I agree , Graham. Any increase in line capacity through Melksham would be welcome. However , I suspect that the current realistic capacity is lower than 3 trains an hour , in order to avoid delays over this route.
It is also worth bearing in mind that , in another pointless PWQ answer , Derek Twigg confirmed that joint action plans are in place between Network Rail and First Great Western to address performance issues , including the Swindon to Westbury route. These are monitored monthly.
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Government have taken to improve rail services between Swindon and Westbury and at intermediate towns to provide transport alternatives for the new housing planned in the area.
Derek Twigg: Improving rail performance is a key objective for the Department for Transport. Joint action plans are in place between Network Rail and First Great Western to address performance issues, including the Swindon to Westbury route. These are monitored monthly.
Demand for rail services between Westbury and Swindon is concentrated at peak periods, and the Government have specified direct train services at these times.
In other words, a moderate increase in traffic could be caused by a removal of the majority of passenger trains and a massive increase in freight, and that is what you're foreseeing?
Here are some more quotes , the first two from the Network Rail Business Plan 2006.
On future capacity requirements :
"changes to the timetable structure to reduce the mix of different train types and the number of conflicting moves."
"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."
I quote from FGW's web site ...
[i]Over the term of the franchise we will invest £200 million in a programme of continuous improvement bringing a wide range of customer benefits, increased capacity, safety and service. We will also work with Network Rail to tackle deep-rooted performance issues on the Greater Western network.
Our immediate priorities are to ensure a smooth integration of the three franchises; introduce a new Timetable in December 2006; and deliver service improvements for our customers as early as possible.
In other words , Network Rail would like to work with TOC's to remove local or stopping services , in order to free up capacity and improve performance. First agree with this , mainly because they have been directed to by the DfT.
Before we let First off the hook , it should be remembered that both their bus and railfreight sectors benefit from this.
It should also be remembered that both First & Network Rail can propose a closure under the new DfT Closure Guidance.
As far as the medium - long term future is concerned , I feel that this quote from the Network Rail Business Plan 2006 is appropriate :
"The RSS (Regional Spatial Strategy) also recommends that commercial developments which generate high volumes of freight movements should be located close to appropriate rail freight facilities to support more sustainable distribution in the South West."
Have a look at the link below.
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=311.msg859#msg859And section 8.5 of this one.
http://www.transport2000.org.uk/library/RoadstoRuin/section_08.htmQuote from the above link :
"More serious attention needs to be given to freight movements through the county. In particular, there is potential for mini-rail-freight terminals in Wiltshire along the A350/A36 corridor. A rail-freight terminal at Westbury is planned, but this is some distance from proposed route of bypass. The parallel rail line (Westbury-Melksham-Chippenham-Swindon) has only one train per day in each direction but the service is due to be improved."
Since the above was written , the number of freight trains has increased on the Melksham line.
All in all , it would be fair to say that I am not optimistic , Graham.