« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 »
June 28, 2006
Letter from Derek Twigg
Department for Transport, 20th June 2006
to Michael Ancram QC, MP
Dear Michael,
Thank you for your letter of 30th May, enclosing correspondence from your constituent Mr Graham Ellis of Well House Consultants, 404 The Spa, Melksham, about the Swindon to Southampton train service.
We did look very carefully at this when we were drawing up the specification for new Greater Western franchise. Mr Ellis reports that trains on the route regularly carry thirty or forty passengers. The findings from our research were that, although the morning peak train to Swindon and the evening return sometimes achieved those sorts of numbers, average loadings were appreciably lower. The highest numbers tend to be found between Chippenham and Swindon in the eastbound direction and, in the mornings, between Trowbridge and Westbury westbound. Alternative services are available on both these sections of route.
Mr Ellis also asks about the timings of the remaining services. I was sorry to hear that the retimed services will be less convenient to him. I hope, though, he will understand that it is not always possible to satisfy all passengers with the train services they would like.
First Great Western have agreed to run the Westbury to Southampton "shuttle" service until December 2007. Mr Ellis suggests that this might be extended to Swindon. He acknowledges that this might need extra rolling stock, however, it is a cost that we could not reasonably justify.
Derek Twigg
=======================================================
I'm going to comment, and add in some pictures as I do. All these pictures were taken of services which are NOT the commuter train - i.e. of trains that are said to be too little used to justify retention.
I has seen the statistics quoted by the Department for Transport at the time of the original franchise specification, and noted they were taken over a relatively short period (8 days) which he suspects might have included the Easter weekend. As someone with a University Degree which included a major statistics element, I can assure the minister that a sample of this size is insufficient to be statistically significant - he would need the statistics from around 15 to 20 days, chosen at random throughout the year, to be able to read anything into the figuures that could relate to overall usage on a service which may well have a seasonal element.
Fortunatley, other statistics are available. First Great Western quoted a figure of 109,000 journeys for the year up to the franchise specification, and at 64 trains per week, that's an average of 32 passengers per train - very much in line with my observations to Mr Ancram, and (if gathered correctly), statistically significant.
That's not the full story. The line has suffered from numerous cancellations and a great deal of replacement of trains by buses in recent years, so the number of trains that actually carried the 109,000 passengers is somewhat lower that the number I've used ... pushing the average up to perhaps 35.
Me thinks the Minister is trying to blind us with figures!
It appears that Mr Twigg thinks that my quest for retiming the trains is a personal one, telling me I can't have what I want like some spoilt child. In practise, you would be hard pressed to find many of the current users of the trains who welcome the new timings/service. I'm not saying "none", but I know that it would be just a couple of percent.
I have learnt in the past year ... I have learnt that a station that LOOKS quiet can be busy. That train pulling out has 30 people on board. And the 10 who got off just 60 seconds ago have disappeared like water running through a grate towards their homes and work.
Posted by gje at 06:38 PM | Comments (0)
June 27, 2006
Selling off any possibility of improvement
I understand the the British Railways Residual Board, which owns some land at Melksham station, is selling some of it off .... INCLUDING the section that's earmaked in the local transport development plan to provide a link from the new "Spencer's Gate" development to the station. This is the same section of land that would be needed to provide access to a new station site behind MacDonald's .. a further aspiration of the local transport plan.
Passenger ticket sales to and from Melksham has shown a staggering growth in the past five years, and the network rail plans schedule the line for strong growth in the next ten years. I've spoken with many people who are NOT currently users of Melksham station in the past 12 months, but would be willing to use it if the service was improved. Chief amongst the reasons cited for their lack of use are:
a) Infrequent / irregular / unreliable service.
b) The poor loaction of the station at the back of an industial estate, with no possibility of the bus being routed past as it's at the end of a cul de sac.
I think that passenger growth will NOT continue to grow strongly if 60% of the trains are cut, as shown in the provisional timetables published by the operator, and if the station location and access improvements are not carried through in due course.
