How has the TransWilts got here? Where should it be going?

[whole diary]

[grahame]

An update - I'm crossposting this from an obscure thread on another board, as I feel it's worth a wider reminder!

I remember being interviewed on Radio Wiltshire (Swindon) last summer on the morning breakfast show.  I remember telling the presenter during a live broadcast that it would take him over 2 hours to travel the 40 miles to Salisbury - the second largest urban centre in the county after Swindon - if he went to the railway or bus station at that time and took public transport.  Clearly he thought, as someone who didn't personally make big use of public transport, that I was exhadurating, as he had his researcher check into it while we continued to talk.  And at the end he came back and confirmed - 2 hours and 3 minutes.  That's twice the time that a "TransWilts" train should take.

To the North in Wiltshire, you have Swindon (the largest population area in the county and Chippenham which is 4th, well linked by public transport.  To the South and West, you have Salisbury (2nd), Trowbridge (3rd),  and Warminster and Westbury too which are also substantial centres of population, and well linked.  But the connections between the two areas are poor (and that's putting it mildly!).   The route between the two areas, via the "TransWilts" railway line, or via the 234 bus service, takes you along the A350 corridor through Melksham - itself the fifth largest population centre in the county (so you have 1st - 2nd - 3rd - 4th - 5th on the route).

There are substantial through journey requirements between the two areas, in addition to the travel requirements to and from Melksham; various statistics that I have (and give a rough indication at least) show that for every journey to or from Melksham, the line serviced (and would service) a further 3 to 5 journeys that pass the place, and it's that significant extra traffic which means that Melksham is not just a small town on a branch line - it's simply that "via Melksham" has become shortened to "Melksham" in so many discussions and papers, and with such a change in perception the case is woefully presented.

(This is going to turn into a long post, I'm afraid - but the points are important ones, and you have given me an excellent opportunity to refresh the case and answer some all-too-ingrained suggestions and certain misleading data)

On the figures you have seen

The traffic figures that were quoted in order to specify the service that's currently offered on the TransWilts line were surveyed (as I recall) over a few days around Easter 2002.  At that time, the service provided by Wessex Trains was less than a year old, as it had been radically altered in May 2001.  When a service has major changes, it does take a time for the new services to settle down (you can see this more recently where the December 2006 changes lead to major problems that are only now being fully resolved) so to take those 2002 figures and portray them as "typical" is misguided at best, and seeking to distort the truth at worst. And statistically, they should not be relied upon - not enough samples.

But it went from bad to worse. An assumption (and remember that to Assume is to make an "ASS out of U and ME") of 0.8% growth was made, whereas the actual figures achieved from 2002 to 2006 where between 10% and 35% compound depending on which measure you take.  So that a service was specified for 2007 that would cater for around 20,000 to 30,000 journeys to replace a 2006 service that had carried 120,000 or so.

And worse yet - the specification was designed for a peak service from West Wiltshire (Westbury, Trowbridge, Melksham, connections from Frome and Warminster) into Swindon, and a return in the evening.  The draft timetable already shown an extended day, and we protested. Then - incredibly and in direct opposition to our consultation inputs - the SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment) was relaxed to allow the morning train to run even earlier.   West Wilts commuters can now only use a train "borrowed" off the Stround Valley line before the morning rush hour, and can only return home when they "borrow" the same train back after it's completed its Stround Valley commuter run.  Result?  An absurdly long day and a service that's criminally worse that even the draconian SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) / DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) specification.

I travelled on the very last 5 p.m. train from Melksham up to Chippenham and Swindon, and on the last return commuter working. That's one "nonpeak" and one "peak" train.  They were busy; yes, I was able to get seated on both, but I could not have had a pair of seats on my own on either train. And, no, they were NOT single coach "153"s - I recall a 150, but could have been a 158.

On use of the current service

We now have a very curious service - with trains running at times that are designed to fit the convenience and profit of the train operating company rather than the requirements of the area.  I understand that the technical term is "marginal time".

Under the 5-trains-a-day regime of Wessex trains, the quietest southbound service was the first train off Swindon.  And the quietest Northbound was the last train back up to Swindon. Incredibly, trains still run close to these times! - an 06:15 from Swindon, and a train that gets back there at 20:20.  These services look as if they could have been calculated to fail.

And we don't have a practical commuter service in to Swindon at all. Quite simply, eleven hours in Swindon is far too long for a day's work.  On one hand you have working hour directives, and on the other hand you have the government specifying / accepting a train service that contradicts it.

