Great Western Coffee Shop

The theme at the top of the page for May is "underutilised resources in Wiltshire", where we have a perfectly good railway line linking Salisbury to Swindon - the largest places in Wiltshire - and calling at the next four largest places (Trowbridge, Chippenham, Melksham and Warminster).  Problem is ... if you miss the 06:15 from Swindon, the next train doesn't leave until 18:45!

It wasn't always like this - in 2005 and 2006, I regularly caught a bustling train at 17:02 from Melksham to Chippenham, and met people off various arrivals - the most popular at a 09:11 and 18:09.  The traffic flows *are* there, the infrastucture *is* there, the line capacity *does* exist - it just needs carefully timed trips to operate between the existing first and last trains to meet those traffic flows.

Am I talking "pie in the sky"?  No - Wiltshire Council, First Great Western and the Department for Transport have all looked carefully at the case and agreed it; a two-hourly or even hourly service is appropriate for the line. But Wiltshire Council doesn't trust the railway industry ("We lost a lot of money when we did all the background work for Corsham Station and the key contractor then trippled their plice" said Fleur de Rhe-Philipe of Wilsthire Council the other evening), and the railway industry won't move without at least some token contribution from Wiltshire. Oxfordshire, Hampshire, Bristol, and Devon are all quoted as nearby examples of co-operation between the rail industry and the local authority, and it's needed as badly (if not worse) in Wiltshire.

I was heartened to hear all four major political parties who were represented at last week's West Wilts Rail Users Group hustings speak positively about the aspirations and need for the service.  Careful analysis of what was actually said showed that one party was "talking the talk" rather than "walking the walk", with a promise that they would do a further report and if it was positive press for the servivce to be included in the next franchise. That runs from 1st April 2016, doesn't it, so an impressive sounding promise could actually have been a promise to continue to fillibuster.

With this political cowardice and buck passing going on, the "Save the Train" campaign is running a pledge for support online at http://www.transwilts.org.uk (http://www.transwilts.org.uk/) ... it's running for the full months of April and May and already we have over 500 names, including over 220 who travel daily in Wiltshire - that accounts for over 100,000 journeys per annum.

We're looking to add more names to our roll of supporters - we need to keep reminding the key players that they should get their head together to implement what everyone agrees is a sensible solution, rather than passing the buck round and round.

Please - if you haven't already - add your support at http://www.transwilts.org.uk/pledge.html

(there are links from there to more detail, and I and many others are happy to answer questions by p.m. or email ... or on the phone, or in person!)

An afterthought. The Westbury bypass - a road project which will run a new road some 7 miles long past the town on Westbury - is a key part of Wiltshire Council's investment for the future. And they cheerfully admit that they will then need to take measures at Yarnbook, and around Chippenham. The cost of putting a train on the parallel line that's already there is the equivalent of the cost of just 20 yards of that 7 mile road. I am not getting myself into a road argument - but I am suggesting that there might be something of a sense of missing perspective here and that the railway would provide a very useful and - on road budget terms cheap - solution to some very real immediate travel needs!

Whilst totally agreeing with Grahame's push for a better service on the Trans Wilts, I feel that thinking that this will have much effect on the need for A350 improvements is a bad case of wishful thinking !

Transport infrastructure in this country is totally lacking any sort of "big picture" thinking. The latest local piece of lunacy is Bath's announcement that when the Westbury bypass is completed that they will ban HGVs from coming from the M4, down the A46 and along the A36 to head South from there, by the simple expedient of banning HGVs from entering the City. The admitted aim of this is to force heavy traffic onto the A350.
The reason that HGVs have to do this is because the original A46/A36 improvements were emasculated by the anti-roads lobby. Now the same lobby is using the decision to ban HGVs to try and stop the Westbury bypass being built !

Madness begats madness !

I didn't mean to suggest that four trains a day would have a huge impact on the A350 loading (sorry if it read that way) ... it would be one heck of a miracle solution if it did.  I was simpy pointing out comparative cost - saying that if you spend five pounds on the road, you can also spend an extra penny and give people the rail alternative too.  Or you could save a penny (0.2%) - spend just 4.99 on the road - and get the train service too.

