Great Western Coffee Shop

The following comment is from someone who read the article in last week's Bath Chronicle about the service provided by FGW in the Bath area. It does ask a very important question for passengers who use the local stoppers between Westbury-Southampton, particularly those who travel to/from Dilton Marsh and Warminister:

http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=163490&command=displayContent&sourceNode=163316&contentPK=17135670&folderPk=89126&pNodeId=163047

What about local trains between Salisbury and Westbury? My family uses these services on a regular basis but they are due to be cut from December. We should join forces with Melksham passengers with whom our service used to be joined and oppose this blatant attempt at spin by First Great Western. Don Foster should not fall for this either.

My question is does anyone know what FGW intend to do with the local stopping service between Westbury-Southampton once SWT take over the route between Salisbury and Southampton in December? Will SWT run some trains onto Westbury to fill the gap left by FGW?

I suspect it will be axed as FGW lose even more rolling stock to Northern come December but this will mean that Warminster will lose these local stopping services leaving it with just one two car train an hour. Dilton Marsh will have virtually no trains at all unless Cardiff-Portsmouth services stop there making this service even more of a local stopper than it already is. Was a time when under the Express branding that it was quite a fast service between Cardiff and the South Coast.

Slightly off topic but on this route nonetheless. FGW have posted the new Summer timetables on their website which shows that they have axed the two extra summer Saturday services between Cardiff/Bristol and Brighton - 07:00 ex Cardiff, 10:40 ex Bristol and 11:57, 14:57 ex Brighton to Bristol. This leaves just the same weekday service pattern of one departure from Cardiff and two from Brighton. Surely there was demand for these services??? Upto now not a lot has been said about this as its been kept fairly quiet. Im sure FGW will say they need the stock that ran these services to boost the Cardiff Portsmouth/Weymouth services now they are all two car again.

You make some interesting points there about both routes, Timmer. I have no inside information about plans for the routes but I work on them regularly and can make informed observations.  I imagine the draft timetable will reveal the plans but may well be adapted before finalisation.

My personal feeling is that a stopping service South of Salisbury is a luxury that FGW cannot afford with limited rolling stock.  We carry a lot of people between Warminster/Dilton Marsh and Salisbury but then most leave and the train fills up with a fresh load for Dean, Dunbridge, Romsey and Southampton.  This is really SWT territory and SWT should be serving those stations.  In fact it is Southern Region South of Warminster but the natural overlap is to Salisbury.  Personally I would like to see hourly stopping Salisbury-Bristol services to replace the Cardiff-Southampton.  That would make more sense and free up a couple of units.

The Brighton is a similar problem and ties up more units duplicating Southern Region services.  Cardiff-Brighton-Cardiff ties up one unit for 9 hours so it's a big investment.  To Cosham it runs the same route as the Cardiff-Portsmouth and then along the West Coastway (Portsmouth-Brighton) which is already very well served by new 10 coach electric trains - far better than our 2 coach diesels.  So the only market we're serving is through-passengers who don't fancy changing trains.  They make up about 15 to 20% of the total number and are generally travelling on cheap leisure tickets so not generating much profit.  The profit is generated by local traffic on this route which is shared with SWT and Southern.  Apart from tying up a train for most of the day, the FGW service is a class 1 express with limited stops but most of the trains around its slot are stoppers.  It only takes one to be delayed and the FGW service has to follow it through all the stops for miles and miles and it is quite common to be delayed up to half an hour by the time it turns off.  And you have still only covered a third of your journey!

If the Brighton was dropped altogether it would release several units to strengthen the Portsmouths, release traincrew and the only inconvenience for those few passengers would be to change at Fareham. Same platform so not much hassle.  I suspect that the only reason we run to Brighton is for the shared revenue, but the hassle and use of the units must make it finely balanced.

Yes I agree Whistleblower, an hourly Salisbury-Bristol service would be the ideal even two hourly as it roughly is at present, alternating with the Weymouths at Westbury then going through to Bristol/Cardiff. Who knows thats maybe what is being planned which would mean any passengers going onto to stations to Southampton could change onto a SWT stopper at Salisbury. A sensible solution one would hope will happen.

Regards the extra summer saturday Brighton services, I concede running them was a luxury on a route which as you say is already well catered for by Southern. I have done Brighton to Bath changing at Fareham and it works fine, again as you say same platform so if you are a holidaymaker heading to Brighton no need to carry luggage up and down flights of stairs to another platform. AND if it means extra coaches on busy summer Saturday Weymouth and Portsmouth services then that is a good thing.

