| Archived Save the Train forum articles - 2005 to 2010. See below
Consultation closing? - 855/2446 Written by admin (Graham Ellis) on Friday, 15th December 2006 I understand from the chairman of the West Wilts Rail User Group that consultations on the Deecmber 2007 timetable closed today (15th December). I have made various inputs so I'm not panicked if a closing date passed today, but I was not aware of this one; perhaps it was for stakeholder groups rather than the general public. Re: Consultation closing? - 855/2447 Written by streety7 on Friday, 15th December 2006 A bit early to close a consulation for next year's timetable, 5 days after the new one has been released? Maybe they're worried that the new timetable is causing havoc and want to change it straight away... Re: Consultation closing? - 855/2450 Written by Graz on Friday, 15th December 2006 I still have a lot of comments and suggestions I need to give to FGW, so I hope it hasn't closed yet. Re: Consultation closing? - 855/2459 Written by Sion Bretton on Saturday, 16th December 2006 Hope it's not closed, as Frist have had bad week all round. Close early due the bad week of train services and they don't want the public to write in? ;D Re: Consultation closing? - 855/2569 Written by aik4on on Thursday, 21st December 2006 18 January is the deadline Re: Consultation closing? - 855/2570 Written by admin (Graham Ellis) on Thursday, 21st December 2006 Thanks ... a good chance to review the first two weeks of the new service fairly and make GOOD suggetsions. Re: Consultation closing? - 855/2583 Written by Lee on Friday, 22nd December 2006 Thanks aik4on. I have been encouraged recently , both by the massive pressure being exerted from many areas for an overall review of SLC2 and , more specifically , by the growing support that I have encountered for a restored / improved Melksham train service. A consultation period of appropriate length can only help matters. However , we all know that getting our train service back is unlikely to be easy. With this in mind , I am going to do something unusual , and play "devils advocate." I think that it is vital that we have a bulletproof case , and I have composed the following list of hypothetical arguments that could be thrown at us. 1) Wiltshire County Council decide to fund through bus services to Chippenham and Melksham from Salisbury. It is suggested that these be incorporated into the current train timetable. What would our view be of this? 2) With train paths vacated by the withdrawn passenger train services , interest grows in the potential railfreight benefits of the Melksham line. This comes from a combination of the following : a) New container freight trains from Radstock. b) A major Swindon - based haulage firm deciding to move a lot of its traffic from road to rail. c) Extra traffic from mini-rail-freight terminals in Wiltshire along the A350/A36 corridor and a rail-freight terminal at Westbury. How do we ensure that both passenger AND freight trains get their fair share of the available capacity? 3) The DfT , having taken into account our excellent proposals , decide to rely on the advice of their senior civil servants & special advisers , and inform us that , given the wide range of other calls on public funds , we are to receive rail - replacement bus services instead. How would we convince them that this would in no way be adequate? I would appreciate the views of as many site visitors as possible on this. Re: Consultation closing? - 855/2626 Written by Graz on Wednesday, 27th December 2006 That's a good idea Lee. I've come up with my best responses to these- it's late though, so I may not make perfect sense but here we go: [Quote]1) Wiltshire County Council decide to fund through bus services to Chippenham and Melksham from Salisbury. It is suggested that these be incorporated into the current train timetable. What would our view be of this?[/Quote] I would disagree that this would be a good idea at all. Not only would Melksham have an untapped and unused rail system - with the few remaining FGW services going under further - but the problems with buses are that they are much slower in getting to destinations and generally less reliable than a good rail service. I do not think they would be well used, either, as people would still want to get the trains from Salisbury to Westbury, and anyone from Westbury wanting to go to Chippenham or Swindon would no doubt still change at Bath spa. On the contrary, a good rail service would not only increase usage between Salisbury and Westbury but also provide a fast service to Chippenham, and Swindon which would increase sales. Also, Melksham already has buses- and people do not like to be stuck in a bus, in a traffic jam. providing more buses as a permanent 'rail replacement' would just not work. Melksham has the infranstructure- why not make use of it for the benefit of passengers throughout the West? [Quote]2) With train paths vacated by the withdrawn passenger train services , interest grows in the potential railfreight benefits of the Melksham line. This comes from a combination of the following : a) New container freight trains from Radstock. b) A major Swindon - based haulage firm deciding to move a lot of its traffic from road to rail. How do we ensure that both passenger AND freight trains get their fair share of the available capacity?