17:05 Westbury to Swindon service calling at Melksham 17:21 on 3/04/09

[whole diary]

[Sion Bretton]

I travelled on this service from Westbury, 5 people boarded the train all coming up on the Portsmouth/Bristol Parkway service arriving in Westbury 16:55.
They were going to Chippenham & Swindon. I got off at Melksham and one customer got on.
I think this shows people want ot travel on the direct service on the "Melksham Line" and not change at Bath Spa.
Yes it was 10 minutes late.

[grahame]

I travelled on this service from Westbury, 5 people boarded the train all coming up on the Portsmouth/Bristol Parkway service arriving in Westbury 16:55.
They were going to Chippenham & Swindon. I got off at Melksham and one customer got on.
I think this shows people want ot travel on the direct service on the "Melksham Line" and not change at Bath Spa.
Yes it was 10 minutes late.

I admit that when I first got involved with the TransWilts service, I questioned the logic of the services carrying on from Westbury to Salisbury and beyond - looking at a load of other options.   But the high proportion of passengers connection carrying on past Westbury to / from Salisbury and beyond in the days that it was a Swindon to Southampton service convinced me there was logic in this routing.  And Sion's observations today have confirmed that.

[smithy]

I travelled on this service from Westbury, 5 people boarded the train all coming up on the Portsmouth/Bristol Parkway service arriving in Westbury 16:55.
They were going to Chippenham & Swindon. I got off at Melksham and one customer got on.
I think this shows people want ot travel on the direct service on the "Melksham Line" and not change at Bath Spa.
Yes it was 10 minutes late.

but if you look at it from FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s point of view the numbers you observed do not justify a regular trans wilts service,maybe if it were a regular service numbers might pick up but i am led to believe the reason the service was withdrawn was because there was not sufficient demand for it.

[Phil]

i am led to believe the reason the service was withdrawn was because there was not sufficient demand for it.

Just out of interest, who led you to believe that?

You were poorly informed - as a supporter of an improved train service for Melksham I probably would say that; but genuinely, you were poorly informed, as passenger numbers were actually INCREASING when the service was slashed, therefore I'd be intrigued to know who or what organisation led you up that particular path.

[grahame]

i am led to believe the reason the service was withdrawn was because there was not sufficient demand for it.

Just out of interest, who led you to believe that?

The truth is that the weekday / daytime service was indeed withdrawn because it was considered that there was a lack of demand for it.  The Jacobs Consultants report in 2004 took figures from a couple of years prior to that, assumed a 0.8% compound growth rate and actual came down just in favour of retaining the daytime trains. However, the SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) decided to be more Draconian than even its Draconian consultants and took the trains out of the new franchise.

Then it turned out that the growth rate wasn't 0.8% - it was somewhere between 10% (if you take figures from Wiltshire Council) and 35% (if you take figures from the office of the rail regulator). The problem was componded by the new SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment) which allowed / allows the flexibility for the services that had been intended to be a commuter train into Swindon to be time such that it's not useful for that - it provides far too long a day there, and this is done (according to our FGW^▸ (First Great Western) contact at the time) so that FGW can save the cost of hiring a train and use the TransWilts set to provide the school service off the Golden Valley into Gloucester. 

That train that Sion was on today was the very first (of two) TransWilts services today (northbound only accoring to the SLC) and I agree that the passenger numbers don't justify a service.  Raise it to the levels that are proposed using a single train doing round trips Salisbury - Swindon betwene the current first and second train and you'll find that useage grows dramatically. We've done an awful ot of studying of this and there are lots of papers floating around - don't just ask me, ask the people who have done the work at the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), at FGW and at W(c)C.

What you still do see, though, from certain quarters is a defence of the status quo / more Draconian than Jacobs situation.    Here's a standard letter received within the last couple of weeks:

Dear Mr Xxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your e-mail of 15 March to the Minister for rail and to Peter West, Franchise Manager for First Great Western, seeking improvements to train services in North Wiltshire on the route via Melksham.  I have been asked to reply. 

The Department for Transport (DfT) specifies a Service Level Commitment (^SLC^) for a franchise, laying down among other things, a minimum number of trains on each route, along with early and late services, maximum possible intervals between trains, maximum journey times, and minimum calling patterns.  Provided that it meets the requirements of the SLC, the franchisee may vary train times and amend calling patterns.  It may also operate additional services, provided that the track capacity is available, and there is no adverse effect on other rail franchises^ subsidies or premiums.     

