Chippenham (Bristol and Bath commuters), and perhaps 10 us us were not regulars but there to take one last look at a service that had been "carrying fresh air" around five years ago.  Many of the people were very angry

I wrote in my blog:


However - that was five years ago.   We were angry, really angry at the time, but things move on.  Former users gave up as they tried to fix do their old jobs, and some went onto the umemployment list.  Politicians change (too frequently, it seems) but many of the public servant remain in post. And I've come to learn over the years that almost all of them are very knoweldable and skilled, want to do their best for rail, but they're working with a system that doesn't always let them provide an appropriate solution for issues.

By bearing this in mind, by making a good case along the lines requested, by brining other parties on board, we now have an excellent case - and in a whole new housing, local government setup, and where "sustainability" and "access for all"are so much more important.

This iw what the TransWilts trains will look like in the future:

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/bhxc3.jpg)

We know - we tried it last summer. 

I do look forward to the day a better service is offered on this route, I wouldn't realy mind a return to the pre 2006 timetable a service of 5/6 trains per day each suitably timed would be a lot better than the current service.

But the pre-2006 timetable was based on analysis of potential flows from the late 1990s, and at that time there was a more generous amount of stock around.  Yes - it was better that what we have at present (in may ways very much better) but we could do still better again.  The case / analysis for a return to the 2001 - 2006 timetable hasn't been done and I suspect it would be knife-edge.   Possibly not enough trains to push the service over the balance point between a service that people will use because there's always a train in a couple of hours, and people only using the train if there's a specific one when wanted.   You'll note that neither of the options the DfT / Jacobs looked at for the current franchise was status quo - it was down to 2 a day, or up to one every 2 hours. And there was a reason  ;)

Swindon to salisbury is slow by car (Google maps suggests 1hr 9 mins, but in peak periods this is optimistic). By bus it takes
over 2 hours.

Based on existing train times a direct service would take 1hr 15 minutes.  This would be extremely competitive and would make this commute much more attractive.   

Yes  - a direct service would be very competitive in time taken.  It wouldn't be competitive on price, as the anytime return fare via the TransWilts is a staggering ^112.00 as of this morning.   Taken purely on a Swindon <-> Salisbury flow, there is also a question as to whether there would be a high enough volume of traffic to justify the service.   However, the route (and the timing you have quoted) between Swindon and Salisbury covers a journey that also covers the next 3 largest town in Wiltshire, and Warminster, Westbury and Dilton Marsh too.  So you also want to look at traffic flows such as:

Chippenham <-> Salisbury
Melksham <-> Salisbury
Chippenham <-> Warminster
Trowbridge <-> Swindon
Swindon <-> Melksham
Warminster <-> Swindon
Melksham <-> London (*)
Chippenham <-> Trowbridge
Bristol <-> Melksham (*)
And so on, covering Dilton Marsh and Westbury to North Wilts and Swindon for example

All of which are significant, and all of which would now become direct with a saving of 20 minutes upwards on every single journey, or which would become practical where they have previously been impractical (these latter marked (*) )

 

There's an awful lot of Melksham to Bath (and back) traffic as well, I suspect. Including commuters (I did it myself for almost 20 years)

Nat Rail enquiries does indeed quote the ^112 fare via Reading and Basingstoke, but via Bath and the TransWilts it quotes the anytime return as only ^32.80.

Odd that - this is what I got from the First site:

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/vbath.jpg)

The 32.80 fare (or rather the old equivalent one) was "via Bath" - sharing tracks with the TransWilts direct train (first column, no changes, 112.00 return) between Swindon and Chippenham, and between Trowbridge and Salisbury.   You'll note that going via Bath added 53 minutes to the journey.   You appear to be suggesting, Ellendune, that this condition may have changed and have been shown changed on the National Rail engine, right?  If you can give me links / new conditions and details, this would be great news - I believe that the 32.80 should be (say) "Via Trowbridge" and perhaps they've done that but not yet fixed the FGW site?

Nope ... I'm getting 56.00 single on the National Rail site too ...

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/vba2.jpg)

I agree, Phil .... I just added nine more flows to the end-to-end one that was suggested.  We could keep on going.   And with many of these journeys too, the transit time improvement would be astronomical!