Posted by gje at 07:34 PM | Comments (0)
June 25, 2006
Internet connection issues
Just a brief update ... I've been unable to reach the site for a few days due to internet routing problems - won't get too technical (that's my day job!), but I'm back briefly now and will be around better during the coming week.
I do note that First are talking of adding extra coaches to the sleeper because all the publicity has lead to a surge in business. Tell 'em that publicity would / will do wonders for Melksham too ... already a success story except it's scheduled to be overpruned and I fear that, like a tree with all young shoot cut off , might die completely.
Posted by gje at 03:53 PM | Comments (0)
June 16, 2006
How to catch the 18:48 from Chippenham - the DfT suggests
According to the Transport Direct Web site, I need to catch the 17:34 bus from the centre of Melksham to connect into the 18:48 train from Chippenham ... at the start of an evening journey I'm planning to Liverpool.
Transport Direct is an "official" site, sponsored by the Department for Transport, the Welsh Assembly, and a few others.
Here's their suggestion for how I get from Melksham onto a train at Chippenham, 7 miles away (and there IS a direct Melksham to Chippenham train .... at least at present ... that takes 10 minutes)
1. The routing is daft ... it takes you on the 17:34 bus for about a mile out of the town, then has you walk back in to a stop a few yards from where you started to catch a bus at 18:04 ...
2. I'm very concerned to see the official site refer to the 18:04 bus as a Rail Replacement. Th e transport minister denies that buses are replacing trains, and yet here's this on a site he sponsors
3. The walk from Bath Road to the station in Chippenham is regrettable, poorly signposted and impractical for anyone who's a bit unhealthy or with heavy luggage - dodging High Street traffic, then a stiff hill climb.
I visited the commercial Xephos web site to which I have a 2 pounds a month subscription, and they suggested that I catch the 18:02 bus at Melksham and change at Bath - a much more sensible answer in my view, with a single bus ride and a "same interchange" connection in Bath to the same onward train.
Posted by gje at 08:37 AM | Comments (0)
June 15, 2006
Political pressure - press release
[[To Wiltshire Times - for publication]]
There's still a chance to save the Swindon to Southampton train service!
I've just been told that Shadow Transport spokesman Chris Grayling, and local MP Michael Ancram will be visiting MELKSHAM STATION on 7th July as the culmination of a last minute campaign to save the Swindon - Chippenham - Melksham - Trowbridge - Westbury - Salisbury - Southampton train service.
Ticket sales at Melksham rose from 3,000 per annum five years ago to 27,000 the year before last, before falling back slightly last year - a year when the service was shut down completley on most weekends due to engineering works, and in which the service was fearsomely unreliable. Annual passenger journeys on the line to and through Melksham are now around 110,000. The alternative A350 road is notoriously overcrowded, with bottlenecks at Westbury, Beanacre and around Chippenham.
In spite of the rapid growth, all existing services were slated for withdrawal from December 2006, to be replaced by just a return trip from Swindon to Westbury at 06:20 in the morning, and another return trip at 18:12 in the evening. Service calling at Melksham between 07:30 and 18:30 (currently six trains) are slashed to no trains at all.
Earlier this week, it was announced that the Department for Transport has found funding and an extra train to provide a local service from Newton Abbott to Plymouth, serving Totnes and Ivybridge. This service was under similar threat to the 'TransWilts'. Andrew Griffiths, the regional manager for First Great Western who now operate the service, writes:
"Somehow thought this news would be of interest to you. It only goes to show that concerted lobbying can have results.
As to why funding has been found for Ivybridge and not Melksham you will need to ask DfT... No doubt your MP and the media might be interested too. The comparison in footfall for the year 2005/06 shows 48,423 for Ivybridge and 24,417 for Melksham; I will leave you to work out the number of people boarding/alighting per service call but on that measure I guess it shows a greater rate of use for Melksham."
* Visit our web site at http://www.savethetrain.org.uk for an update
* PLEASE lobby your MP, the Department for Transport and Ministers - there's a link on the web site that will be updated this weekend.