Having said which, the need for the service is so critical that numbers are creeping up - but estimates are that over 90% of traffic has been lost.

On the future

All of the towns along the route are growing, and under the Regional Spatial Strategy that planned growth is to continue for the next 15 to 20 years. 5000 new homes in Trowbridge, 5000 in the rest of West Wiltshire ... towns with a population of 20,000 will be up to 30,000 by 2020.  Already, Melksham (quoted simply because I live here and know the figures) has grown from 18000 when I moved here to around 23000, and if you stand on the platform at Dilton Marsh - also on the line - you'll see what were green fields around the station five years ago being converted to housing.   I understand that nowhere else in the South West are ther so many "Stategically Significant Towns and Cities" on a 40 mile corridor.

Road transport rather than rail is the preferred flavour of the powers that be at the local transport authority - that's Wiltshire Council. I heard this stated by their representative at the Enquiry in Public into the Regional Spatial Strategy in Exeter, and it was the extreme view of all the local authorities (indeed, Wiltshire stuck our like a sore thumb!).  In a way I can understand this; traditionally, Wiltshire has been a wealthy and rural county where the car has ruled for the past 30 years, and the bus has been a practical way to provide a daily service to remote villages for those who don't have their own transport.  Times are changing, however, and a more multimodal approach is now appropriate.

Can you beleieve that in a study undertaken by a county official, an "appropriate" service for the TransWilts came out as being an hourly train each way?  That's not the universal view of everyone at County Hall, and I have been told that although they throw a lot of money at bus subsidies, they do not have funds to make any contribution at all to rail.

Why is such a high frequency defined for an appropriate service?

The A36 and A350 roads which run parallel with the railway are already overcrowded, with congestion spots all the way from Salisbury up to the M4 near Chippenham, and then into Swindon. Local improvements (such as the one around Westbury, which is going to a public enquiry very soon) would need to be carried out in considerable numbers to make a substantial difference to car journey times along the whole route - or even to maintain a status quo if road traffic grows in line with population growth plans.

Part of the issue is also access to town centres - Salisbury, Swindon and Chippenham, and other towns to a lesser extent, are already clogged and bypasses won't sort out the issues that people who are going to or from the town centres have. And public transport road services (i.e. buses) are unlikely to use the bypasses as they still need to serve the communities being bypassed; at the best, they'll get a spinoff effect from an easing of congestion.  But you have to counter this with a an acknowlegdment that bypassing "x" will suck traffic into the area and put more pressure on unbypassed "y", where the buses will be slowed down again.

Look at these other factors too ...

Chippenham to Salisbury - well over 2 hours by bus. Under 1 by train.
Trowbridge to Swindon - 95 minutes by express bus, 35 by train.
Usage - 5 people will use a train for every one who would use a bus.
Fuel Prices

There's an enormous case for the future here; looking back at the past gives some clues and direction as where we should be going, but it's not a level playing field - we're taking what was a 3rd division area at the turn of the Millenium and with the government's plans it's going Premier League - and it needs Premier League facilities in order to cope.

Now - let's be realistic.   We cannot get an appropriate service that will meet the needs for the next 10 years in the current economic climate - so let's look at something more modest that will move us in the right direction.   That's why I'm endorsing the suggestions - commonly accepted as being a step in the right direction - for an extra 4 services a day between Salisbury and Swindon.   The timings are substantailly good and in combination with the existing service provide a realistic set of commuter, irregular traveller and longer distance opportunities that will put the service right back  on track with growth in double figures (percantage, compound, annual). Two existing services, when linked to new services, provide round-trip commutes to their traffic will grow too.   

I'm going to suggest that - with the proposed service from December ... we might be looking at overcrowding of that service and looking to strengthen it far quicker than you think!

Sign up to support us at ... http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/pledge.html

[Jim]

However, lets assume to get the TW unit, you need to split up a 3car 158.

To put it in perspective, todays well timed 09.15 from Melksham picked up exactly ZERO people, dropped off exactly ZERO people and there were exactly ZERO people on the platoform - however, the 17.30 Cardiff Portsmouth turned passengers away at Bristol, Bath, Bradford and Trowbridge, because itwas a 2 car unit. So the fact still remains, is that sadly the Melksham service did and still is carrying air around, whereas other services are still running round with no air, let alone space on them!

[John R]

I don't think a Bank Holiday is ever a good day to judge typical passenger flows.

[Jim]

I don't think a Bank Holiday is ever a good day to judge typical passenger flows.