The fares and routeing permissions between Swindon and Salisbury are something that really needs looking into should a decent TransWilts service come to pass.

It is scandalous that a train operator can charge over ^50 for a single journey between two towns in the same historic county. 57 miles by rail on a direct service for ^56? Rip off. The routeings need changing at the very least to allow for a 'via Melksham' fare.

Of course I'd never pay that ^56, seeing as there is a split that would reduce the cost to around ^19. A split that even beats the 'via Bath' Anytime single......

I see what you mean.

There is obviously to fare via Trwobridge so for the 6:12 it gives the via Basingstoke which is, presumably, the any permmitted route. 

You are right this nonsense needs fixing!

For Swindon to Salisbury you can always do a split ticket at Trowbridge.  That would be ^31.80 return.  It would save you ^80.20 on the official fare or just ^1 on the fare via Bath.

The various community groups working on / with the line made quite a difference last year - TransWilts Rail and that work took a summer sunday service which in previous years consisted of three single journeys carrying with an estimated 40 passenger journeys in total and in co-operation with First, Wilthshire Council, the Chambers of Commerce and sponsors raised that to five single journeys (66% increase) carrying between them an average of over 500 passenger journeys (1150% increase).  Not bad - done using a train in "marginal time" which had been sitting in a siding waiting for its diagram.

In December, the Melksham Railway Development Group's Santa train conveyed 150 each way - a pretty well loaded 3 car train by the time that you consider 20 or 30 members of the public who weren't with the group.

In both these cases, local publicity and community support resulted in strong loadings - indeed, both were so successful that we had to restrict further advertising (in the summer) and stop selling tickets to see Santa, turning people away (in December) - and we can do so again and on a much heavier scale with trains that make round trips possible.

It had been intended to formalise the constitution of the TransWilts Community Rail Partnership around now, but with an open question as to who will be operating the services in summer 2013, and with the strong desire on the community's part to put the only logical case for the next franchise, which involves a significant increase in services, we've concluded it's better to leave it informal until after the franchise has been let, but provide a strong draft constitution as part of the case to indicate how the community is ready and prepared to support the new service.

The draft constitution is at http://atrebatia.info/admin.html - comments welcomed / fine tuning possible. The draft constitution (version 0.2) was produced by representatives of / with major inputs from:
^ Chambers of Commerce
^ Railway Development Group (Melksham)
^ Current service user
^ Train Operating Company
^ Members of neighbouring Community Rail Partnerships
^ Wiltshire Council
We are fortunate to have a strong team of informal partners, willing to provide help / advise and each with skills in multiple areas.

I wish the Transwilts Community Rail Partnership every success.

You certainly make a strong and cogent case for for a "proper" service on the line. It certainly seems that like other lines either newly reopened or with  extra services that passengers will follow and use an improved service. You've only to look at Ebbw Vale and the Falmouth branch to see what happens.

Hopefully the "bean counters" will see the merits of your argument, so that soon you will be posting "Doubling or Loop for Thingley Jn to Trowbridge and maybe even Reopen Bradford North curve".

Good Luck.

From the Wiltshire Times (http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/inyourtown/wiltshire/9634887.Demand_for_more_local_rail_services_for_Wiltshire/):

Thanks for posting that, Chris.  To my knowledge, there have been quite a number responses to the consultation from all across Wiltshire (and beyond) asking for an improvement of services Swindon -> Westbury -> Salisbury, and I'm not aware of responses that took a different view on this topic.

From This Is Wiltshire (http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/9683479.Number_of_rail_bidders_whittled_down/):

Good lets hope First retain the franchise and perhaps come 2015 get hold of some  additional class 158's if Scotrail release them and operate 4 carriage trains on the Cardiff - Portsmouth route.

Putting the cart before the horse there aren't they?   ???

Paul

Why would First retaining the contract make obtaining ex Scotrail stock any more likely though?  Any bidder could do this. 

Paul

I know that Paul it was meant as two seperate things.

For example:

I meant I wished First would be sucessful with their new bid and that whoever gets the franchise will take up the opportunity for more rolling stock should scotrail decided to release their class 158's and depending on how many are made available.