* Put the 7th July date in your diary, come along to the station and show your support for the service and your appreciation of the work that Michael and Chris are dooing to help raise the profile of our case.
"Save the Train" is a web site operated by local man Graham Ellis. Graham runs training courses in Melksham, and around 40% of his customers arrive and depart on the trains that are under threat. From trains that were, frankly, very quiet five years ago Graham has watched the service grow so to the extent that there are now between 40 and 50 people on each single coach train, and he's delighted to report that at times he's had to stand ... even at the weekends.
[[Please feel free to email or call for further information and to publish my name and contact details]]
Posted by gje at 08:34 AM | Comments (0)
June 12, 2006
... is part of a planned war
[Read this after the slightly earlier post "Our Battle", which talks of the specifics of the Southampton to Swindon / TransWilts / via Melksham services - link to earlier article]
Under the Greater Western Franchise, services are slashed ...
* Swindon to Westbury
* Trains stopping at Ivybridge
* Tamar Valley (Plymouth to Gunnislake)
* Liskeard to Looe
* Par to Newquay
* The Salisbury to Southampton local service only has a 1 year repreive
* The train service from Bristol to Severn Beach remains off peak only
In each case, one of the reasons outlined in my previous article for the "powers that be" to want to withdraw the service completely could be made. So I'm predicting a glooms future for these lines - I expect in 2 years time to see Ivybridge passengers for Plymouth taking the bus, and cars running over the viaduct at Bere Ferrers rather than trains. Express trains will fly past the site of Dean and Dunbridge stations, and extra freight will trundle through between. Severn Beach will be served by a bus running where the railway line used to be, and if you go down to the old site of Melksham station you'll find the railway land sold off for housing, and you'll hear the new residents in "Spencer's Gate", being built as I write, complaining about the all night noise of First's freight trains.
Will this happen elsewhere in the country too? I'm no expert, but I've just been looking through the new proposals for the East and West Midlands franchises, and the corresponding freight proposals, and the following services cause me concern:
* Watford to St. Albans
* Bletchley to Bedford
* Coventry to Nuneaton
* Walsall to Wolverhampton
* Stourbridge junction to Stourbridge town
* Birmingham to Stafford via Rugeley
* Stafford to Stoke on Trent local trains (already "temporary" buses to 2009)
* Crewe to Derby
* Nottingham to Skegness
* Nottingham to Mansfield
* Lincoln to Cleethorpes
* Derby to Matlock
* Doncaster to Peterborough via Lincoln
* Leicester to Loughborough local trains
* Cleethorpes / Grimsby to Barton on Humber
* Gainsborough to Grimsby
I have steered away from direct comparisons that say "our service is better used than theirs" in the past - I do not want to point fingers and I don not know of local issues. I suspect that some of these services mentioned will be lost because paths are needed for proposed freight services, others will be lost because a monopoly public transport operator wishes that to be, and that perhaps some will be saved because they're serving marginal constituencies.
East Midlands link
West Midlands link
Rail freight link - GB Rail
Government Rail Freight link
Freight on Rail
Posted by gje at 05:29 AM | Comments (0)
Our battle ....
[This is the first of a pair of articles and looks at the Swindon - Melksham - Salisbury - Southampton service. A second article (link) goes on to have a look at implications beyond just "Melksham" and concludes that we're just an early battle in a gathering storm]
When I set up the "Save the Train" website about a year ago, it was in response to a threat under the new Great Western Franchise to withdraw all Swindon to Southampton trains. The threat seemed quite astounding - to cut out a service between two major centres, based on one line slipped into a middle page of a consultation request that ran to nearly 100 pages.
Our company, based here at Melksham in Wiltshire (which is served ONLY be the train under threat) has many customers who use the train - but perhaps our customers are a dying breed of railway users? That turns out, emphaticallly, to NOT be the case. Traffic on the line has risen at a compound rate of 35% per annum for the last five years. In other words, ticket sales have risen from 3,000 to 27,000 per year at Melksham, and the First group (who won the franchise) have told me that there are 109,000 passengers per annum using the train on the section through Melksham.