Did I see somewhere once that SWT are planning to run extra services between Bristol-Waterloo from the December timetable? I could be wrong.

I remember on the 31s, we allways used to get held up by a stopper all the way to Havent then normally lost our path at Soton!

Correct (well you should know :P) the Passenger flow from Brighton who pay 'normal fares' do normally get off by Soton, or Salisbury at the very least

Here is a summary of some of the relevant service options that were considered by the technical advisers who assisted the SRA with drawing up the Greater Western Franchise specification. To read the full reports click on the links below.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2006/september06/swindonwestburytrainsservice/greaterwesternoutlinebusines1103

http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2006/september06/swindonwestburytrainsservice/bristolroute

From the Outline Business Case Report :

RPC Proposals

The Rail Passengers^ Council (West of England) has recently undertaken a study to inform their aspirations for the Cardiff to Portsmouth and Weymouth route. We have translated the full RPC proposals into a timetable specification for evaluation. These include:

^ Hourly limited stop service between Cardiff and Portsmouth
^ Hourly semi fast service between Bristol and Southampton
^ Hourly stopping service Bristol to Frome, extended two hourly to Weymouth
^ Two hourly Swindon to Westbury shuttle.

The package of service improvements encapsulated in this proposal would lead to a substantial user and non-user benefit (^24 million NPV). However this option would require two additional 2 car DMU units, and an increase in train miles, this leads to a substantial increase in costs over the base case. The benefits of this option are not sufficient to outweigh this high cost.

Recommendation

Reject

Combine Cardiff ^ Portsmouth and Bristol ^ Southampton Trains

In this proposal the Bristol and Westbury to Southampton off-peak local services are withdrawn. The service at Dilton Marsh, Dean and Dunbridge is then provided by Cardiff to Portsmouth services making additional calls.

The adoption of this option would leads to a drop in revenue that is almost equivalent to the cost saving which could be achieved. Therefore the small financial gain this option would provide is not sufficient to counter balance the loss of benefits accruing to users of Bristol and Westbury to Southampton off-peak local services

Recommendation

Reject

Withdraw Lightly Used Station^s train provision

Our analysis has revealed very low usage at Melksham, Dilton Marsh, Dean and Dunbridge. The specification reduces calls at these stations to become peak only. This has enabled some reduction in train mileage.

Although analysis has shown very low usage at Melksham, Dilton Marsh, Dean and Dunbridge the reduction of calls at these stations to become peak only leads to a fairly substantial drop in user benefits. (^10 million NPV). This option enables some reduction in train mileage but makes no resource savings as unit are still required to provide a peak service. The combination of these factors leads to a slight worsening in economic terms resulting from this option.

Recommendation

Progress to next stage of development/ evaluation: It was agreed that a ^blank sheet^ approach should be taken to optimising the services on the more lightly used stations on the Portsmouth and Weymouth lines

Withdraw Lightly Used station^s train provision

As a further test, in this option we remove calls from Dilton Marsh, Dean and Dunbridge (with the exception of one ^parliamentary service^) and speed up trains. On the Swindon to Westbury / Southampton axis all train services are withdrawn with the exception of one peak return trip between Westbury and Swindon.

Compared to 6.2.1a above the cost reduction and the revenue, user and non-user disbenefits of this scheme all decrease. The scheme still presents a negative economic case (-^1.4m) and the cost: benefit ratio at 1.2 is broadly similar to 6.2.1a.

Recommendation

Progress to next stage of development/ evaluation As 6.2.1a

Withdraw Brighton Services

In this option the through services between Bristol and Brighton are withdrawn and train mileage saved.

Although this option saves 1 class 158 diagram, half of this cost saving is negated by a significant drop in revenue following the withdrawal of through services between Bristol Brighton. This option also leads to a significant drop in user benefits (-^13 million annual NPV) and non-user benefits (-^3 million NPV).

Recommendation

Reject

Additional Services to Brighton

One additional service will operate to Brighton operated as a portion of a Cardiff to Portsmouth train.

The addition of these two services (One additional service to Brighton operated as a portion of a Cardiff to Portsmouth train and an additional Brighton ^ Portsmouth & Southsea) requires no additional resources this coupled with only a modest increase in train miles leads to a low overall cost. The user and non-user benefits outweigh this small cost. However this proposal is not operationally feasible without significant retiming of Southern and SWT service. Given the improvement in economic terms is only slight it is not recommended that this option is pursued due to the operational difficulties.