Bit slow on the uptake at 'This Is Wiltshire' aren't they? It's been known for over over a month that Renfe didn't make the cut.  ::)

From the Western Daily Press (http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/bidders-left-race-run-Great-Western-train/story-16011404-detail/story.html) (yesterday):

My view differs.

I have always been of the opinion that the TransWilts ranks some way down the list of potential passenger rail service improvements, because alternatives exist for virtually every flow that it could cater for. This in turn means that it would bring a relatively small number of genuinely new passenger journeys to the rail network, in comparison to other more worthy schemes elsewhere.

I do agree that there is a problem to address though, but it is not one of a lack of train services. Rather, it is the fact that the alternatives are often needlessly badly planned, organised and timed.

A prime example is the First Bus 234 Frome-Trowbridge-Melksham-Chippenham service, which serves Chippenham railway station during the morning peak and evening. This service is characterised by ^connections^ which see bus miss train by a matter of minutes on a number of occasions each day.

Therefore it seems clear to me that the answer lies in sorting out these alternatives so they interface properly, rather than create a new train service which is likely to be lightly-used for much of the time.

What I would like to see is First include the 234 bus service in their franchise bid, and revamp it so that it connects every hour with the Cardiff-Portsmouth rail service at Trowbridge railway station (for onward journeys to the likes of Warminster, Salisbury and Southampton), and connects with a London-bound service at Chippenham railway station every hour (for onward journeys to the likes of Swindon, Reading and London).

My suggested hourly Monday-Saturday 234 bus service pattern is as follows:

(Starts from Wells Bus Station as Service 161, departing at xx30)
FROME (Sainsbury^s) ^ xx31
FROME (Market Place) ^ arrive xx37
FROME (Market Place) ^ depart xx49
Oldfield ^ xx54
Beckington ^ xx58
Rode ^ xx04
Southwick ^ xx10
Upper Studley ^ xx12
Train from Portsmouth ^ arrive xx16
TROWBRIDGE (Railway Station) ^ xx21
TROWBRIDGE (Town Hall) ^ arrive xx24
TROWBRIDGE (Town Hall) ^ depart xx26
Hilperton Marsh ^ xx32
Hilperton ^ xx36
Semington ^ xx43
MELKSHAM (Market Place) ^ xx50
Beanacre ^ xx55
Lacock ^ xx00
CHIPPENHAM (Railway Station) ^ xx16
Train to London ^ depart xx25
CHIPPENHAM (Bus Station) ^ xx21

CHIPPENHAM (Bus Station) ^ xx44
Train from London ^ arrive xx44
CHIPPENHAM (Railway Station) ^ xx49
Lacock ^ xx04
Beanacre ^ xx08
MELKSHAM (Market Place) ^ xx16
Semington ^ xx22
Hilperton ^ xx27
Hilperton Marsh ^ xx29
TROWBRIDGE (Town Hall) - arrive xx35
TROWBRIDGE (Town Hall) ^ depart xx37
TROWBRIDGE (Railway Station) ^ xx40
Train to Portsmouth ^ depart xx53
Upper Studley ^ xx49
Southwick ^ xx52
Rode ^ xx57
Beckington ^ xx03
Oldfield ^ xx07
FROME (Market Place) ^ arrive xx13
FROME (Market Place) ^ depart xx20
FROME (Sainsbury^s) ^ xx25
(Continues to Wells Bus Station as Service 161, arriving at xx25)

NOTE ^ I have proposed that the 234 bus service interworks at Frome with the First Bus 161 service to Wells each hour. This ensures that an extra bus will not be required to run the 234 via Chippenham railway station each hour.

The bid should ensure that valid Melksham rail tickets are accepted not only on the 234 bus service, but also on the hourly First Bus 272 service from Melksham to Bath bus station, which is a mere stones throw away from not only Bath city centre but Bath Spa railway station as well, and its frequent rail service connections to the Bristol area.

This should be sufficient provision for the TransWilts on Monday-Saturday, which means that passenger rail services on the Melksham line need only be specified on Sundays (when the 234 bus service doesn^t run), where the current rail service pattern should be enough to satisfy demand. This could be augmented on Summer Sundays by additional rail services linked to the Weymouth line, as this is one of the few TransWilts flows that have proven potential to attract significant numbers of genuinely new passenger journeys to the rail network.