But the 'Saturday' service is fairly well timed from Melksham - so why wasn't anyone using it!

[grahame]

But the 'Saturday' service is fairly well timed from Melksham - so why wasn't anyone using it!

Jim, my own Bank Holiday experience of the TransWilts dates back to 2005 and 2006, when the line was served by 2 to 3 times the number of trains we now have, spread throughout the day. With that level of service, the trains weren't "heaving" but they were certainly weren't the Marie Celeste you described in your post otherwise.

What you currently have on the "TransWilts" is a service that isn't fit for purpose; the train service level is below a minimal threshhold at which people will use it, and those minimum of trains - with the possible exception of the Saturday morning train from Westbury to Swindon - don't run at the times that are the peak of when people want to travel.  People have been further driven away by the chronic unreliability - cancellation rates in double figures percantage wise, and additional bustitution of at least some services on the majority of weekends for months at a time.  Even when you get a decent service such as that Saturday morning one, there is insufficient choice of return train.  And it's pretty darned hard (even for me) to know what's running when at weekends and holidays - I long for the return of the days when it was basically the same service with some of the early ones missing.

It's my estimate that First's current service is carrying only about 7% of the passengers that National Express's service use to carry, and passed on to them on 1st April 2006.

As I read your post Jim, you appear to be suggesting that the service that's proposed on the TransWilts - of 6 trains a day in a well calculated timetable that would meet the needs of many people - should NOT be supported because there's little traffic on the impractical existing flawed service.

[swlines]

Graham - although I've signed this pledge thing you have... I'd rather see a progressive introduction of more services than an attempt to create a full service instantaneously. Although Swindon to Salisbury sounds a good service - the practicality of providing it easily is a tad more difficult. As I say, I'd rather see a progressive introduction so that if it flops (which it could) it is easier to withdraw back to the current levels.

[Jim]

As I read your post Jim, you appear to be suggesting that the service that's proposed on the TransWilts - of 6 trains a day in a well calculated timetable that would meet the needs of many people - should NOT be supported because there's little traffic on the impractical existing flawed service.

I am suggesting that actually, the services which are having extra carrigies that WILL be full should take priority over the (when wessex ran it) normally half full 153.

[grahame]

Jim, I'm delighted at the 10 extra carriages on Cardiff - Portsmouth services, and as the proposal has been described to me the TranwWilts proposal for December doesn't even reduce that to 9.  But I can appreciate and understand the concern that the proposal is to rob Peter to pay Paul (or rather to rob Bristol to pay Swindon) - not the case, although there would be a (minimal) knock on effect on the Trowbridge - Bath section, as Trowbridge - Chippenham and Swindon traffic would no longer need to do the Bath dogleg.

Looking at the figures "half full" loadings were indeed correct if you take an average over the last several years of Wessex trains, and you take all services into account in working out the average (i.e. you include services worked by buses); I actually make the figure 48%.  If you look back to the earlier days of the Wessex trains service, the loadings were substantially lower.    Certainly a service that was a gentle backwater in 2002/3 have become vibrant by 2005/6.

The key question when you have double figure growth rates is not "how do we sustain that Status Quo?" - that's the mistake that was made in the new service specification which was based on a nought-point-something growth rate - but how can we provide a service which is fit for the needs of the future, and for that you'll need to look not only at where the service was in 2006, but also at how it was growing.

In order to do a sanity check on what I'm writing, I took the official figures I have been given for growth rates and loadings (and corrected for the ticketing distortion that Melksham throws up, and if the growth had continued on through 2007 and 2008 as it had been going up to December 2006, average occupancy this year of a 153 service would have reached 86%.  Of course, all curves peak and trough but other data that's been looked at has confirmed that there was / is many years growth  to come, given a level playing field that has been denied by the lack of trains to actually travel on.

Swlines - I'm right with you on "progressive". The County Council's conclusion for an appropriate service level is that it should be much higher than the current suggestion, which is based on a single  coach.  But that's not something that we've been pushiong for , "do or die".  The advantage of the current proposal is that it's much more modest, and that it appears that we're pushing on an open door.  Critically, I believe it will also tip the seesaw / balance and provide a service at a level high enough to be marketable and succeed which (say) just the provision of a train at 12:02 off Salisbury returning at 13:31 off Swindon would not.

I'm quite happy to go on looking at figures and options - I could write a lot fuller here as I have looked very carefully indeed at the situation - but I do feel that I could drown the thread if I say much more in this post.   With all figures, I have rounded in the direction of caution as I would not want to overpromote the case.