I'm going to describe this as "self analysis" since as I feel I've been very much on side in doing my bit to help put the case for the TransWilts service.   So, naturally, I believe that our campaign is right in its objectives. I won't repeat the reasons as they've been oft written in other threads.

What could have been done better?   We could have started earlier (but we didn't even realise there was a threat as it was hidden), and we could have pushed more of our information to the people who matter earlier on (there are some honourable exceptions such as you yourself, Lee, who have pushed over and above the call of duty). 

Much of the problem (IMHO) is that the teams at the Department for Transport and at First had no personal involvement in / no great knowledge of the service from Swindon to Southampton at the time that the specificaition for the franchise was drawn up and answered. At best, they came up with a London-centric service which isn't actually what Melksham needs, and at worst they came up with our line as a safe one they could "make an example of" because it didn't fit into their view of the way that, at the centre, they felt the railway should go.  What they singularly failed to consider was things like the uniquly positive traffic growth, the ongoing growth forecast for the area and not watered down across the whole of Wiltshire, the very low ridership per head of population, and the abysmal cancellation record. Each and every one of those local factors, if properly considered, turns the case in favour of retention or enhancement but through an apparent lack of care or knowledge they appear not to have been applied.   And once a decision was made in the Spring of 2005, based on reports written late in 2004, on figures for the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 year, it was always going to be an uphill struggle.

So .... 1. We could have started earlier. 

2. We could have been more pushy.   I'm not one to chain myself to railings.  I'm not one to court publicity. And I guess I'm fairly typical in that.  I've been amazed how well, in the last few months, we've managed to get local politicians and press on side and that rather indicates that there's not a lot of news around / a space for us to push the case.  We HAVE had some success. We have managed to get the line looked at somewhat more seriously by the DfT and by First, although I'm not sure whether that's on the basis of them saying "how do we act to stick with the plans" or "is there anything we can do to help these people" - in other words, I fear we may have driven them into a corner. Their words tell us that they have listened, but several of their actions including the retiming of the trains away from the time they're needed suggests that we have driven them into a corner and our campaign has, perhaps, been counterproductive.

What can we still do?

This is the 300,000 pound (or 900,000 pound) per annum question, depending on who you believe on cost 

1. We have a new undersecretary for transport - Derek Twigg has been replaced by Tom Harris, who represents Glasgow South. We should invite Mr Harris to visit Melksham and travel on the TransWilts line, as I don't see that he has any previous background  in the area - he's done a lot in Scotland and some Northern Ireland stuff.

2. We should maintain our campaign and be as positive as we can. I don't think that Melksham is entirely off the table at the DfT and First as we're still asking questions and, whilst December 2006 would be a miracle, December 2007 is a fresh case and one we should be making.

I'm heartened that the Santa trip WILL be running again this year, and that there are plans for other rail-based promotions next year from the MRDC; I fear it's going to be a barren year as far as the regular users are concerned and there's slim chance of that miracle, but there's a chance of better news later.  We have a choice.   We could give up, we could get attacking towards everyone, or we could take folks like Glenda Lamont at their word and make a good case for December 2007.  The first two options are near-guaranteed loosers.   The third has a sporting chance - nothing to loose, and much to gain if we're taken seriously.  And presevarance and a good logical case will lead to us being taken more seriously.