So there you have it ^ A cost-effective solution that saves money by removing the ridiculous specification requirement to provide a near-useless ^marginal time^ Monday-Saturday Melksham line passenger rail service, while still covering all the relevant TransWilts service provision angles. Furthermore it^s a solution that requires no additional bus or train resources, as opposed to wasting both taxpayers money and precious rolling stock on sending a unit trundling up and down the Melksham line near-empty for most of the day.

Problem solved.

I would love to learn further - really appreciate a complete copy.

For the moment, I'm moving away from the generalities where there is much more to be said and discussed, but where it's difficult for us to put our case other than in a general diluted form against the conclusion you've listed here without seeing the full detail on which you've based it.

Can I ask about your bus proposal?  Well noted that the 161 has a longish layover at Wells at present, and apparent slack in the timetable. Linking something end to end with the 234, so that the 234 route can be elongated slightly in Chippenham is an interesting thought. There are some questions that pop up, though, on this specific route suggestion (which was new to me, though I think others more technical may have considered it before)

a) Some journeys on the 161 are currently provided with assistance funding by Somerset Council, who have been making subsidy cuts - can the hourly service be relied upon to work through from Frome to Wells for the next 15 years, which is what we're looking at under this franchise

b) A glance at the timetable of bus route 174 shows that it leaves Wells bus station a few minutes after service 161 gets there, and gets back into Wells Bus station a few minutes before service 161 leaves. Does this by any chance use the same vehicle as is on route 161?  If so, how do you propose to provide the service on route 174 once you have retimed the 161?

c) Some of the vehicles on route 234 are double deckers, due to the sort of levels of traffic.  Does that also apply to route 161?   That would be a bit or a surprise to me, given that half the services during the day on route 161 are subsidised.

d) An assumption that the buses and trains will be run by the same company is a dangerous one - at this stage, I don't think you can assume that First will win the franchise. Or is there something deeper here such as inside knowledge that it's a done deal, or looking to shift the goalposts to make it awkward for others who don't run the bus?

e) There are also matters to be looked at - how the six weeks needed to change a bus service will fit in with people's long term plans, what will happen when the bus is held up by the ineviatable road works on the A350 or any other traffic issues all the way down to Wells, whether the retiming to suit train connections breaks other connections, etc. I'm not saying "insoluble", but you've got an awful lot of issues to solve on this one.  And you have seriously longer bus than rail journeys, especially when you add interchange time which needs to be rather more than train -> train timing for bus -> train; you seem to be suggesting a 75 minute journey Trowbridge -> Swindon, where the train takes 35, and 60 minutes Westbury to Chippenham (70 the other way) versus 25 on the train both ways.  Train dogleg via Bath is quicker that the bus, but still MUCH longer that the direct train. Thoughts on those issues?

Anyway - I certainly applaud the idea of better bus / train integration at Chippenham and Trowbridge and it's something we're been looking at in various ways for years.   We got morning / evening service to go via the station in Chippenham, and have got additional signage at that station to tell people about the 234 buses in the evening.


Excellent - so you have answers to all of the issues above. We would love to hear them, but isn't it rather odd too that in spite of the services having been run by the same company already for a number of years, these issues remain, and we've been racking our brains over them.  Perhaps you've been in a position to stand back and see what we couldn't?   Hope so!  I look forward to you taking me up on my offer in the other thread to where we'll be unconstrained by limits placed on you by your employers, whoever they might be, and we can help you and them be more informed if they turn out to be a bidder or a decision influencer.

I don't think it would necessarily matter, it could work in the same way as the council tendering for bus routes, instead of the council specifying and funding the way the route was run it would be the new franchise holder. It wouldn't matter who ran the bus and who ran the train if the rail franchise was funding and specifying the bus service, as required by the franchise agreement.

Used the 234 today from Trowbridge to visit the new Wetherspoons in Melksham which opened yesterday.  Cost me ^7.90 return (wife and I) as my Welsh bus pass useless in England !!!   Would have avoided that perhaps if there was a train service during the day.