Melksham, Chippenham, Trowbridge, Westbury, Warminster, Dilton Marsh are all growing dramatically, and no-one has doubted that traffic would continue to grow if the service was retained, nor that it would increase dramatically if it became a regular service every 2 hours - such a service being providable by a single 153 class (single coach) train. Speak to the First managers and they tell me that there's "nothing wrong" with the financial case that I make - that a service of 8 trains a day would indeed be a better economic proposition that the skeleton/remenant service of two trains a day that's proposed in the very early morning (06:20 our of Swindon) and early evening (18:12 out of Swindon).
So why - in spite of vigorous campaigning - are we hitting a brick wall?
Perhaps the reduction of the service to an inappropriate level is just one step that's planned. Perhaps there's a plan somewhere to render the service un-viable before it grows too much, so that it can then be withdrawn when the new service manifestly fails? Perhaps you think I'm being too melodramatic?
Alas, this "background plan" is the one that makes the most sense to explain what's being going on. In the short term, screwing up what service are left is a nonsense. In the long term, with a wish to kill the line, it makes perfect sense.
This hasn't happened just on the Swindon to Southampton service. You'll find that other lines / issues have received similar rough justice. And that there are great inconsistencies in information provided too. I've been told that it costs somewhere from 150,000 to 650,000 pounds to hire a train for a year. I've been told that buses to replace trains are NOT under consideration, but that a bus service to take the place of the removed trains IS (or has been) under consideration.
I don't, in truth, know exactly why there's such a brick wall. Does the Transport Minister's ex live in Melksham and it's a personal feud? Are they looking for some line to make an example of, prefereably where there's no chance of them loosing any seats at the next election? I'm much more inclined to look at the freight possibilities of the line - single track - and the talk of major freight depots at Westbury and perhaps elsewhere in the A350 / A36 corridor. All the major policical parties seem keen on appearing green and supporting schemes such as this one to get freight off the roads. But none seems to be considering the effect on / displacement of existing services on the same railway tracks. The line through Melksham is slated for major growth, and that ain't going to be through a packed passenger train before dawn, is it??
New laws / guidance for railway line / passenger service closure are being proposed at the moment. It will no longer be the minister's decision, but a purely financial one, and it will look at issues such as how much money would be made selling railway land, and how much extra tax would be taken from motorists forced into their cars. There's not a hardship / convenience case, though - in other words, the fact that a 25 minute journey on a train is turned into over an hour by bus, with a change, with issues for those with special needs and people with luggage ... that's NOT taken into account. Oh - and there's a variety of interested parties who can challenge the viability of a line to start the process rolling.
I don't think the new law is being passed as an academic exercise - what would be the point? I think it's being passed to make it easier to close lines that are wanted for freight traffic, withdraw services from smaller stations on busy lines or that run into busy junctions, and replace services that aren't easily paralleled by roads by giving aside vital railway land to the railway lobby.
I'm going to conclude this first part of this article by widening the scope of what I'm saying ... by telling you that it's not JUST Swindon - Melksham - Southampton that's under threat.
[This is the first of a pair of articles and looks at the Swindon - Melksham - Salisbury - Southampton service. A second article (link) goes on to have a look at implications beyond just "Melksham" and concludes that we're just an early battle in a gathering storm]
Posted by gje at 05:28 AM | Comments (0)
June 09, 2006
Lies, damned lies and statistics
Re-visiting a quote from nearly a year ago ... at a time I knew no better than to accept the figures issued by the now-defunct SRA
"Swindon-Southampton service discontinued (apart from 1 service in each peak the services were, on average, less than 25% loaded i.e. less than 20 people on each train). The peak services between Westbury and Swindon (calling at Trowbridge, Melksham and Chippenham) will remain."
The quotation and figures, I have come to understand, is based on the number of tickets sold divided by the number of trains shown in the timetable ...
November 2004 ... no trains apart from the 05:50 to Swindon ran for two weeks. No warning was given of this closure, which was because main line trains were being diverted along the single track and required all the capacity.