Recommendation

Progress to next stage of development/ evaluation

Extension of 2tpd Bristol ^ Southampton Local Services to Bournemouth

The specification calls for the extension of two Southampton terminating services to Bournemouth to test the market for new through services.

Owing to a combination of existing train services and long signalling sections, there is only one spare throughout path available between Southampton and Bournemouth. The Bristol to Southampton paths do not meet with this available path and therefore it is the Swindon trains that have been extended.

Due to operational constraints Swindon-Southampton trains were extended to Bournemouth for this option. The demand for a service of this type is modest and very low user and non-user benefits result from this option.

Recommendation

Reject

Melksham Service Reduced to 1 Train Per Day

The Melksham route service is operated primarily for the peak flow between West Wiltshire and Swindon. This market is served by one round trip daily and this is the historic level of service provided as required by the PSR. In this option the Melksham services that operate over and above this level are withdrawn including the extensions towards Southampton where those extensions are above the PSR.

No units are saved by this service change and therefore the cost saving from this option is provided by a decrease in vehicle hours and miles. There is an annual loss of revenue of ^2 million and a relatively significant drop in user benefits overall these factors outweigh the modest potential cost saving to result in an worsening in economic terms.

Financial gain (NPV +^3m) and economic loss (NPV -^2m) Benefit cost ratio of retention 1.38. Conclusion: Progress to next stage. Potential gain to efficiencies through interworking with Stroud line to be evaluated (this is effectively what happened in December 2006 , with massively inconvenient timings as a result.)

Swindon ^ Westbury ^ Southampton Frequency Increased to Two-Hourly

Without a complete re-cast of the Bristol / Swindon timetable it is not possible to create a strict two-hourly timetable. In this option we have therefore added two round trips between Swindon and Southampton that close the principal gaps in the service pattern.

Although the level of service tested in this option requires only one additional class 153 diagram this is not counterbalanced by the benefits resulting from this option which are low due to low demand for the services provided.

Recommendation

Reject

From the detailed evaluation report :

Option B1a Cardiff - Southampton services cut back to Westbury

This option tests the value of the Cardiff to Southampton services on the section south of Westbury where demand is known to be lightest. All GW services are cut back to Westbury with Dilton Marsh continuing to be served by certain Cardiff to Portsmouth trains. Dunbridge and Dean are then served by the extension of SWT Totton - Romsey trains in alternate hours to Salisbury and calling at these stations. This extension also provides a new direct link between Salisbury and Eastleigh / Southampton Airport offering new through journey opportunities (a version of this will be implemented south of Salisbury from December 2007.)

This option provides a material economic net disbenefit, with a similar reduction in subsidy requirement from mileage reduction albeit there would be no reduction in rolling stock resources. The option is therefore rejected as inferior to option B1d.

Option B1b. As Option B1a but with SWT extended to Salisbury 3 times only in each direction

This option is as Option B1a but tests a reduced quantum of SWT extensions to Salisbury.

This option provides a material economic net disbenefit, with a better saving in subsidy that option B1a but again there would be no reduction in rolling stock resources which limits the financial savings available. The option is therefore rejected as inferior to option B1d.

B1c. Most Cardiff - Southampton services are cut back to run between Cardiff and Westbury only

This option tests running three Cardiff to Southampton return trips without extension of any SWT services beyond Romsey.

Option B1d. Most Cardiff - Southampton services are cut back to run between Cardiff and Westbury only. 0700 Cardiff ^ Southampton withdrawn to save one diagram

This builds on option B1c with the withdrawal of the remaining Cardiff to Westbury portion of the 0700 Cardiff Central to Southampton saving one class 150 diagram. The additional changes beyond this are required to maintain reasonable service frequencies at Severn Tunnel Jn, Patchway and Bradford-On-Avon

This option outperforms the other B1 options considered. It delivers a positive economic case and substation subsidy reduction as a result of enabling the escapement of one Class 150 unit diagram. This option is recommended for progression.

B2 options: provision of through services to Brighton

Three options have been developed and assessed and the recommendation is to implement none of these i.e. to retain the existing through service provision.

Option B2a. All Cardiff / Bristol - Brighton services withdrawn

This option tests the value of operating through services between Cardiff, Bristol and Brighton by withdrawing the services.

The case for retaining through Brighton services from Bristol would appear to be relatively strong (BCR 2.56). We recommend rejection of this option.

Option B2b. All Cardiff / Bristol - Brighton services withdrawn and replaced by portions off Cardiff to Portsmouth services

This option reduces the costs of the through Brighton services by their operation as portions of Cardiff to Portsmouth trains detached / attached at Fareham.