Unfortunately this charactises rather a lot of bus-rail interchanges. In the last edition of Rail Barry Doe discussed a problem with connections at Axminster, for a service specifically intended to provide a rail to bus connection. First had retimed departures for Lyme Regis allowing only a few minutes to get across a footbridge and to the bus stop, thereby making it likely people will miss the connection and also making the connection time too short for South West Trains to include it in their timetable of connecting services. Near where I work there is a half-hourly bus service that is now timetabled to depart from Bracknell bus station at pretty well exactly the same time as the half-hourly train from Reading arrives.  I raised it with First's customer services and got a fairly useless reply suggesting I should go to Sandhurst instead to catch that bus, where there is only an hourly train service and it is outside the PlusBus zone.

I think the underlying problem is that bus operators don't actually believe that many rail passengers will ever travel by bus. They work in a market where the vast number of their passengers make single stage trips without connection with any other mode of transport, and they can't see that ever changing, so make no effort to ensure connections work; which is of course self-fulfilling. And therein lies one of the problems with your suggestion, which is that, apart from the significantly greater journey time, people just won't have confidence that connecting services will be maintained or timetabled sensibly; and unfortunately the different regulatory regimes under which rail and bus operate make it very difficult for anyone to enforce integration.

I have a good friend who lives in Bracknell and I visit regularly. We often head in to London and it is indeed frustrating that some of the local First Bus services arriving into Bracknell Bus Station do so at the time a London bound train is due to depart.

I too raised the issue with First in Berkshire and was told that the only thing I could do was catch an earlier bus or a later train.  ::)

I usually enjoy answering alternative cases put by a "Devil's Advocate", as they provide a strong ground against which to test a hypothysis.  In this case, however, I find my self answering a partially published case put forward by a poster who's being very selective with what (s)he tells us, anonymous under a psedonym that spells "ringer" back to front. He/she is yet to take up my offer to provide the full alterative case, behind the scenes if there is commercially confident data there, which might answer some of the anomolies in the suggestions.  If Regnir is an expert, then he/she should be able to do far better unless he/she has a hidden agenda.

Anyway - I'll continue to await an explanation as to why First haven't sorted things out using buses in seven years before, but could do so now and in such a way that buses alone would provide a complete solution with a positive outcome.  And I'll continue to scratch my head as to how proof that people will use the train on Summer Sunday mornings can be translated into a conclusion that they won't use them at other times.   Perhaps Ringer is baseing his/her conclusion primarily on old data. I note (s)he states "I have always been of the opinion that the TransWilts ranks some way down the list" and "When the 2000s came along, I realised that the real money was to be made from consultancy, and that to get a real piece of the pie, I would have to move to London".  Those comments don't say "I have considered all the evidence now available" to me - rather they indicate a support of the same conclusion that the SRA reached in 2004, on a knifeedge and using general rail growth of 1% per annum compound, in marginal favour of a service that comprised only a commuter train to Swindon rather than a two-hourly shuttle.  But that conculsion is outdated.

For every 100 rail passengers in West Wiltshire in 2003, there were 160 in 2010 - 7% compound growth.  I have chosen 2003 as that's the year in which the SRA figures were measured; by being selective and taking a more recent selective period, I could come up with an even higher growth figure, but that could be argued to be poor statistical practise.  So - what do those figures mean?

Compound growth of 100 passengers in 2012 over a 15 year franchise at 1% leads to 117 passengers in 2028
Compound growth of 100 passengers in 2012 over a 15 year franchise at 7% leads to 276 passengers in 2028

It's even more startling if we extrapollate from 2003 to 2028:
At 1%, 100 passengers in 2003 would have reached 124 by 2028 (option (a))
At 7%, 100 passengers in 2003 would have reached 443 by 2028 (option (b))

Option (a) has been proven by time to be incorrect - but it's the basis of the current service.  We've already seen an increase in the first 7 years of the 22 year period that's 3 times greater than was predicted for the whole 22 years, and need to specify for the next franchise something fit for the future, not anchored on out of date intelligence that turned out to be wrong.   That's a statement for the whole of the West Wilts area; being specific for the TransWilts, you need to look at additional comparative data (and we have) away from current rail traveller numbers as you can't sensibly extrapollate from the current service level; to do so would be just as peverse as an assumption that sucess with an improved Sunday service appears to have lead Regnir to support the conclusion that it would fail with an improved Monday to Saturday service.