[/Quote] The problem, as we all know with the Melksham line is that it is single-track all the way from Chippenham to Trowbridge. It is a fairly long single-track line, and if freight usage increased so much that there were frequent freight trains going along this track, the 'space' for passenger trains would be limited. If a sensible 2-hourly service timetable was drawn up, this would provide a good passenger service and leave enough time for freight trains to pass through, as a plan could be drawn up so that they could work around the passenger trains. If both passenger and freight usage increased further in the far future, it may be an idea to install sidings or consider doubling some or all of the track. But I don't think that would be nessesary yet. Re: Consultation closing? - 855/2627 Written by streety7 on Wednesday, 27th December 2006 [quote]1) Wiltshire County Council decide to fund through bus services to Chippenham and Melksham from Salisbury. It is suggested that these be incorporated into the current train timetable. What would our view be of this? [/quote] 3 words come to mind: What's the point? Buses are so much slower than trains, and they would hardly be incorporated to the new timetable as the journey times are so much longer, bus fares are rising (more than train fares, and in some areas for example Cheltenham/Gloucester fares have gone up so much you can't get say a return to town anymore, you have to get a dayrider), and if you were to incorporate a train-like timetable you would have to have a vast number of buses to make the times. Trains are much quicker, probably more efficient (only work on 2 gears to do 90MPH whereas buses use 4 gears to do 35MPH - probably not relevant but just thought i'd slip it in). On the note of longer journey times, and the impossibility of incorporating with train timetables connections will be lost as a TOC will not take the effort to re-plan their timetable for a bus service. [quote]) With train paths vacated by the withdrawn passenger train services , interest grows in the potential railfreight benefits of the Melksham line. This comes from a combination of the following : a) New container freight trains from Radstock. b) A major Swindon - based haulage firm deciding to move a lot of its traffic from road to rail. c) Extra traffic from mini-rail-freight terminals in Wiltshire along the A350/A36 corridor and a rail-freight terminal at Westbury. How do we ensure that both passenger AND freight trains get their fair share of the available capacity?[/quote] Surely it doesn't take that long to navigate the single track column, so a service every hour in opposing direction will leave plenty of gaps for freight trains in my opinion. Another view, in the back of my head - if service levels went this high - although expensive, to double (parts) of the track so there will be less congestion along the line. [quote]3) The DfT , having taken into account our excellent proposals , decide to rely on the advice of their senior civil servants & special advisers , and inform us that , given the wide range of other calls on public funds , we are to receive rail - replacement bus services instead. How would we convince them that this would in no way be adequate? [/quote] As I said above, buses are just not as useful as trains are, for one thing you can't tell when or if they are going to arrive unless the Council has spent thousands investing on RTPI systems. I see it as if there are rail replacement buses whats the point in the rail station then? If the station has a train station, why not use it!? And if ticket sales have what multiplied by 9 I think it is over the last few years then what can go wrong? Providing a bus service will disable users from carrying pets and heavy luggage, and a rail-replacement bus would have to just call at all the stations along the route, that's good public transport because you're just mirroring the train network... but much slower. Re: Consultation closing? - 855/2637 Written by Lee on Thursday, 28th December 2006 Many thanks for those excellent points. One aspect that I should clarify relates to passenger / freight capacity. The concern here is not so much available "space" on the Thingley Junction - Melksham - Bradford South Junction section , but available "space" on the main lines at either end. That said , it does take 20 minutes to travel "end to end" on the single - track Melksham line , which (along with the line right the way down to Southampton) is projected to acheive medium - level tonnage growth to 2015. As I may have mentioned before , it is difficult to see this growth coming from the passenger side with a vastly reduced service. Re: Consultation closing? - 855/2680 Written by mthomson on Monday, 1st January 2007 I believe the DfT are quietly pursuing the use of rail replacement buses throughout the network, hence the recent comments by John Armitt of Network Rail. Forewarned is forearmed and Lee has presented the scenario for the possible arguments and reasons for using rail replacement buses. We all need to be prepared for more battles ahead with FGW and the DfT. Re: Consultation closing? - 855/2695 Written by Nick Field on Tuesday, 2nd January 2007 [quote author=Lee link=topic=855.msg2583#msg2583 date=1166793542] 1) Wiltshire County Council decide to fund through bus services to Chippenham and Melksham from Salisbury. It is suggested that these be incorporated into the current train timetable. What would our view be of this? [/quote] They do not attract passengers as well as rail (as Christian Woolmar states in one of his articles) They would add to the current road congestion Journeys would be longer Do we really think FGW or the DfT would be interested in incorporting them into a rail timetable? [quote author=Lee link=topic=855.msg2583#msg2583 date=1166793542] 2) With train paths vacated by the withdrawn passenger train services , interest grows in the potential railfreight benefits of the Melksham line. This comes from a combination of the following : a) New container freight trains from Radstock. b) A major Swindon - based haulage firm deciding to move a lot of its traffic from road to rail. c) Extra traffic from mini-rail-freight terminals in Wiltshire along the A350/A36 corridor and a rail-freight terminal at Westbury. How do we ensure that both passenger AND freight trains get their fair share of the available capacity? [/quote] I believe it takes about 20 minutes to navigate the single track section, so allowing for a bit of slack at least two trains an hour could use it. Re: Consultation closing? - 855/2704 