This option has been rejected on operational feasibility grounds, as no suitable paths exist on the route between Havant and Brighton.

Option B2c. All Cardiff / Bristol - Brighton services withdrawn and replaced by a Swindon to Brighton service operating in marginal time

This option provides a significant economic net disbenefit, and is rejected on economic grounds (BCR of retention 2.35).

Some off-peak Westbury - Swindon trains run in marginal time

This option tests re-instating an off-peak train service over the Melksham route which is assumed withdrawn in the Straw Man by operating services as far south as Westbury only and in marginal time using the peak unit diagram.

This option is recommended for inclusion in the timetable specification (but wasnt.)

B10 options: retiming evening Melksham line service

These two options explore whether retiming the evening peak Melksham line train from Swindon either earlier or later to enable an additional evening peak service to operate from Bristol Temple Meads on the Westbury line. Neither option is recommended.

Option B10a. Additional evening peak train between Bristol and Warminster provided by retiming Swindon - Westbury train earlier

This option tests the value of operating an additional evening peak train from Bristol to Warminster in marginal time by retiming the evening train from Swindon to Westbury earlier.

We do not recommend that this option be progressed.

Option B10b. Additional evening peak train between Bristol and Frome provided by retiming Swindon - Westbury train later

This option tests the value of operating an additional evening peak train from Bristol to Frome in marginal time by retiming later the afternoon train from Swindon to Westbury.

We do not recommend that this option be progressed.

Question from me to Peter West (DfT) on the Dilton Marsh specification from December 2007 :

"In effect , you are saying that FGW will be obligated to provide five  services each way on Monday - Fridays (plus the service from Portsmouth  Harbour specified in paragraph 2.1(e) of section F1) ,  five services each way on Saturdays and four services each way on Sundays that call at Dilton Marsh from December 2007 (a substansially cut service from now.)

Why is the Saturday service specification being reduced?"

Reply :

"The reason is that the Saturday increase for the one year compared to the original number of services in the SLC2 was a consequence of the way in which increased Dean/Dunbridge services were defined in drafting terms by colleagues who wrote the revised SLC2 drafting."

This leads me to conclude that the following analysis by Graham Ellis may well be correct (link below.)
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2074.msg4939#msg4939

"Further cuts come this December in Wiltshire. The service level from Westbury to Salisbury has been somewhat above the service level specification this year due to a last-minute add on for the year.  When that goes, Dilton Marsh looses most of its service and it WOULD go below specification ... except that (as I understand it) a couple of Bristol to Westbury trains will be extended to Warminster to ensure that the specification is met. "Where there's a train that has a layover in Westbury" was what my contact said, so I expect that the extra trains will be timed to meet the specification at the operator's convenience rather than when the customers want them.  I hope to be proven wrong."

"This option is recommended for inclusion" but it wasn't

"We do not recommend that this option be progressed" but it was

Two decisions to go against what a pessimistic expert's report recommended, both to the serious detriment of the Swindon to West Wilts service.  One has to wonder if there was some sort of ulterior motive behind these reversals .... why pay for an expert's report if you're going to go against it, and why go against it in this patterned way. Did someone want to provide a service that was vestigial and would fail?

Without wishing to prempt my comments to the Chronicle article, surely the Jacobs report is in complete contradiction to the WSP report given to the Government Office for the South West, who also used the NATA and GOMMMS methodology on their proposals and with a conclusion in section 6 of the report which states..."However the study acknowledges that measures must also be promoted that combat the environmental damage being caused by cars and HGVs within the study area and to assist with more sustainable transpost solutions. Measures must therefore encourage and influence travel by other modes."

Two different consultants and two different conclusions. So where are the differences in approach, were Jacobs unduly constrained by a rigid application of the assessment methodologies, (or asked not to look at scope for growth as NEG had done admirably) DfT get the answer they payed for.

Interesting comment under their growth calculations.

"Specifically each option has been mapped to the appropriate Origin-Destination growth rates (weighted by 2002/3 volumes) in the table to arrive at a suitable annual growth figure for each option. Note that for Peak service options, season ticket growth was used rather than overall growth."

I take it it's this comment that you refer to Graham re using old figures. From my own observations season tickets I don't believe are that predominant at peak times, and I'm unsure as to how that might be a real indicator to passenger growth in the Wessex region, especialy given the increase in housing in the foreseable future. How many Melksham passengers were season ticket holders during the past 2 years?