A Swindon Salisbury Journey would be competitve if done directly by rail.  The alternative of a connecting bus between Chippenham and Trowbridge is out of the question as the bus takes an hour between the two.  Connecting trains at bath is better but the additional travel time and standing around for the connection all adds to the jopurney time.  A bus from Swindon to Salisbury is also tortuously slow. 

In short without a direct rail service there is no question.  I will drive to Salisbury.  A pity since there is a perfectly good railway line between the two which could do the journey in a comparable time without having to find somewahere to park in Salisbury.

ellendune - Can I just ask (and forgive me if you have already posted the info elsewhere) but how often do you drive along the TransWilts corridor in the absence of a train?

I ask because I'm doing some research into how many people are currently driving who could be attracted by a better TransWilts rail service.

If other members also have anything to add on this, then please feel free.

At the moment in frequently but I know someone who does Swindon Salisbury once a week. 

I have turned down business in Salisbury because of the problems of getting there from Swindon. Owing to problems with my eyesight I cannot drive at the moment and the bus is just too much of a time waster in its present form.

I have exactly the same problem coming from Swindon to Bracknell. That same bus you get to the station then leaves almost straight away so if you are coming off the London bound train it's just coming up the slope out of the bus station as you walk/run out of the railway station (except Sundays) when the trains arrive halfway between te half hourly bus departures.

I often drive from Nailsea to Melksham, because the currently available TransWilts train journey options (whether via Bath Spa or Chippenham) just don't meet my daytime meeting timetable requirements. ::)

Next question - What level of service would be required in order to attract people who are currently driving?

Again, if other members also have anything to add on this, then please feel free.

There are a few people at my employer who live in the Salisbury area and work in Swindon. And as I know only a small proportion of a couple of thousand employees on the site, one can extrapolate that there are probably many more. They complain that the journey is slow and tedious, but there's no alternative. I would have thought even one service each way that gave them around 8 to 9 hours in Swindon rather than the current 11 would prove very attractive.   

How time-sensitive would the requirements of those currently driving be, in order to attract them to rail instead?

For example, would an 0818-ish arrival into Swindon be more advantageous than (say) an 0848-ish arrival or vice versa? In the other direction, what would be an optimal morning arrival time into Salisbury, and how far could one deviate from that before potential custom is lost? What about potential evening return times? How much priority should be given to peak timings at intermediate TransWilts destinations? What about off-peak, and other periods of the day?

Although I do have members such as John R, ellendune, bobm and chris in mind regarding expanding on their examples, I would again stress that I'd like to gather the views of as many interested members as possible.

John, I'm CERTAIN that there are many more.

I scratched my head slightly at the excellent support we received from the MP for Devizes, as her constituency doesn't include any of the TransWilts stations ... but apparently there are major traffic flows on the roads from Salisbury in the South to Swindon in the North through "roads designed for horse and cart".   Regular / daily travellers looking to save a few seconds here and there by driving faster that they should through places like Pewsey, Upavon and Marlborough, but rarely stopping to bring business into the places they pass through.

I believe that the 8 or 9 hours, rather than 11, would make all the difference.  And so, initially, did the SRA when specifying the current service level, with a requirement for an arrival between 08:00 and (?) 08:45.  At First's request, this specification was modified to allow an arrival during the 07:30 to 08:00 period instead, and at the same time First took the wide 17:30 to 19:00 requirement for the return service and pushed it into the last available path before 19:00.   This timing saves them (First) the cost of hiring an extra train, as the train off the TransWilts can be used to form the commuter train into Gloucester (arriving there at a sensible time), and the return train in the evening (again, at a sensible time).

I am delighted to report that this fare has now been reduced from 56 pounds to 23 pounds - a very good and decent solution by changing the "via Bath" fare into a "via Trowbridge" fare.

Good news. A whole raft of relevant flows from Swindon to Salisbury and beyond now have a new 'via Trowbridge' option priced considerably less than the 'Not via London' fares and for some destinations matching the 'via Bath' fares. These new fares can now be used on services through Melksham.

So.... the funding is in place.... the fares are in place....

One word of warning. Don't try to purchase a SWI-SAL Anytime Single 'via Trowbridge' from WebTIS based booking engines (redspottedhanky, London Midland, Southern etc). The fare isn't currently available through them.

