There are elements of the new timetable that starts on Sunday that are less than ideal (I'm being very kind in how I say that), and some of the problems are widely and generally acknowledged - for example on the timing of the train on the TransWilts.  How to solve this?

It's great to look at the big picture and to say that, now there's not a franchise bidding war going on, how the services can be rearranged for efficiency and customer service (Customer Service is the First Group's second mantra, only after safety, link), perhaps service can be re-arrange to suit the customers.

On one hand, let's look at the overall picture which Lee, Chris, Graz and other are doing on another thread here.  I wish them well with that tread, I fully suppor them and I'll be behind them every step of the way.  But there will be a lot of people to convince, a lot of extra weight needed.   It may be the way to go.

But it's dangerous putting all of our eggs in one basket - and that being a big basket that effects stick from Buckinghamshire to Cornwall, and from Sussex to South Wales.  So I'm flying another flag here - a complimentary one and one that I'll pull back down off the mast if I see my Swindon to Salisbury suggestion having an Oxford - Bicester leg tagged onto one end, and a Southampton leg tagged on to the other.

So - what's my "flag"?

Let's take "hypothetical" single train and provide a true "TransWilts" service. The largest centres of population are Swindon, Salisbury, Chippenham, Trowbridge, and Melksham (in that order), and Warminster isn't far behind.  Let's link them with a medium distance train service that runs, regularly, every 3 hours and is a self-contained operation.

It's marketable / saleable within Wiltshire.  There are strong flows between the major towns, and those flows are to grow with the rise in population over the next 20 years.  And it will take current flows as a basis.  What would the timing look like?

From Swindon at 08:45, 11:45, 14:45, 17:45 and 20:45
Arriving Salisbury 10:00, 13:00, 16:00, 19:00, ((22:00))

From Salisbury at ((07:15)), 10:15, 13:15, 16:15, and 19:15
Arriving Swindon at 08:30, 11:30, 14:30, 17:30 and 20:30

I've bracketed the 07:15 from Salisbury and 22:00 return - there's strong merit in the train staring from Swindon at 06:30 in the morning, and reversing at Warminster ... also reversing at Warminster in the evening to return to Bristol for servicing.

There's - I think I sense - a change in the air. A slight one, some little clues; I think there might be a chance - slim at the moment.  But I've been impressed by some of the responses, political and otherwise, of the last few days.  The change may turn out to be stillborn or just hot air, but me thinks I have nothing to loose by offering this alternative flag.


I have not done all the careful studies that the other have done with their proposals at this stage; you  ARE likely to find that I have timings such that a 125 would be overtaking a (?) 158 between Chippenham and Swindon.   But I HAVE got the commuter tmings right, the into Melksham timings right, reasonable turn around times and no headon collisions 

My view too.  I've put a first draft comment through and I'm asking around.  Will ask around on train tomorow and Saturday too.

Chris, that's fabulous.   I have a printout and will have it with me today.

Two questions.

a) Can the timetable be done to be regular interval every time by moving all the trains in the same way you've shifted some?

b) What does in look like every 2 hours - retaining the 08:30 arrival in Swindon as an anchor point, and running Swindon to Westbury.

For the purpose of these exercises, are you able to work on the current from Monday timetable for other trains rather than our hypothetical one.   We're getting a bit of a ball rolling on this incremental step     ... there may - just may - be the odd door that could be pushed open.

Chris, it needs to be one unit.  We're looking prior to anything else; we're looking at doors which we might be able to push open and the one-train door is labelled "300k", with the two-train door saying "1200k" on it. Not, I regret, a question of what's freed up from elsewhere as there's a different budget involved.   Its OK to leave unwanted rolling stock rotting in a siding and owned by a ROSCO as that's at their expense, but it's NOT OK to subsidise too many leases; this may seem madness but my specification / requests are very carefully scripted.

On earlier services ... I could see the unit running out from Bristol to Westbury, then up to Swindon for  06:15 and starting its day like that.  There have been up to 42 people on the train that does that run in the past (it's not one I personally used a lot!)

Interestingly, can trains reverse at Trowbridge?  If so, the morning train could reverse there rather than at Westbury.

Now I have changed this timetable completely, and to Graham's request a 2-hourly timetable from Swindon - Westbury have been added - to compare the two.

Link here --> http://www.shinewithstyle.co.uk/literature/Graham's now melksham train proposals.pdf

Sorry for the confusion before.

I'm not sure how that model would work with the unit up and down the main line.   The Lymington was the very last of the old slam-doors, wasn't it, and I can't imagine FGW bening happy with anything less that a 153 regularly on the line. I was quite surprised to see Saturday's 143.   Not ruling it out, but I suspect lease /pool might be the way - we don't have special restrictions which I understand precluded more modern stock from being used to Lymington.