Whistleblower - Can you give us a rough idea of passenger numbers on these trains?

I still think it was ludicrous that they replaced the Cardiff - W-s-M/Taunton/Devon/Cornwalls with another Wiltshire service! I & others think they only did this so they get less passengers on most the route. As by Trowbridge the Portsmouth bound service has made up 23 mins from the 30 min difference from Cardiff, so everyone would normally get on the faster service, however most of the stoppers are well loaded as far as far as Westbury, where the fast overtakes (or in most cases provides a direct service) then the Portsmouths will naturally win over passengers. In the old timetable, the services were about 30 mins apart for the whole journey, which meant they were well loaded & generally you did get nearly a 153 loading, which wasn't bad.

Another good thing about the old timetable, was if say Westbury went up the spout, Cardiff would not loose all it's Bath services, I also think it is ridiculous letting a unit sit at 'B442' (Filton Reversing Siding basically) waiting to go to W-s-M. I do think the old setup was a lot better. The other good thing was when Swindons ran, they ran when Weymouths ran, so there were normally connections at Westbury & they were always held! R.I.P the Wessex Timetable!

Sorry Jim but things have to move on, yes NEG had built up a workable schedule based on what they had, but it was no basis for going forward.

It was holding point at best and as the reports recognised there was going to have to be a fundamnetal shift in the area if things were to progress. As far as I can tell Jacobs were employed to rubbish all prospect of future growth for rail in the West of England, which they seem to have done spectacularly well.

No 11 seem to have no interest in anything but the bottom line, never mind what the talking heads say about green issues, and access to all modes of transport. But buy the petrol, and pay the tax is all Gordon's interested in for those of us who don't stand for 70 mins going into London.

Very true! Hopefully December will bring some changes for the good, although it does look like FGW have tried with the new May timetable.

Did you know that the person who reviewed and approved the Jacobs reports , David Bradshaw , used to work for Great Western? (link below.)
http://www.jacobsconsultancy.co.uk/key_staff_DBradshaw.shtml

As you can see from the link above , he has been involved in several other rather interesting Jacobs projects as well.

Sorry Lee, I've only just spotted your question.  It's difficult to give figures because at the moment there are so many trains serving Warminster - Salisbury with both the Southamptons and Portsmouths covering the route.  The only difference is Dilton Marsh on the stoppers.  During peak hours you might get four or five getting on (or off) each train at Dilton going to Bath, Bristol or Salisbury, but off peak it's 50/50 whether you get anybody at all.  Off peak travellers will often be short distance - to Warminster or Westbury with the occasional Bath or Salisbury cheap day return.

Peak hour trains probably each pick up an average of 40 or 50 travelling from Warminster to Salisbury and then back in the evening.  Then there is a later evening rush southbound with leisure travellers having a night out in Salisbury.  Probably 50 on a Friday or Saturday.  About half of them come back on the train, the rest by taxi.  As there is virtually no difference between a single and a cheap day return, that makes no difference to the revenue.  I would say that the route shows a good profit.

The other big time is weekends with dozens of shoppers from Warminster divided between going north to Bath or south to Salisbury.  Hope this helps.

Thanks for that. You mention specifics regarding Dilton Marsh , what about Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge?

Also , you may be interested in the link below.
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2157.msg5057#msg5057

"Yesterday evening I arrived at Southampton Central to go home on the 22.22 only to find that the platform indicated was "bus."  This train also takes in Dunbridge and Dean on the way.  The bus turned up, took a circumlocutous route to Romsey, missed out D & D and arrived in Salisbury about 23.20.  No one at Southampton knew the reason - does anyone know?"

knowing this company, it was because the driver wasn't told he had to go there BUT last time there was more than 1 coach, so that might have something to do with it?

I don't know why the 22.22 was cancelled.  I was at home cuddling a cold beer by then ;D.  I suspect it was a knock on from the 1530 Cardiff-Portsmouth failing at Southampton earlier (door probs) and the back working being cancelled.  The 1630 was also running about 40 minutes late due to a signalling problem at Bath.  Maybe Control just threw in the towel at that stage!

It's possible that the coach was booked to bypass Dean and Dunbridge to save time and they ran a taxi through there instead.  They (we?) often do that for Freshford and Avoncliff when there are buses between Bath and Westbury.

Jim can confirm this because he is usually bus monitor and rides around all day nattering to the driver ;)

As to passenger numbers at Dean and Dunbridge, they're much the same as Dilton Marsh.  Half the time there's nobody off peak.  The problem with Dunbridge is that there is no bus service and they rely more on the train than most people so I hope SWT look after them.

