Great Western Coffee Shop

Waste of rolling stock, diversionary route, no point in having booked services,

(link below)

www.melkshamsucks.com

Everyone is entitled to their opinion ... but you have missed rather a large body of overwhelming  evidence to the contrary.  The argument now is whether an hourly or two hourly service is the most appropriate for the TransWilts line, and how to achieve that.

I consider myself to be an optimistic person but I can't really see hourly being viable!

In that case, Tom, I'm happy to continue to support an at least two-hourly service for Melksham.  That's still far better than the present inappropriate service.

I'd agree that the current service is inappropriate, but in my own mind I'd rather see an initial service that operates to a lesser frequency than the already agreed timings in order to stimulate the growth required in order to support a 2 hourly service which I agree would be needed - but I'm looking at an overall point of view for through journies between Swindon and Westbury, etc - Melksham is simply an intermediate station on the route that will benefit from an increased service.

I'm very much in agreement, Tom.

a) It's best to take stepping stones towards the appropriate service; something along the lines of the six trains a day that were suggested by First for next December (See url=http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/tp.html]here[/url] for one possible timetable[/url]).  With these six, well times, the service use would grow again.  With just the odd extra service, it's very questionable and the idea of a 4 hour gap from 3 p.m. to almost 7 p.m. for services out of Swindon which was also mooted would have been like building an arch without the keystone.

b) Melksham is, indeed, an intermediate station.  Swindon is the largest urban mass in Wiltshire, Salisbury 2nd, Trowbridge and Chippenham 3rd and 4th, and only then Melksham. You'll note that all five lie on the "TransWilts", together with the important junction at Westbury, and the large town of Warminster too.  2006 data shows 25% of passenger journeys to / from Melksham and 75% between places South thereof and places North thereof.

All I get is a DNS error. That must mean Melksham doesn't suck (http://www.takeforum.com/forum/images/smiles/ad.gif)

I didn't dare click on it in case it broke my computer... But also I agree... Melksham doesn't suck...

I agree, too: Melksham doesn't suck.   ;D

If I had a pound for every time I've overheard someone from Trowbridge or Westbury buying a ticket to Chippenham on my train, I'd be fairly wealthy by now! Of course, they had to change at Bath.

The demand and potential clearly *is* there. It should be pretty obvious that a service linking two very large towns (not to mention other large towns) and two very busy interchanges- where nothing suitable exists at the moment - will be popular!

Thanks ... EVERYONE ... for the follow ups here.

All the URLs posted in the "series" by this posted were checked out within the hour of them being added to the forum, and none of them that remain points to anything nasty. (It should not be possible for any links to be added here that will break your computer - if it were, it would make the life of all forum operators a misery!)

Want to put that to the test Graham? ;D

I worked over the branch on two recent occasions and the 19.32 from Westbury  had no pax either to or from Melksham.  More experienced colleagues tell me that this is often the case.  That said, apart from lightly used connections, there is not much to generate interest at Westbury at seven thirty PM. Perhaps more imaginative timetabling would give this branch a shot in the arm.  Or is someone somewhere trying to raise the ghost of the good doctor?

One of my major criticsims of the good doctor was that he looked at services in isolation and costed each line and station individualy. There was no real attempt to add in the value of a particular line in the network as a whole.

Bearing in mind that even in 1960 many servies followed pre grouping routes, if it started GC it finished GC. There was little attempt to see whether the service could be diverted onto another route for for part of the journey and allow it to terminate in another station in the same town.

The only place where a concerted attempt was made to rationalise into a single station was Leeds and that was heavily criticsed and delayed at the time because of what was seen to be the rising cost. Who can imagine Leeds today with two main stations? However much that rationalisation cost it must have paid for itself ten times over.

This is the problem with Melksham. There is no mechanism to allow the "bean counters" to work out the additonal benefits to whole rail network of having an adequate service serving Salisbury to Swindon, including Melksham.

Another  problem with Melksham is that it can't be closed because it would  polictically unpopular as the government wants to be seen as pro rail and not shutting railway stations especialy given the general elections only a couple of years away. The TOCs are quite happy for it remain open as  a diversionary and freight route. They will be even more happy when it's needed for diversions for electrification.

However, there is no reward under the current franchising arrangements for any TOC to volunteerily increase the service over and above that specified.

Maybe some clever person on this board can devise a formula to calculate the added value of an adequate train service at reasonable times to stations like Melksham, which also adds it's value to the network as a whole with the increased journey opportunities it would provide.

Therefore, I am afraid to say the argument for more services for stations like Melksham are political and with the DfT in particular.

Link didn't work to melkshamsucks

 

I have a slightly different take on that.

I actually think we are entering a very dangerous phase regarding the future of several lines and stations. Yes, we have a general election a couple of years away, but it is also one that the current administration know that they cant win (as illustrated by the link below.)
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/index.html

Polling might be an inexact science but I cant see them coming back from that. It is at these times that governments start doing very inadvisable things (as illustrated by the link below.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail

In the final years of the last Conservative government, closure was proposed at several stations, among them the Oxfordshire Halts and Dilton Marsh. Ironically, these stations, along with several others, were recommended for closure in the 2004 Greater Western Outline Business Case Report (link below.)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2006/september06/swindonwestburytrainsservice/greaterwesternoutlinebusines1103

My worry is that, in the absence of any electoral imperative, and with recession on the way, such proposals could be resurrected in the administration's dying days.