Now all we need are some units I wonder of course where some could be found from in order to run a Swindon - Salisbury service.

An idea could be to run the London Paddington - Cheltenham service hourly throughout the day and use the two units which are used on the Swindon - Gloucester/Cheltenham shuttles.

The other option could be to hire in some loco hauled trains to displace units from elsehwere although I hardly think this option would happen.

Its a pity London Midland cannot use a class 172's on the Bedford - Bletchley route and cascade their remaining class 150's to FGW.

That would, I believe, require two additional HST sets. There ain't anything spare there.

Rolling stock utilisation for services through Melksham is something the TransWilts Community Rail Partnership has looked at in some depth. Could you remind us of the findings, grahame?

OK thanks it was just an idea I  had

During the day, there are 3 x HSTs on London Paddingon -> Cheltenham and 2 x 15x on Swindon to Cheltenham.

Every hour, a train takes 30 minutes to turn around at Cheltenham
Every 2 hours, a train takes 70 minutes to turn around at Swindon
And there's a 50 minute turn around at Paddington (if it's the same set)

Swindon to Cheltenham takes a few minutes over the hour. So on a line that was a self-contained service that would take 3 trains to provide the hourly departures from each end.  However, through trains to London alternating with a more local service rather frustratingly leave the two local units running for less than 60% of the time and sat at the end of the line for over 40%.

Extending local trains from Cheltenham to the South?   You can get beyond Chippenham and towards Trowbridge before you had to turn back, but not (robustly) all the way to Trowbridge.

Look now to the south, at Salisbury you have a 15x train terminating and turning around (from Romsey) that's there for 40 minutes in every hour. Not long enough to robustly get to Warminster and back.   And you have another 15x train that's there for 28 minutes in every hour, from Waterloo.

And in the middle at Westbury ... oh my goodness, this one is complicated.  A train arrives at around :36 from Bristol and one leaves at :38 towards Bristol - clearly not the same unit. Some go on to Frome and some of those to Weymouth. A few head south via Salisbury.  Sometimes local shuttles run from Westbury to Warminster to serve Dilton Marsh.

There *are* options available at certain times of day to get better utilisation, but these aren't trivial and you end up with the possibiity of providing an odd service at times that don't make for good, realistic round trip / commute schedules.  You've got to watch single lines at Kemble, on the TransWilts, and at Chandler's Ford.  You've got to watch interaction with the expresses who's tracks you're using in different parts, freight, long signalling sections etc.   And if you do a great deal on linkage, you may end up having the *time* available, but not in the right part of the two hour slot.   Add one unit and you end up with many more options; from either Salisbury or Swindon you can extend a train to Swindon or Salisbury and provide a two-hourly TransWilts, even through the single journey is a smidgin over an hour.

The Franchise consultation in January to March asked about franchise boundaries, and there are some oddities in the area south of Westbury - such as Dean and Mottisfont which are operated by First but only have Stagecoach services.  I'll be most interested to see what's in the ITT about this.

All four bidders for the next franchise have timetabling experts that know far more about this kind of stuff, and indeed if there had been an easy answer under current parameters, I suspect it would have been offered.   I'm going to defer to them rather than speculate here further  ;)

? - I always thought that all fares were supposed to be available through all booking engines - certainly the regular anytime single stuff.

Online booking engines don't have to be impartial and there are no 'rules' that say they have to sell all fares that are available.

I assume that it is merely an issue of updating ATOS's WebTIS system and nothing deliberate. Symptomatic, probably, of the disjointed nature of rail ticket retailing systems. It is of concern however, that someone could buy a SWI<->SAL ticket through WebTIS and be overcharged. I've emailed and used Facebook to point out to redspottedhanky (cf. ATOS - who provide the WebTIS back end ticket retailing for numerous TOCs) the issue regarding these new flows not yet showing on their booking engines. One hopes they update their systems pretty sharpish. If NRE's fares info and thetrainline based booking engines can update then there's no reason why WebTIS can't.

That said, the industry's own internal 'fares finder' via 'The Manual' is also not yet showing the new fare flows. I'll keep an eye on this one and see what transpires through next week.

In the mean time. Caveat emptor,  ;)