But it raises the moral question of whose responsibility it is to provide them with transport.  If local or national government want them to have a public transport service then it has to be paid for from public money.  You can't expect a commercial company to supply a service without reward - and still have to pay a premium to the government.  Imagine yourself as a CEO explaining to the shareholders of your company that the reason they were not getting a dividend was because you were feeling philanthropic towards the people of Dunbridge who couldn't get to Romsey to get their groceries.

1. I belive that was the reason why the 2222 was canxed
2. I belive this is what happened to Dean & Dunbridge when I was bussed
3. Since Wilts don't do our Rail Replacment anymore, I have been off the nattering all day scene, but I do monitor bustitution as much as I can
4. Agree there, since 'Cango' packed up, train is the only hope for Dunbridge, but I am sure SWT will look after them VERY well. I do suppose though it means they won't be our stations anymore!

Thanks for the info on the cancellations , Jim. I hope you have have written confirmation from SWT on the excellent treatment that Mottisfont & Dunbridge passengers can look forward to  ;D

Seriously though , I do know what the service level for Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge will be from December 2007.

From SWT :

"The Salisbury - Southampton - Romsey service will replace the existing Totton to Romsey service in December 2007. Calls will be made at Dean and Dunbridge at certain times of the day as specified by the Department for Transport, these will be mainly from start of service until 0900, 1200, 1500, 1700 until 1900 and 2200 from Salisbury, and until 0900, 1100, 1400, 1700 until 1900, 2100 and 2400 towards Salisbury.  Obviously this is subject to change but I hope this gives you a rough guide to the frequency of services we may offer."

I then asked them whether this meant a 5 - 7 train per day cut for both stations from what we have now :

"I would assume we are looking at that figure (leaving 13 - 15 trains per weekday - Lee) but obviously this is yet to be decided.  Once a decision has been made the information will be put onto our website."


Thanks again for that , whistleblower. I have to say that I agree with your analysis.

However , according to a recent letter from Tom Harris to Andrew Murrison MP , the transport minister seems to think that FGW could still call at Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge even though they will not be obligated to do so......

In summary , from December 2007 this means :

DEAN AND MOTTISFONT & DUNBRIDGE - Service reduced from 20 to 13 - 15 trains per day , a 25% cut.

DILTON MARSH - Service reduced from 21 to 10 trains per day , a 50% cut.

Further points :

1) The existing stops in the Portsmouth - Cardiff trains at Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge are unlikely to be kept because a) the trains could be speeded up if they were removed , b) the number of passengers affected is unlikely to be great enough to warrant their retention (in FGW's eyes) and c) it would mean that FGW would be calling at these stations at around the same times as SWT plan to.

2) Extra stops in the Portsmouth - Cardiff service are unlikely to be added at Dilton Marsh because a) they would slow the services down and b) FGW have proved conclusively that they need the "recovery time" that is built into the current timetable.

Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge SLC2 Specification from December 2007 :

Route F Salisbury ^ Romsey (via Southampton Central, Eastleigh and Chandlers Ford) SLC 2

1. Route Definition

1.1 Services shall be provided between Salisbury, Chandlers Ford and Romsey in the form of a Loop Pattern of service, calling at: Romsey, Redbridge,Millbrook (Hants), Southampton Central, St Denys, Swaythling,Southampton Airport Parkway, Eastleigh and Chandler^s Ford.

1.2 Limited Stops shall be provided at Dean and Dunbridge.

2. Service Pattern - Monday to Friday

2.1 Between and including the Early and Late Service, services shall be provided from Salisbury to Romsey at hourly intervals, calling at the stations specified in Paragraph 1.1.

2.2 Before the Early Service, one additional service shall be provided from Salisbury calling at Dean and Dunbridge and then Romsey. This service will then call at all stations to Southampton Central in Paragraph 1.1 via Chandlers Ford and Eastleigh, then back to Salisbury via Southampton Central and Romsey.

2.3 Between and including the Early and Late Service, services shall be provided from Romsey to Salisbury at hourly intervals, calling at the stations specified in Paragraph 1.1.

3. Service Pattern ^ Saturday

3.1 Between and including the Early and Late Service, services shall be provided from Salisbury to Romsey at hourly intervals, calling at the stations specified in Paragraph 1.1.