Since last Autumn, a full weekend service has only been run on a handful of weekends. For many weekends, there have been no trains at all and on others Sunday trains have been suspended, or other cancellation patterns have applied. I would estimate that only between 25% and 35% of weekend trains have run.
Concerned at a fearsome reputation for unreliability, I have been monitoring weekday trains via the web since January, and there are weeks where up to 20% of trains have been cancelled, with the figure rising to 25% of the "key" commuter trains being cancelled. Many services which I regard as being cancelled do NOT show in any official statics as such, since they are only withdrawn over a part of their route ... they do reach their terminus of Southampton ... it's just that they didn't serve Melksham
This August, the line from Swindon to Chippenham is going to be closed for 9 days, including over the Bank Holiday. I made several journeys over the Bank holiday weekend last year, and the train was very busy indeed. Note that although the sections that's closed is just one extreme end of the line (between the last two stations), it's to be cut back and services withdrawn for the period between the last 5 stations one of which (Melksham again) has no other train services at all.
Overall? I would estimate that of 64 services scheduled each week in the published timetable, an average or around 40 to 45 run - that depends on the period you take to look at. August 2 years ago, perhaps 25% ran. And THAT is a part of the period that's been used in so many statistics I've had quoted at me.
Bryan Drysdale, who committed suicide by stopping his car on the level crossing near Reading, caused 6 more deaths on the train he derailed. He has also provided the ammunition which certain parties are using to "rubbish" our train service.
* Traffic figure, I understand, do NOT include people travelling on rover tickets, children under 3 who travel for free, people who use the train but manage to get away without paying a fare, travellers who use the train for journeys where the "normal" route is not via Melksham, but who legitimately use the route because the timing is convenient for them ....
* ANY line has its quieter and busier services. Not withstanding all my comments above, I note that the statisticians have carefully chosen to slice the service up to skew the apparently poor figures they're highlighting.
Figures quoted to me by Andrew Griffiths of First. 109,000 passenger used the line in the year that's being used for all the various statistics. At 64 trains per week, 52 weeks per year, that's an average of 32 passengers per train. At 45 trains per week actually running, that's 46 passengers per train ... to which you must add rover tickets, Brit Rail pass holders, Inter-Rail ticket holders, toddlers ....
Quote from Greentourism.org.uk:
... many overseas visitors, especially visitors from Germany and the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Japan, and North America and Australia ....... do not wish to hire a car (and indeed who may be nervous of driving along what for them is the “wrong” side of the road). Many will have either a Brit Rail pass or an Inter-Rail ticket, committing them to extensive use of the rail network.
Posted by gje at 05:11 AM | Comments (0)
June 01, 2006
Put yourself in their shoes
It's good to be back in England .... even though already frustrated by the "hourly" bus from Heathrow to Chippenham, except that there isn't a service at 08:00 - the very time when interconinental travellers are getting back into the country. And already amused by all the signs at terminal 4 advertising the great non-stop Heathrow express to London' Paddington ... except it also stops on the way at Heathrow Central. Back to the land of doubletalk.
I've been keeping somewhat quiet on one or two developments that were going on around the time I left the country - in the three weeks that's just about concluded now there was one "last" chance to get in some political clout, and indeed I and others were writing to ... all the familiar names.
I was very heartened to see some, somewhat belated in my view, signs of interest from our MP, who you may recall spoke along with all the others on the threatened northern section of Swindon - Southampton at Westminster about a month ago. Plans were afoot for him and the shadow transport secretary to visit Melksham; it was after a similar such visit to Dean / Dunbridge that the southern section was reprieved. Alas, all I have is "holding" emails and I'm fearful that any visit will be too late; I WAS going to write "too little, too late" but, no, I think a visit of this type before the timetables were quite as cast as they propbaly are now might well have been the impetus.
