Hi, Tom, and welcome.

Every line / service tends to have local interests and its own story - it'll be quite a task correlating some of the issues - however, there are underlying trends across the individual franchises, and across the country.   Speaking for myself ...

"Where do you see it going?".   

In our franchise area, priority is placed on long distance operations. Our Train Operating Company is the one that used to run just the expresses, and it swallowed up the regional services in the latest re-franchise.  Commercially, this priority is not a big surprise; long distance services (fares at 50p per mile, trains running at 125 m.p.h.) take money at a pound a minute per seat, whereas regional services (say 60 m.p.h. and that's generous with stops!) at fares of 20p per mile only generate 1/5 of the income per seat per mile. Then note that you're looking at 2 coach trains on the "regionals" and 8 coach trains on the "intercity" and you're looking at an income-per-train differential ratio of 20:1.  "Only 4% of our income comes from local services" said one of the managers.

The current franchise specification reduced, as much as the authors dared, the level of service to be provided to a bare minimum. And the winning bidder went along with this minimum, bidding as high a payback as possible which in effect is a tax on passengers, and drains their operating budget of the ability to provide anything over and above the spec, which made some pessimistic forecasts for the future such as 0.8% growth based on 2002/3 figures (since proven wrong - figures between 8% and 35% occurred). "Who's to blame?" then?  I don't know - it could be the writer of the specification that's proven to be flawed, or it could be the operating company that went knowingly along with that flawed specification and allowed themselves to get into a corner where all they can provide is a service that's so overcrowded at times that it's loosing customers, and so sparse at other times that it looses more customers. CRAZY when we have overcrowded roads and railway tracks which, for the most part, could support more and longer trains.

Some Councils - Bristol, and Cornwall for example - HAVE stepped into the gap and are taking some financial interest - "buying back" services.  Others, such as Wiltshire, plead lack of funds (or rather choose to put their transport funds elsewhere such as into buses and road projects).  So you're seeing some distortions occurring where lines such as Avonmouth / Severn Beach, and Falmouth have the huge improvements which I believe are correct, and the line that links the five largest population centres in Wiltshire had all through trains withdrawn last december, leaving one town of 24000 with no trains at all between 07:17 and 19:08.

Further cuts come this December in Wiltshire. The service level from Westbury to Salisbury has been somewhat above the service level specification this year due to a last-minute add on for the year.  When that goes, Dilton Marsh looses most of its service and it WOULD go below specification ... except that (as I understand it) a couple of Bristol to Westbury trains will be extended to Warminster to ensure that the specification is met. "Where there's a train that has a layover in Westbury" was what my contact said, so I expect that the extra trains will be timed to meet the specification at the operator's convenience rather than when the customers want them.  I hope to be proven wrong.

That's some background. "Where does it go?".  Towards an improved regional service in areas which are economically needy and have special status, or where politics dictate that a good train service should be used to defend votes.  And to a whittling away of everything except intercity services in other areas, year by year.

"What needs to be done?"

Ironically, very little!  Reduce the 1.1 billion that First is paying to the government as a rail traveller's tax over 10 years to 1.0 billion, and you could provide a regular service every 2 hours from Swindon to Salisbury and extend the service from Bristol that currently terminates at Westbury to Salisbury on the other alternate hour.  You could also strengthen the 2 coach trains that run from Cardiff to Portmouth back to 3 coaches.  With a few trimmings, that sorts out Wiltshire and for that money you have resources to do 'the same' right across the franchise area.  Small schemes with big paybacks.

Adjustments of the SYSTEM would help too.  I really would prefer a 2-hourly service that may be 10 or 15 minutes late to no service at all during the day - the current situation at Melksham.  BUT a service that often runs late brings penalties down on the operator, so the "run nothing" is attractive for him. The line we're on joins main lines at each end, and connections onward are quite frequent, so how about an excpetion to the system where no penalty is imposed for a train up to 15 minutes late?

There's so much more a community approach could do.  It's ironic again to look at how the overcrowding on the Bristol commuter services, and the virtual withdrawl of the whole service via Melksham, has galvanised the travellers into a comradary which is great while travelling, but never the less has a negative / complaining face to the operator and government.  In other words, it's the community OBJECTING.   Look how much could be done if the community could turn arouns and work FOR the best interests of everyone

I expect I should stop what's turning into a long article, or I'll overpower the thread ;-) .. please feel free to look around this forum and http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop too and you'll find a number of my personal stories that will answer the other points and give you some personal stories.