3.2 Before the Early Service, one additional service shall be provided from Salisbury calling at Dean and Dunbridge and then Romsey. This service will then call at all stations to Southampton Central in Paragraph 1.1 via Chandlers Ford and Eastleigh, then back to Salisbury via Southampton Central and Romsey.

3.3 Between and including the Early and Late Service, services shall be provided from Romsey to Salisbury at hourly intervals, calling at the stations specified in Paragraph 1.1.

4. Service Pattern - Sundays

4.1 Between and including the Early and Late Service, services shall be provided from Salisbury to Romsey at hourly intervals, calling at the stations specified in Paragraph 1.1.

4.2 Before the Early Service, one additional service shall be provided from Salisbury calling at Dean and Dunbridge and then Romsey. This service will then call at all stations in Paragraph 1.1 routed via Chandlers Ford, Eastleigh and Southampton Central then back to Salisbury.

4.3 Between and including the Early and Late Services, services shall be provided from Romsey to Salisbury at hourly intervals, calling at the stations specified in Paragraph 1.1.

5. Limited Stops

Dean and Dunbridge shall be provided with calls by services that enable commuting and leisure opportunities as follows:

5.1 Mondays to Fridays and Saturdays

(a) Services arriving in Southampton Central between 0715 and 0930.
(b) Services arriving in Salisbury between 0700 and 0930.
(c) Services departing Salisbury between 1630 and 1915.
(d) Services departing Southampton Central between 1615 and 1900.
(e) The Late Service from Romsey and Southampton Central.
(f) The Late Service from Salisbury via Southampton Central.
(g) At least two other off-peak services departing Salisbury and Romsey between 0945 and 1545, in both directions.

5.2 Sundays

(a) At least six services shall call in both directions, to include the Late Services from Salisbury and Romsey (via Chandlers Ford and Southampton Central).

It would appear that things have changed.....

From SWT :

"On weekdays, the Salisbury - Romsey via Chandlers Ford/Totton services will operate an hourly service. Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge will have an hourly service during the morning and evening peaks and a two-hourly service off-peak, in both directions. A similar frequency operates on Saturdays. On Sundays, they will be served on a two-hourly basis in each direction."

"On weekdays and Saturdays, the proposal for Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge is: 13 services towards Salisbury, 12 services towards Romsey. On Sundays, the proposal is for eight trains in each direction."

"First Great Western are proposing five services towards Salisbury and four towards Romsey on weekdays."

1) The SWT weekday service to both stations will be WAY above that specified by the DfT - and a 25% increase compared to the current service provided by FGW.

2) I am reliably informed that the "surprise" FGW calls will NOT be provided by Cardiff - Portsmouth / Brighton services.

Now that is a pleasant surprise- made even more so by the First Great Western calls!

I'm guessing that the First Great Western trains will originate from Westbury or Bristol Temple Meads- although, is there any hope they may originate from Swindon?

It's surprising South West Trains decide to surpass the expectations by the DFT, where as FGW  (sometimes- not always) barely meet theirs.

It's not surprising. FGW have got along way to go to get anywhere near SWT in terms of running a decent service. Sadly FGW being part of Putting shareholders First group doesn't help as First's reputation for a lower standard of service that has affected their bus companies in parts of the country seems to have prevailed over this franchise whereas other First rail franchises seem to do allright . It was a sad day when First bought out Great Western Trains, though the ex BR managers who had shares in Great Western Trains Company at the time would totally disagree with me  ;)

Yes , it is indeed a pleasant surprise that Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge will have 34 trains per day from December 2007 - a 75% increase in total from what they have now.

My understanding is that FGW will have to adhere to the following specification :

F3 WESTBURY ^ SOUTHAMPTON CENTRAL

1 Route Definition

1.1 Services shall be provided between Westbury and Southampton Central calling at Warminster, Salisbury and Romsey.

1.2 Limited stops shall be provided at Dilton Marsh, Dean and Dunbridge.

1.3 Services shall be joined to services specified in Route F2 (Bristol Temple Meads - Westbury)

2 Frequency

2.1 Mondays to Fridays

(a) Between and including the Early and Late Services, four services from Westbury shall be provided. One service shall arrive at Southampton Central between 0745 and 0830 and another shall arrive between 1915 and 2015.

(b) Between 0600 and 0630, a service shall be provided from Salisbury to Westbury.

(c) Between 0715 and 0745, a service shall be provided from Warminster to Westbury.

(d) Between and including the Early and Late Services, five services from Southampton Central shall be provided. One service shall depart from Southampton Central between 1700 and 1900.