The removal of any useful TransWilts service certainly has Beeching-esque characteristics. The pattern is being repeated in other areas, with franchise agreements seemingly no barrier to the withdrawal of passenger services (example link below.)
http://www.canber.co.uk/?q=node/35

The current DfT closure guidance also makes it far easier to close lines and stations, in comparison to the lengthy process it replaced.

As eightf48544 states, the line itself has never been under threat. It has always had strategic value for diversionary purposes, and along with freight traffic plus a single (nonstop) train on Summer Saturdays, running from the Midlands through to Weymouth for holiday makers, survived on that basis between 1966 and 1985 while Melksham station was closed.

However, from a CANBER perspective, it is of no use to me if no passenger service is provided and Melksham station closes again. I consider this to be a real possibility if the current passenger service continues in its present form.


grahame recently covered related issues in the link below.
http://www.canber.co.uk/?q=node/32

Further evidence the service is needed! I was speaking to someone I regularly talk to on the bus this morning, who lives in Warminster, and was saying how her daughter has to drive to Swindon because the direct train leaves too early from Westbury and doesn't get back till the evening. She said they would much prefer to use the train if one was available. 

Never mind the passengers. Current timetabling on the Melksham branch makes it quasi impossible for Gloucester based crews to get down there for route learning.  ;)

What about Watford West.

They never followed closure procedures, but train services stopped when they ripped a bridge down!

And when "Smethick West" was closed, proper procedure was not carried out (despite the new "Smethick Galton Bridge" station opening 200 yds away).

In these cases the stations were not officially closed, but all services (bar one for Smthck Wst) were stopped!

So any station can be "closed" like this. All they have to is run ONE bus or ONE train. Once passenger levels have been reduced, proper closure is easy (Smthck Wst closed a year later*).

And look what they have done to the Melksham line!

*NB: I am not opposing this closure - only pointing out what they did.

Not that I object to it, but Abercynon North has been closed. The proposal stated that when services were transferred to Abercynon (ex-South), 4 trains ph would run. No-one seems to have spotted in agreeing to the closure that in fact the additional services have not started.

Woo hoo! 4 passengers used the Swindon-Melksham thunderbolt this evening.  The 20:38 Westbury Brizzle had one passenger until Bath Spa

That's the service that gets to Westbury at about half past seven.   Isn't that sad.

Until the December 2006 timetable change, the train that ran into Swindon in the late afternoon conveyed dozens of people ... and the return peak hour service perhaps 40 or 50 on a good day.

The stated intent of the new franchise specification was to leave that train intact, together with the balancing morning working.  What a screw up, frankly - the specifications / decisions made have taken two useful trains and replaced them by two which don't run when people want to travel.

G.uard - your use of the work evening to describe the timing of the service sums up the problem nicely!

I take your point entirely.  The paucity of service on this branch is damaging to Melksham and the wider Wilts economy.  And...how many car journeys to Brunel's only mistake, (aka Swindon), ;) could be avoided with more imaginative timetabling?

One of the tragedies of the case is that "more imaginative timetabling" IS available -  Swindon to Westbury  at 06:18, 09:02, 12:02, 15:02, 17:55 and 18:45, with Westbury to Swindon at 07:02, 08:09, 11:02, 14:02, 16:53 and 19:32 - most services running beyond Westbury to/from Dilton Marsh, Warminster and Salisbury.

"Pipe dream of an enthusiast?" you may ask.  No - it is NOT just something I came myself up as 'wouldn't it be nice if ' ... this is a draft timetable produced by an expert at First Great Western, validated for December 2008 by Network Rail, resourced in terms of rolling stock, supported by large numbers (1700 on a PM petition, 500 local signed up supports on "Save the Train") ... but killed by (I'm almost too furious to write!) a system that's got distorted financial values (ORCATs, the need to meet a specification rather than serve the passengers, an inability to risk even the slightest delay to franchised services), and a lack of political will and interest by a handful of key players, all of whom (as a Melksham voter) I have never had a chance to vote for or against!

That draft timetable was / is excellent. It took the travel flows identified and provided a decent service at low cost - it's significantly less trains that the "appropriate service" for the line - but it's sufficient in my judgement to trigger a return to the significant (very much above average) growth that was seen on the line prior to December 2006.  [[There are some other options around as well, researched to a better or lesser degree, looking further ahead in some cases.]]

In terms of "number of car journeys removed" ... I don't know, G.uard.  It depends on what year you're asking about.  For a service re-introduced this December, after recovery to the 2006 level which would take a year or two, you're probably looking at around 150,000 to 200,000 car journeys cut out by 2011 or 2012.  I feel a bit uneasy with this estimate, as I'm not sure how many passengers on average travel in each car on the route, and whether the transfer to train would be a typical cross-section of these, or would be biased towards the single occupancy vehicle.  There would also, I'm sure be a lot of car journeys reduced from longer distance (Warminster to Swindon, say) to just a short drive to the local station.

The full timetable that fell at the hurdles placed in its was is at
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/tp.html

Remember - it has pretty darned good support, and it's based on excellent background work by the FGW technical and evaluation team who's members deserve full credit for it (but any mistakes in translation should be laid at my door!)

By the way - here's a soundbite for you - "I estimate that the number of passengers per carriage on this service would exceed - on average - the number of passengers you'll find in an HST carriage"