The services from Melksham are on average lightly used during most of the day and require significant subsidy.  In view of this, the government decided to let the Greater Western franchise on the basis of specifying two trains per day in each direction on this route, including on Saturday and Sunday. 

The current level of service over the route via Melksham is in line with the requirements of the First Great Western franchise agreement.  There have been discussions between Wiltshire County Council, the Department for Transport and First Great Western about whether there might be ways of increasing the current level of service on this route, but these have not identified funding solutions.   While the Department for Transport has not changed its earlier stance, outlined above, on additional services for the Melksham line, you may be interested to know that the Government has announced changes in its approach to rail services supported by local authorities.

Many local authorities have found it difficult to take forward improved services because of the potentially high running costs involved.  Under this new approach, after a successful trial period, local authorities, such as Wiltshire County Council, could ask the Department to consider supporting the services through a franchise agreement.  To benefit from the new arrangements, the new or enhanced service would have to have been run successfully for the first three years and shown good value for money.  I attach the Department^s press release which sets out the changes in more detail.         

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

I have resisted the temptation to go through this reply word by word, but it is out of date (using the present tense for services that were withdrawn three years ago, and appearing to condider only evidence from 2003 and prior), incorrect in that it misstates even the minimal number of services needed, and misses the whole point as it's not a train service improvement "in North Wiltshire" that we're seeking ....

Have you ever heard "Rubbish in, Rubbish out" quoted?  With such errors and selective use of data  at the start of the logic process, you can't really trust any conclusions that it comes to, I'm afraid.

[grahame]

Can I follow up with a positive for all?

I don't think any of the folks campaiging for a decent TransWilts service want one that carries five passengers per train.

When I first got involved in the campaign (in 2005) there were three round trips (i.e. 6 trains v the curent 2 in the SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment)) spread though the day and balanced workings on a Sunday, and loadings were around 35 - 40 per train.  It got significantly busier in 2006 ... and that is where we can pick up from.   Have a look at the A350.   Have a look at the RSS^▸ (Regional Spatial Strategy) with its 50% population growths!

[Btline]

Out of interest, is there any chance of anything getting better in December?

I assume they must be working on the timetable at the moment. I hope they can free up a 153 in time...

[grahame]

Out of interest, is there any chance of anything getting better in December?

I assume they must be working on the timetable at the moment. I hope they can free up a 153 in time...

Yes, there is a chance.

I usually post long answers and I'm sitting here and wondering what more I should say ...

I have a huge respect for almost all people behind the scenes at all the organisations that have to come together to make this work; they're professional in the true sense of the word.  However, the systems of business, government and administration don't make it easy, and views and principled decisions taken which are sometimes quite unrelated to the particular case in point can put stumbling blocks in the way.   At school - I learned about venn diagrams and basically we're looking to move certain sets just a tine bit, and in a direction that they're happy to go (pushing on open doors) so that we end up with an intersection - common ground.



So much of it comes down to this 'open doors' business. At times it's tricky to know which doors can genuinley be opened or are open, and/or whether some of the doors look as if they can be opened but in reallity have been superglued closed, and some lead to blind alleys or long walks in the garden while time passes and real decisions are made in the house; have a look at some of the  things mentioned here to see why we press forward, but look carefully at every step.

Two important things to add

1. This thread has gone off from where it was orginally because of a post from Smithy who may wonder if he has brought a load of **** down.  Quite the reverse - I am very happy indeed to be given opportunities to discuss, to fill in ... and to point out why all may not be as it seems even in letters being sent out to people who write to the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) at the moment

2. Pledge signups count. In amongst all the "don't know"s with the various doors, I can be pretty certain that they are oiling a few hinges so I want to say THANK YOU to everyone who has signed.  And for those readers who have not yet looked, please do (at http://www.transwilts.org.uk/pledge.html) and add your name if you agree.

[smithy]

i am led to believe the reason the service was withdrawn was because there was not sufficient demand for it.

Just out of interest, who led you to believe that?

You were poorly informed - as a supporter of an improved train service for Melksham I probably would say that; but genuinely, you were poorly informed, as passenger numbers were actually INCREASING when the service was slashed, therefore I'd be intrigued to know who or what organisation led you up that particular path.

i personally have never used the trans wilts line but staff at westbury said the reason it was withdrawn was because there was not enough people using the service to justify paying crew,track access and allocating a train to the line.if i remember correctly it used to work to southampton and majority of passengers travelled from stations between westbury and southampton.
i am not saying it wasorrect to withdraw the service all i am saying is look at it from FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s point of view there main concern is revenue so to keep a service it has to be financially viable.