A decent TransWilts service would reduce travel time - for those who wished to use it - from Trowbridge to Swindon from 95 minutes (bus) or 55 minutes (car or dogleg rail via Bath) to 35 minutes.  Westbury bypass would not improve the timings of that flow (or any of the others north of Westbury) though it would make timings by car from north of Westbury to south thereof more reliable in the segement of the journey past Westbury.  With the diversion of Bath HGV traffic onto the A350, other sections of the A350 (Yarnbrook, Beanacre, North Melksham past MacDonalds and Leekes, and around the single carriageway Chippenham bypass) will become busier and perhaps slower ... which is why Yarnbrook and Chippenham are already on the radar for some serious additonal expenditure in the medium term.

A rail freight terminal in Westbury might also help a bit, another suggestion that^s done the rounds on numerous occasions, with some detail here.

http://www.westbury-wilts-bypass.info/

And was probably not dicusssed by the Wiltshire candidates at the WWRUG meeting either, they are probably unaware of Wiltshire^s Freight Policy FT 1

http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/parkingtransportandstreets/roadshighwayspavements/transportfreight.htm

I wonder if the loading gauge works around Southampton this winter will have any effect on freght flows?

Shouldn't have a huge effect, because freight can still run via Laverstock to Basingstoke.  There is a suggestion that the tunnel will be single track only during most of Dec and Jan, but they can (and have) run a fairly good passenger timetable on a single line basis before - they'll probably put in a few standard diversions like FGW via Eastleigh, and run the 'Romsey 6' west of Southampton only.

There are full weekend closures during the period as well - but that was fairly incident free during the recent renewals at St Denys junction, for 5 weeks running. The only longish tunnel closure is for 26th Dec to Jan 4th, which isn't really a busy period for freight at all.

Paul

If you're wanting to identify any of the pictures at the top of the pages this month, I have added a page that tells you where each of them was taken:

http://www.wellho.net/share/transwilts.html

I have also posted a review of how our local transport authority is doing against their targets for the line now that we're halfway through the Local Transport Plan (2) (LTP2) period:

http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=8018.0

There is indeed capaciy on the line ... for extra passenger trains, plus freight.   I think I heard of council plans to send refuse by road from Westbury to Slough which - if I heard correctly, seems kinda crazy.   I guess the lorries would use the A350 ...

I find it shocking with all these towns fighting hard to get a rail link that a well positioned existing link isn't used. A service linking Westbury direct with Chippenham would be useful to so many people. A missed opportunity by the DfT.

The ironic thing is that the whole thing is tied up in detail, red tape, politics, principle, and no-one willing to make a bold first move that others would follow (they have told me  ;) )

We are now well over 600 signatures, 500 of whom are local. Over 200 travel daily in Wiltshire. Over 70 are elected or standing for office of some type. All major partys are multiply represented (not just the odd maverick!) up to parliamentary candidate and MEP level. And there are over 100 organsations listed ...  and this support looks like (fingers crossed) it might be starting to open doors.

If you (dear reader) have not yet offered your support, but feel it would be a good idea, please do so now at
http://www.transwilts.org.uk/pledge.html
where we ask a few questions (such as where you live and how often you travel in Wiltshire), so we're able to weight your contribution and provide good statistics - please add your name even if you don't live close to the line.

P.S.  Does your partner travel?  Would he / she support us?   What about your colleagues? ...  ;)  Thanks!

I have already expressed my own support on this (so my conscience is clear!), but may I take this opportunity to remind / encourage any readers who have not yet done so, to please register their support for this campaign (http://www.transwilts.org.uk/pledge.html) now?

Thanks!

Chris  ;)

An answer from one of the main campaigners who was actually involved in the whole Corsham business ... and still is.  Sent to me by email, for publication here:

Quoting me:


Anne writes:

Perhaps you had left, but when I had the opportunity to speak I corrected Fleur's assertion and she did not respond!   Over the years the costs kept doubling, certainly, but that is always the way within the rail industry.   In fact, at the time the price escalated, WCC contacted John Laing Rail and their tender halved the ^5m quoted by Railtrack - or perhaps it was the SRA at that time!   The reason it did not proceed was that Wiltshire, typically, wanted someone else to pay for it - to leave more money for their pet road schemes, so when the RPP funding stream was withdrawn nationwide not from the Corsham scheme only as Fleur inferred, it all went belly-up and the SRA withdrew the Bristol/Oxford service, which was a well patronised service throughout the day.   Oxfordshire CC, so soon as RPP funding came on stream, employed a Rail Officer and even now are wishing to take forward a scheme which will create a link through to Bedford - and possibly Cambridge.

Just in case you hear the same claim again - I should be glad if you would refute it!

Anne, I am more than happy to have added your account