I think that we can point to some successes too , notably a significant raising of the profile of the Melksham / TransWilts issue , becoming a respected online presence (jointly with First Great Western Coffee Shop http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/) as a place for people to air their well - informed views , and also , through our campaigning , helping those on the ground to minimise the proposed service cuts to Dilton Marsh in December 2007.

I have posted a great deal elsewhere from specific talks - here are te issues that arose during the question and answer section

Audience Questions / Miscellaneous public Comments from the day

Asked about the removal of catering from trains and the closure of most travel entres, Gary Dangerfield said that Passenger Focus is disappointed at the loss of on train catering, and that the question had only just made him aware of the closure of travel centres so he would research that further.

A gentleman from the West Midlands commented that the West Midlands feel left out in the latest frachise award with regard to the new level of service and the quality of trains to be provided.

A speaker from Bedford commented on concerns on the line to Milton Keynes, where the trains are part of a fleet used primarily for Gospel Oak - Barking which is transferring to Transport for London. He was also very concerned at the loss of express services calling at Bedford in the peak hour under the new franchise that takes over Midland Main line, under which there will be more trains but fewer stopping at Bedford (gaps of up to 1 hour).  With both FCC and Stagecoach paying premiums to the government for their frachnishes that include Bedford, we stated that he felt they weren't getting value for money and should not be subsidising other operators such as "the franchise that includes Melksham". [[Correction of fact - the FGW franchise which includes the TransWilts service via Melksham is also a premium paying franchise.]]

A question was asked as to whether train company premiums should be fed back into the system via something like a "section 106 agreement" where the money is ploughed back into related community projects rather than going to the treasury. Gary Dangerfield commented that the money already goes to Network Rail who in practise charge far less for access than a true market rate - "The whole thing is not at all transparent".

The meeting was predominantly old men, and one speaker asked about the need to get young people involved in Rail User Groups and the like.  He extended that to comment that "It's hard to get young people out of their cars".

A question was asked as to whether we should have regional government / whether that would help provide for transport issues. I chose to answer that one, saying that I didn't feel that extra tiers would add even more to the confusion of who does what and the ability to pass the buck.  However, one of the big problems with a public transport network that links A to B where A and B are in different juristictions is the co-ordination across the boundary in terms of timing, objectives, finance and more and so a town-based authority does not work for interurban.  Having said that, which seems broadly to support the South West Regional Assembly, I commented that in our case the out-of-SWRA leg of the Swindon to Southampton service caused split responsibiity issues at a regional level.

National Rail Timetable - should it still be published?  View was "yes", news is that HMSO and Middleton Press may be close to agreement on a new national timetable, to be published in time to take over from the current one in December. Further discussions on the quality of individual line timetables and their availability at stations.  Were connections shown (yes/no), were trains run by other operators shown (yes/no).