Main Content

Background to the TransWilts Train Fiasco

Archive - Originally posted on "The Horse's Mouth" - 2008-12-29 09:28:31 - 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 1 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?

Have you ever tried to find out how much it costs to run a train service? In spite of the fact that the main purpose of railways these days is to provide a passenger travel service for you and me (the taxpayer), it's remarkably hard for you and me (the taxpayer) to find out what it actually costs. And just when you think you're starting to get somewhere / understand it, something changes of some other spanner gets throws in the works.

Let's take the case of the TransWilts line, linking Swindon to the four largest urban areas in Wiltshire - Salisbury, Trowbridge, Melksham and Chippenham. Growing at between 10% and 35% per annum, compound, from 2001 to 2006 it was never the less cut back to just 2 trips per day from 2007, with those trips running in what has been described as "marginal time" - in other words, at a time of day when the trains are spare from other lines. Yes, you can read that as "severely offpeak and totally inappropriate as far as passengers are concerned" if you like!

Since Summer 2005, Save The Train, The Melksham Railway Development Group, The West Wilts Rail User's Group, The First Great Western Coffeeshop, More Train, Less Strain, Travel Watch South West, Canber ... as well as many other more broadly focused organisations ... have been campaigning for the return of an appropriate service. And, yes, the first stages of this campaign were to spread awareness of the issue, and to define appropriate.

A quarter past six in the morning, and a quarter to seven at night, and nothing else, isn't an appropriate service. Everyone agrees with that; you will find some who say "may as well not run the trains at all" and - short term - that would might save First Great Western a little money in reduced crew hours and on payments to Network Rail for track access. But it would be largely a paper saving; the trains, crews, and track would still be there are would still be maintained and - in my view - keeping the current service as a base is sensible.

Who do we ask "what is appropriate"? We could try asking the man in the street. And he'll come up with anything from "no trains" to "every 15 minutes" depending on his personal view and narrow experience, largely influenced by marketing campaigns by all and sundry. Asking questions such as "what would cause you to use the train, and how much" is much more fruitful in terms of getting a real answer, though even there, statisticians will tell you that there's a need to debias the data given.

Better to ask the experts - but who are they? You have the Local Transport Authority (Wiltshire County Council), the Train Operating Company (First Great Western) and the Department for Transport as the overseeing / controlling authorities. And you have other major players such as Government Office South West and Network Rail who - although they are not controlling - have major inputs and (in the case of Network Rail at least) could effectively shunt any scheme into a siding if they were so minded.

The experts - the LTA, FGW and the DfT - come up with an "appropriate service" definition of a train every hour or two. Yes, I have written that somewhat vaguely as there's a spread of service levels involved - very largely depending on how far you look ahead, with all the major towns on the line growing very fast in the next 20 years. And by "very fast", I mean over 50%. Melksham to rise from 23,000 to over 30,000. Chippenham to become the current size of the City of Salisbury ...

But stepping up from a service run with zero trains (the train that's used for the marginal service is borrowed off the Stroud Valley line, serving the Labour constituencies in Swindon, Stroud and Gloucester, when they have through London services instead at those times!) to one that runs every hour and requires three trains to do that would be a huge leap, and would provide capacity early. Far better to add a single train 'set' to the current inappropriate service, at a third of the cost but - if carefully timed - gaining far more that one third of the potential income.

I started my article with a picture of a grape and a melon, and that provides a good comparison between the two options that we're looking at. The "grape" is much smaller that the melon, but much richer in goodness, gram for gram or pound for pound ... and this article is being written as a follow up to a campaigner on a related transport issue who asked me why on earth figures between 100k per annum and 800k per annum were all being quoted to him. (And if HE is confused about the pricing, pity the "Man on the Train"!).

Move forward to part 2 to see my "grape" and "melon" train pricing comparison

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?