I would like to pick up on this point if I may.

Here is an article on the planned Reading upgrade.
http://icberkshire.icnetwork.co.uk/chronicle/headlines/tm_objectid=17459294%26method=full%26siteid=50102%26headline=government--can-t-ignore--need-for-a-new-station-name_page.html

The upgrade is focused on providing more platforms at Reading station. As well as improving the performance of the existing services , this would also allow the projected 15 - 20 minute frequency service to the new Reading Green Park station (link below.) to operate.
http://icberkshire.icnetwork.co.uk/chronicle/headlines/tm_objectid=17339817%26method=full%26siteid=50102%26headline=trains-will-end-the-strain-on-roads-around-mad-stad-name_page.html

This presents a problem. Reading Green Park station will be situated on the Reading - Basingstoke line , which is part of the current main freight route from Southampton - West Midlands & beyond. Whatever your views on how freight and passenger trains can co-exist path - wise , I simply fail to see how a 15 minute frequency Reading - Green Park service , plus some other passenger trains that wont call at Green Park , could possibly share the Reading - Basingstoke line with an ever - increasing number of freight trains. Even Network Rail are on record as saying that they regard dealing with increased growth in freight from Southampton to the Midlands , the north of England and Scotland as "a challenge."

The route that Chris Grayling is referring to in the following article is from Southampton through to Basingstoke & Reading (link below.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/07/23/ccrail23.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2006/07/23/ixcity.html

Here is an interesting quote.

"He says he was recently asked about a £30m upgrade needed to the freight facilities available on the line from the port of Southampton. Freight operators have been told that no budget is available to make the improvements."

"It just seems crazy to me," Grayling says. "It is a very good example of why I'm so dissatisfied with what is happening at the moment. We are spending £5.5bn in the current financial year subsidising the railways; are we actually saying we cannot find £30m to invest in what is a strategically important project?"

This is further highlighted by Page 11 , Figure 11 of the link below (Network Rail Business Plan 2006.)
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/3111_Route%2013%20Great%20Western%20Main%20Line.pdf

Despite being a crucial section of a current key freight route , the Reading - Basingstoke line is only projected to achieve medium - level tonnage growth to 2015. This leads me to conclude that at least half of the large number of projected extra freight trains from Southampton are not going to be routed through there.

Another thing to note is that the Oxford - Worcester line is projected to achieve high - level tonnage growth to 2015. That astounds me. This line is partly single - track , W6 guage , and I dont remember hearing that a massive increase in the number of Oxford - Worcester - routed passenger train services was being planned. For example , Combe , Finstock and Ascott under-Wychwood stations each have less than 6 passengers per day according to official figures.

If you study the Network Rail projections , then it is relatively easy to predict the following future key freight routes :

Merehead & Whatley - London & the Olympics Construction Sites via Melksham.
Southampton - West Midlands , the North & Scotland via Melksham.
Avonmouth & Portbury (both near Severn Beach & the Bristol suburban network) - Didcot.
Oxford (Cowley) - Midlands , the North & beyond via Evesham.
Dagenham - Bridgend and Swansea.

It should also be noted that the Stroud Valley line (again partly single - track) is projected to achieve high - level tonnage growth to 2015 , thus opening up a route to the Midlands & the North for the extra freight trains that do end up being routed via Basingstoke - Reading.

Here is a quote from Page 8 of this section of the Network Rail Business Plan.

"Between Didcot and Oxford the mix of non stop
passenger and freight services with local services
calling at little used stations reduces the ability to
maximise capacity."

If half of the extra freight trains projected to run out of Southampton plus a significant number of stone trains from the Mendip Quarries were to be routed via Melksham , then the 30 trains per day in each direction Melksham line capacity projected by Graham (link below.) would be reached surprisingly quickly.
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/open.html

If , as some have suggested , capacity were not a problem , then there should also not be a problem with providing a 2-hourly Swindon - Westbury service that is guaranteed to make a profit in the second year of operation , and has , as its basis , a Swindon - Southampton service whose growth in recent years has been described as "impressive" even by people such as Andrew Griffiths of First. I see no sign , as yet , of either the DfT or First doing any such thing.

In reality , capacity across the entire rail network is pretty much Network Rail's top concern. This is backed up by the fact that they have conducted numerous capacity studies over recent years , at least one of which has featured the Swindon - Southampton service.

The Melksham line , as well as being important from a regional (quite possibly national) rail perspective , and absolutely vital from a local rail perspective , is also symptomatic of a wider (& indeed growing) feeling among those who specify passenger train services in that it , other such lines , and their services are considered a "problem" that needs to be "solved." You dont have to study the charts and projections contained within the Network Rail Business Plan to realise this , because it comes across in the tone of the text of virtually every section.

Here are some links for your interest :

2006.
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/3085.aspx
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=334.msg958#msg958
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_railways/documents/page/dft_railways_611064.pdf
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/south%20west%20main%20line/appendices/appendix%202.2.pdf

2004.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_about/documents/page/dft_about_031273.hcsp
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_about/documents/page/dft_about_031274.hcsp

1999.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_freight/documents/page/dft_freight_503891-07.hcsp

1963.
http://www.piccadillypilot.co.uk/beeching/report1/15%20Appendix%202.pdf
http://www.piccadillypilot.co.uk/beeching/report1/16%20Appendix%203.pdf
http://www.piccadillypilot.co.uk/beeching/report1/17%20Appendix%204.pdf

The 2004 links are from The Future Of Transport White Paper.

Personally , I prefer Graham's proposals.

Could I possibly ask your advice on a matter related to this Parliamentary Written Question?

Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell):To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, why his Department decided to pursue a timetable specification that does not accord with the findings of the Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study.

Id like to know what you think the implications of the findings of the specific sections of the Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study that relate to the Bradford - On - Avon & Melksham lines would be? I have my own view on this , of course , but I would appreciate your opinion.

Unfortunately , the Shadow Transport Secretary has yet to recieve a reply to his question , and the House Of Commons is now in recess.

I must admit that I do find the concept of having my research (which has been confirmed by very reliable industry - related sources , as well as equally reliable sources from within national & independent media circles plus others) challenged somewhat alien & rather taxing.