(e) One service need not be joined to a service in Route F2.

3 Limited Stops (in each direction.)

Stops specified in this section may be provided by services specified in Route F1 (Cardiff Central -Portsmouth Harbour)

3.1 Dilton Marsh
(a) On Mondays to Fridays between 0600 and 2359, five services shall call at a maximum interval of three hours.

3.2 Dean, Dunbridge
(a) On Mondays to Fridays , two services shall call.

I am not privy to the exact timetabling of any of the above services , and that process is by no means done & dusted. However , if the information from SWT is correct , then FGW will also be providing services to Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge ABOVE those specified by the DfT.

Regarding services to / from Swindon (via Melksham) , I believe that the following FGW quote still applies.


Realistically , this means Wiltshire County Council funding. I dont hold out a lot of hope for this , as the current WCC view is as follows :

Wiltshire County Council is in agreement with your assessment of the value of the rail service at Melksham. However the Council has no powers to direct the rail industry. Decisions about what service to provide are made by First Great Western (FGW) acting under its franchise contract with the Department for Transport.

The Council seeks to persuade and influence the decision makers in order to protect and improve rail services in the County. Council officers are currently working with FGW to improve understanding of the potential business available from a better service on the Swindon - Melksham - Westbury corridor by making available County Council data and analysis. Council officers have recently met with both FGW and DfT to progress this work.

It should also be noted that Save The Train takes a slightly more positive view (link below.)
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/melkshamrailway/204_An_update.html

"It looks like the technical group that's going to be looking at the case locally is indeed being chaired by the county, and after a slightly stuttery start that's going to be convened shortly.

Six months ago, I would have put our chance of getting an appropriate service on the line at a slim 5%, but now I'm thinking the figure is much higher. The early days of "Graham, we can't run a service just for you" were superceeded by "Melksham on its own doesn't justify a substantive service" and now I'm hearing / seeing real thought being put into what should be provided; with a single train allocated to the line, a two-hourly Swindon to Westbury is practical. As is a slightly less frequent Warminster to Swindon. Or a three-hourly Salisbury to Swindon. And if the discussions come down to "should we choose (a), (b) or (c) rather than "are we going to do anything at all", that's a positive step."

It remains to be seen whether the the technical group's WCC chair will "walk the walk" or merely "talk the talk."

A view from Alison Forster :

Thank you for your email. I appreciate that you are disappointed with the current timetable for Melksham.

The new timetable was based on the one specified in the Greater Western franchise bid. During the bid process and subsequently we made over 200 changes to the original draft proposals many of which came as a direct result of customer feedback in our consultation.

We also looked at all the other proposals from customers, some of which were rejected for commercial reasons, others because of the knock on effect to the rest of the timetable and others due to stock limitations. We must meet the Service Level Commitment set down on the franchise bid. We can also make changes beyond this (subject to approval), and it would not be accurate to suggest that the timetable is fully prescribed and we continue to review and monitor its operation with a view to future changes, but I cannot offer to add the additional service you suggest.

Thank you again for writing. I know that this will be disappointing but we continue to keep the timetable under review and I have noted your comments.

I have recieved this from the DfT :

Thank you for your e-mail dated 18th May 2007 regarding Dean and Mottisfont Dunbridge services.

The Department for Transport issued a Stakeholder Briefing Document in March 2006 that laid out the specification against which bidders for the new South Western franchise were asked to submit their bids.  As part of this, the Department specified services to be operated between Salisbury and Romsey via Eastleigh.

To clarify the situation from 9th December 2007:

First Greater Western (FGW) will no longer contractually be required to call at these stations (but will be permitted to do so if it wishes).  I understand that the operator will be operating a limited Westbury to Southampton shuttle service, which will call at both of these stations.
 
With regard to Dilton Marsh, the service which First Great Western intends to operate from December 2007 is currently subject to public consultation over the next 12 weeks.  The proposed service will be five services per day in each direction on Mondays to Saturdays, and four on Sundays.  I note that the current service exceeds the required minimum level.

South West Trains is required to operate at least 10 services a day, Monday to Saturday.  These services have been timetabled to ensure an approximate hourly service in both am and pm peaks in both directions Monday to Friday.  On Sundays, 6 services in each direction shall operate.  An early and a late service will operate on each day of the week.

This is at least equivalent to the current level of service provided by the current operator, First Greater Western, based on the present timetable.  I understand that from December 07 South West Trains is intending to operate a limited number of additional services calling at both Dean and Mottisfont Dunbridge over the minimum levels specified.