E-mail from FGW regarding the TransWilts

[whole diary]

[Lee]

My view :

tramway posted a link to the Wiltshire County Council local transport plan objectives, and interestingly, it lists as one of its specific geographic economic priorities....

Strategic rail routes and station provision, as well as rail routes to Swindon

I personally believe that Graham has always made a strong and believeable strategic & economic case for a proper TransWilts rail service. Some might call that propaganda, but putting such a case is an integral part of what a campaign does.

On a related note, we do listen to people if they have concerns about "over-exposure" of the TransWilts issue, and the decision to feature different campaigns as part of the banner is partly a result of such feedback. The TransWilts issue does, however, deserve to be raised on the Coffee Shop forum as a legitimate FGW^▸ (First Great Western)-related matter for fair and balanced debate, and indeed we are currently having such a debate in this topic 

Getting back to the matter at hand, the problem as I see it is that, as a result of the December 2006 slashing of the service, it will (as Graz points out) take some time for passenger levels & confidence to return. As a result, the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) arent interested in funding a proper service, FGW (partly as a result of how the current system encourages short-term thinking) wont take the risk, and Wiltshire County Council's view appears to be that its nothing to do with them.

This is very great shame all round, given my genuine belief in the enormous future potential the route has.

[swlines]

My thoughts are that someone should, perhaps, look into applying to the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) for an open access application.

[grahame]

It is indeed very disappointing news, though not unexpected.  If you think you have a 50% chance of success (and I felt it was up to that at one point) it also means you have a 50% chance of not being successful, and where there's a system, a geography, and key player(s) who's heart(s) really isn't/aren't into it, you have a problem.

[John R]

My thoughts are that someone should, perhaps, look into applying to the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) for an open access application.

Would such a service pick up enough of the London - Bristol revenue by virtue of the Chippenham to Swindon leg to make it viable to an Open Access Operator. Presumably it would also cream off a lot of the revenue of those buying tickets from Melksham to Bristol but actually starting elsewhere?

[Graz]

My thoughts are that someone should, perhaps, look into applying to the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) for an open access application.

Would such a service pick up enough of the London - Bristol revenue by virtue of the Chippenham to Swindon leg to make it viable to an Open Access Operator. Presumably it would also cream off a lot of the revenue of those buying tickets from Melksham to Bristol but actually starting elsewhere?

I was thinking this earlier, the same can be said for journeys to and from stations potentially covered by, but not actually on the line, e.g. Southampton to Stroud to give an example. It makes it trickier in this case that the Transwilts has so many connection possibilities! Also, if an Open Access Operator were to operate presumably this would just mean Westbury to Swindon rather than Salisbury to Swindon, which in my view would remove key benefits the services from Salisbury would bring (Though I of course would still much welcome a fairly frequent Westbury-Swindon service than the current situation)

[devon_metro]

No Open Access TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) would operate such an unprofitable route. The fact that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and Wiltshire County Council fail to fund the trans wilts spells it out quite clearly to me...

[swlines]

No Open Access TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) would operate such an unprofitable route. The fact that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and Wiltshire County Council fail to fund the trans wilts spells it out quite clearly to me...

Grand Central.

[John R]

No Open Access TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) would operate such an unprofitable route. The fact that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and Wiltshire County Council fail to fund the trans wilts spells it out quite clearly to me...

But if FGW runs it they don't get any ORCATs benefit. An OA operator may find that it is profitable by virtue of the revenue it would take from FGW. Though they wouldn't mention that in any submission of course!

[grahame]

Some clarifications

a) The pictures used are a mixture - showing trains such as the servive that used to arrive in Swindon at around 17:30, the one that used to leave there at 17:45, the 09:12 arrival at Melksham, Bank Holiday trains, the 05:45 from Westbury, and also some of the Saturday on which the Santa traip ran and some current pictures.  Naturally, they show the Santa trip as the busiest, and the current pictures with no trains due as the quietest.

b) I can't recall that there has been a serious call that a service must be 158 based; where a current service is provided (at all!) it is in marginal time, which means that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) don't actually want the train for use anywhere else at that time of day. Any train at appropriate times would be great!

c) The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) does as part of the franchise finance the TransWilts and their specification was intended to provide a decently timed peak commuter service into Swindon and back, and an extra train which (presumably) was supposed to be of some use to passengers wishing to travel.  They have been "taken to the cleaners" on this as they have ended up financing a service that First are running at a poor time for commuters, and another round trip which is at First's conveneince and not at the time that it would be best run.    Wiltshire County Council have not been looking at the case on merit, but on principle that they do not fund trains; it's not the case for the line that they're judging it on and were the line in almost any other county, the story would be a different one.

d) ORCAT works both ways.   It is in FGW's interest to run extra trains on lines that it shares elsewhere in the franchise area to get a greater share of the revenue for that line that passenger numbers strictly justifies.   I can find you at least one example where a unit makes a significant income because of ORCATs that's far in excess of the real number of passengers carried, and where it doubles up someone else's service.

You cannot base judgements for the future of the service on current ridership; to do so plays right into the hands of the worst of the Beeching time, where servicves were intentionally run at unusable times to engineer evidence to show they were not required.