It's very easy to believe "consiparcy theory", but I have no smoking gun I can point you to. The line from Westbury to Chippenham and Swindon is scheduled on various plans for significant growth, and it's shown as a major freight artery. Me thinks that the growth can ONLY come from freight if there's no passenger trains at all from dawn to dusk. And me wonders ... perhaps there's a plan.
Putting myself in other's shoes ....
Let me put myself in the shoes of a passenger train, bus, and freight train operator. A company that's there for its shareholders. If I can run my freight on the rail and make a profit, and offload my train passengers onto a bus, isn't that far more profitable and far less of an organisational job? If I can persuade my potential rail passengers to drive to a nearby railhead and pay just as much as their train fare would be on the "local" train to park there, isn't that more profit? And I still get those passengers into my expresses - more seats filled with little operational extra cost. And the big joke is that the local county council subsidises my bus operation, and that the express rail fares I charge are 3 times the rate per mile I'm capped to on the local service.
Does that sound like an implausible scenario? Let's apply some specifics:
Let me put myself in the shoes of The First group. A company that's there for its shareholders. If I can run my freight on the rail and make a profit, and offload my Westbury - Melksham - Swindon passengers onto the 234 bus, isn't that far more profitable and far less of an organisational job? If I can persuade my potential rail passengers to drive to a Chippenham and pay just as much as their train fare would be on the "local" train to park there, isn't that more profit? And I still get those passengers into my expresses - more seats filled with little operational extra cost. And the big joke is that the Wiltshire County Council subsidises my bus operation, and that the express rail fares I charge are 50p per mile per mile compare to the 16p per mile I'm capped to on the local service.
Let's put myself in the shoes of an elected represnentative. I cover a wide area, and it's NOT a "marginal" - mostly people who are very much of my political view. But there's one small town at the end of my area where my support is, to say the least, patchy. It was added to my consituency at a previous boundary review and really doesn't fit, and at the last election when I visited, I was photographed with my car parked in a disabled bay there. Thank goodness, before the next election that town will go to another constituency again. This town's train service is poor, but its use has grown significantly over the past five years. But it and some other services in my constituency are under threat. I think my best tactic is to deal with the services that will remain in my constituancy first and not let the waters get muddied by my unwanted appendage, but then when my core area is fixed I can give lip service to the other place - damage limitation, and I can plead that it's really not an easy battle, so don't expect too much.
Does that sound like an implausible scenario? Let's apply some specifics:
Let's put myself in the shoes of Michael Ancram. I cover a wide area, and it's NOT a "marginal" - mostly people who are very much Conservatives. But the town of Melksham at the end of my area where my support is, to say the least, patchy. It was added to my consituency at a previous boundary review and really doesn't fit, and at the last election when I visited, I was photographed with my car parked in a disabled bay there. Thank goodness, before the next election Melksham will go to another constituency again. This town's train service is poor, but its use has grown Eight fold over the past five years. But it and also the service to Bedwyn in my constituency are under threat. I think my best tactic is to deal with the Bedwyn that will remain in my constituancy first and not let the waters get muddied by my Melksham, but then when my core area is fixed I can talk in a debate, email that I plan to visit - damage limitation, and I can send emails that that it's really not an easy battle, so don't expect too much.
Let's put myself in the shoes of a central government minister. Although I'm a minister, I'm also an elected representative for my own area, and I'll want to make sure that my own area and those of other members of my party are looked after when I'm making regional decisions. Other areas of the country which routinely elect MPs for other parties can be shortchanged, as there's no point in even trying to buy their votes. But we are taxing them to pay for the rest of us. "Best look after your own", eh?
Does that sound like an implausible scenario? Let's apply some specifics:
Let's put myself in the shoes of Derek Twigg / Douglas Alexander. Although I'm a minister, I'm also an elected representative for Widnes / Paisley, and I'll want to make sure that my own area and those of other members of my party are looked after when I'm making regional decisions
Please, I'm NOT saying that these are the exact thoughts / reasons / actions of First, Michael Ancram, Derek Twigg, and Douglas Alexander. But the pieces do seem to fit remarkably well, don't they?
Posted by gje at 07:53 PM | Comments (0)