Written by Nick Field on Wednesday, 3rd January 2007 [quote author=Lee link=topic=855.msg2637#msg2637 date=1167316761] Many thanks for those excellent points. One aspect that I should clarify relates to passenger / freight capacity. The concern here is not so much available "space" on the Thingley Junction - Melksham - Bradford South Junction section , but available "space" on the main lines at either end. That said , it does take 20 minutes to travel "end to end" on the single - track Melksham line , which (along with the line right the way down to Southampton) is projected to acheive medium - level tonnage growth to 2015. As I may have mentioned before , it is difficult to see this growth coming from the passenger side with a vastly reduced service. [/quote] I do not confess to know much about the line capacity or signalling arrangments on our railways but can make the following assumptions: If there are currently 2 HST's per hour running between Swindon and Thingley Junction then adding 1 local passenger train every two hours in each direction would make it a total of 5 trains very two hours in each direction, or a train roughly every 24 minutes. Even if we squeezed a further 1 freight train each hour in each direction this would make it a total of 7 every two hours in each direction (4 HSTs, 1 local and 2 freight) on the mainline equating to a train every 17 minutes. This is roughly the time is takes to get from Swindon to Chippenham. There may of course be additional trains to account for from Swindon to Wootton Bassett where the South Wales trains diverge, and there may be additional freight trains heading to / from Bath rather using the single line Melksham section, We could use the same logic on The Bradford South to Westbury section of track or though I am not sure of the frequency of other trains here. Another point to notes is that we are all aware that the Oxford - Bristol Temple Meads services were withdrawn and the reason given was capapcity issues but as far as I was aware this was between Bristol and Bath and not so much eastwards from Thingley Junction. Re: Consultation closing? - 855/2717 Written by Sion Bretton on Wednesday, 3rd January 2007 Nick I think it stopped because of how busy the line was between Bath & Bristol TM Re: Consultation closing? - 855/2732 Written by Lee on Thursday, 4th January 2007 Here is some info that may be helpful : [quote author=Lee link=topic=476.msg1408#msg1408 date=1157730801]Of course the document reffered to in the title didnt help. Christian Wolmar - "The spectre of cuts by stealth is stalking the railway" (link below.) http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/articles/rail/516.shtml "The other way in which information about cuts will dribble out is through the Route Utilisation Studies, originally produced by the Strategic Rail Authority but now the province of Network Rail." Here are just a few of the gems contained within the Great Western Main Line Route Utilisation Strategy (link below.) http://www.sra.gov.uk/pubs2/stratpolplan/GWMLRUS/GWRUS.pdf "Growth in freight traffic is forecast and potential competition for capacity between passenger and freight may develop, particularly on the Reading Re: Consultation closing? - 855/2782 Written by Steve35 on Sunday, 7th January 2007 I thought I'd post the timescale for developing the December 2007 timetable as most people probably don't realise how far in advance things happen. This data is in the public domain on Network Rail's website. (Apologies for the poor formatting of the dates) December 2007 timetable development timescale Fomal Notification of Process Dates 17.10.05 Base Timetable Initial Date 16.12.05 Base Timetable Notification Date 09.02.06 Development Commencement Date 06.11.06 Preliminary Rules of the Plan/Route Proposal 17.11.06 Notification of Provisional International Paths 17.11.06 TOC Rules of the Plan/Route Comments 08.12.06 Base Timetable Publication Date 14.12.06 [b]Submission of link to index of articles |
|||
Save the Train was the campaign to bring an approriate train service back to and through Melksham. Most big contributors are still around writing at the Coffee shop forum where new members are very welcome. The train has been saved - sort of - we have stepped back up from an unusable service to a poorish one but it's doing very well. We did that through setting up the TransWilts Community Rail Partnership. That fulfilled its early objectives; it has been taken over by local and regional government types who are now doing medium and long term work. The team from this forun can also be found at the Melksham Rail User Group (which was the Melksham Rail Development Group at the time these articles were written and we had no users. We mustn't loose sight, though, that the train service remains poor and needs our community support in marketing and campaigning to keep it going in a positive direction ... and all the more so when we're expecting to find a different normallity once we get out of the Coronavirus Pandemic and head for zero carbon via the climate crisis. Yes, it's saved ... it's now a key community facility ... the need for enhancement and the strong and near-universal local support remain, and the rail industry and goverment remain slow to move and provide the enhancements even to level us up with other towns. Please support the Melksham Rail User Group - now very much in partnership rather than protest with the rail industry and local government, including GWR, TransWilts and unitary and town councils. And please use the trains and buses, and cycle and walk when you can. -- Graham Ellis, (webmaster), February 2021 | |||
|
|||
Further Information:
Home
Current Summary
Daily update
User forum
Consultation
Service now
Service future
Future Analysis
Recent Statistics
Recent letters
Letter to DfT
Save the train
Presentation
Support us
Other Maps
Station facilities
Station approach
Pictures
Trains diverted
History
About Melksham
Site Map
About this site