Archive - Originally posted on "The Horse's Mouth" - 2008-12-29 09:26:11 - Graham Ellis
Management Summary - TransWilts Train service, linking largest Wiltshire population centres, growing rapidly but cut back to just 2 trains a day.
This is Article 2 of a series of 3. Article 1 - Background to the TransWilts Train Fiasco
Article 2 - How much does a train service actually cost? Article 3 - Why hasn't the fiasco been put right?
Here is my answer - slightly trimmed, written to a fellow transport campaigner and republished here as being in the general interest of the campaign and of ensuring that the answer is available somewhere in the public domain.
I'm following up on your email of a couple of days ago with regard to the pricing of a train service on the TransWilts line and how much / if a subsidy would be required. Figures ranging from under 100k per annum to nearly 3/4 of a million pounds have been quoted, and you (and you're not alone) are puzzled by how such different figures can be stated for what appears to be the same service. But it isn't - you're comparing a "grape" with a "melon"!
The Melon
Wiltshire (County) Council have presented a case to the Department for Transport that states that an hourly service on the TransWilts line would be appropriate. (Contact / Author - Xxxxx Xxxxxxx). Such a service, running on a single track railway most of the way from Chippenham to Trowbridge, and serving Swindon and Salisbury at its extremes, would require 3 trains.
The Grape
On current predictions, the hourly service is a good medium term goal. However, major service improvements which meet many of the requirements can be achieved with a single train running at approximately 3 hourly intervals, in addition to the two round trips which area already in the line and which would become part of the practical service as - in conjunction with additional trips - they would provide excellent out and back travel options currently missing.
On pricing quoted
The cost of providing a single train on the line, with crews and all charges, is around 800,000 pounds per annum.
With 125,000 journeys per annum (historic figure from when 5 trains per day were running, just before First cut them) at an average fare of 4 pounds per journey, that's an income of 500,000. And we could anticipate that with a service of 6 trains per day ("the grape"), a similar loading would be achieved. The usage had grown (5 year average) at between 10% and 35% compound (different measures) and even taking the lowest of these figures, you're looking at an extra 60% of traffic in five years.
An annual figure of between 100,000 and 125,000 pounds subsidy required from Wiltshire Council to First was quoted to me (at a meeting called by planning staff from those organisations, called by them) in February 2008. Under "Chatham House Rules", I cannot quote names, but you would probably be very familiar with them. It was explained to me that a half of that sum was actually to compensate for a loss of income from the earmarked train which is currently running a service that's competing with SWT between Salisbury and Southampton, generating First 60k of extra income under the ORCATS tradeoff system, basically money "grabbed" from SWT for passengers carried on the hourly SWT service.
At a further meeting three months later (different FGW players, same Council representative) a new figure of 300,000 pounds was presented, with an explanation that costs - such as fuel - had risen rapidly and a more cautious approach had to be taken. It was also explained that - contrary to expectation - passengers from Warminster, Westbury and Trowbridge to Chippenham and Swindon who had used the previous service had transferred to the route via Bath, in spite of a change of trains, and extended journey, overcrowding, and reliability issues. So the through business could not be counted in the way it was a few months earlier when looking at extra income the service would generate.
Comments on this pricing
a) Fuel costs have now reduced again, so I don't know where the 300k stands
b) Prices / figures quoted are 2008.
c) The fares on the line are significantly LOWER per mile than on most other train services; an increase of 20% above inflation would be sellable to users / future users with little loss of traffic and would provide an extra income of 100,000 (first year)
d) With a 10% compound growth rate and even assuming NO ABOVE INFLATION PRICE RISES, the income at 2008 prices in five years would be 800,000 per annum - in other words, you would have a break-even service even at these lowest recorded growth rates.
e) Trowbridge and Chippenham are both set to grow dramatically under the Regional Spatial Strategy - an extra 5000 homes in each of them. In Melksham, a further 750 homes are currently under way, and the site of the George Ward school, close to the station, will be redeveloped with around a further 250. (and that's just short term for Melksham).
On pricing the hourly service option
I have not seen the pricing details of this to the extent that I have seen the pricing option for the more limited option that has had consensus agreement as being the next step from the DfT, Network Rail, First and The County.
Cost-wise, logic says that you're looking at 2.4 million per annum, and the 800k subsidy quoted implies a farebox income of 1.6 million, equating to 400k journeys per annum. This sounds feasible in a year or two with good publicity. Other advantages of this scheme would include:
a) Half-hourly service Westbury to Salisbury, as identified by the County Council / expert reports produced for them.
b) Good service for the Dilton Marsh side of Westbury, where housing development is approaching the station and a direct hourly service to both Salisbury and Swindon, and to Bath and Bristol with a change of train, would encourage the new area to be public-transport based rather than car based
c) Significant transfer of journeys along the Salisbury / Warminster / Trowbridge / Melksham / Chippenham / Swindon corridor from road to rail would reduce road conjestion and consequent delays along the corridor. The road is already overcrowded and otherwise unsuitable in parts, to the extent that major expenditure has been proposed for its improvement.
Move on to part 3 to learn just why even the simpler and lower cost option hasn't been implemented - why it's like "pulling teeth" to get a sensible resolution to a currently nonsensical service.
Article 1 - Background to the TransWilts Train Fiasco
Article 2 - How much does a train service actually cost? Article 3 - Why hasn't the fiasco been put right?