In support of our esteemed Moderator's Trans-Wilts campaign, I offer the following information and comments. I appreciate that this will be to some extent re-iteration but it may help keep the ball rolling.
OTC - your follow up is hugely appreciated; it is so easy for those of us deeply involved in the campaign to forget the newcomer - the same thing happens in my work, where I teach people how to use certain programming languages. I have learned from the originators and key people of those languages, but those people are not necessarily the best of people to teach newcomers how to program in 'their' language. I recall that when "SC" - the genius behind Parrot - joined one of our customers as an employee, I felt I would loose their Perl business - Parrot being a part of Perl. But in practise, SC was an advocate or Perl but didn't "do" the beginner courses and I got busier rather than quieter at that site!
The Swindon-Salisbury route is about 55 miles but of that only 12 miles (Chippenham-Trowbridge) is uniquely served. In fact the spine, local route is Warminster/Westbury/Trowbridge/Melksham/Chippenham, about 20 miles. A change at Bath does actually allow the Swindon/Salisbury journey, albeit with a dogs leg and some extra time, although this is compensated for by 125 level speed and comfort on the Northern leg.
You're adding from around 15 to around 40 minutes travelling via Bath ... and at the stage that
FGW▸ had terrible reliability issues a couple of years ago, the chance of one or other leg being held up, cancelled or boarding denied through overcrowding made the whole thing feel like a gamble. But I have been proudly told by FGW that far more through West Wilts to Swindon passengers are happy enough with the dogleg to keep using the train than they had expected, and that reduces FGW's motivation to improve the TransWilts service. Connections have improved at Bath too.
"Where does the line finish at the southern end" has always been an interesting question. Originally, it was a mainline (the first railway to Westbury, from Chippenham) and Chippenham - Westbury - Frome - Yeovil - Weymouth was the route. And indeed, an hourly train on this route, meeting at Westbury with the hourly Cardiff - Portsmouth for both-way cross-platform interchange is an interesting idea. Also westward from Westbury, Frome and Radstock have both been suggested as termini, an dboth have a logic in terms of the train service provision it would make for them
and for the flows of traffic from them to Chippenham / Swindon.
The figures below are instructive:
Town Population (2001) Station Footfall (a&d, 2007/8) Miles from Chippenham FF/Pop Ratio
Chippenham 28065 1473k 0 52.5
Melksham 20430 38k 6.25 1.9
Trowbridge 28163 571k 11.75 20.3
Westbury 11135 345k 15.75 31.0
Warminster 17379 304k 20.5 17.5
Adding to that - a ratio of 18.7 for Swindon, and 30.6 for Bradford-on-Avon
In my experience of several such reports, a good suburban station with a normal population of 8000 within 12 minutes/800m walk (2 km2) can expect about 25 journeys (a or d) per year, a footfall of 200k, about 600/day. The ORR» figures confirm this. This varies with density of population, useful destination, service frequency and quality and railheading, which all raise or lower the footfall.
The Melksham figures are very low; either the service is poor or no-one wants to use the route - probably the former. If this is true then the Melksham ratio could reach c15, i.e. 306k arivals and departures. As capacity is said to be a problem then a Chippenham-Warminster service should relieve longer distance workings and allow growth.
Incredibly, even these Melksham footfall figures are distorted upwards by the sale of tickets which are marked "Melksham" but used from other local stations from which they are valid. I would suggest that the real figure would be nearer 0.5 than 1.9!
People with cars "railhead" to Chippenham and Bradford-on-Avon. Indeed, the Council has maps showing where people originate from to travel from Chippenham and it turns out to be a park and ride station in a ludicrous (access via town centre!) place for a park and ride. Catchment includes Calne, Malmesbury, Corsham ... and of course Melksham. Ironically, Melksham station is close to the trunk A350 and there is plenty of land available to build a decent park and ride there!
Do people want to use the route? People will tend to give me (personally) a "yes we do" view when I speak to them, knowing my bias. But there is plenty of evidence that the view is genuine, if slightly "icing on the cake" for some of them. Look at the commuter outflow figure of 6000 net from West Wilts, look at the traffic on the A350.
But people
can't use the route without exteme effort. I was at the station the other day, meeting someone off a train (no buses, no phone there!) and met a guy with a bike. In the summer, he's getting on the morning train with his cycle and then riding along the old canal towpath back in the evenings. Not the only example of extreme measures that have to be taken to make any use of the service, by any means.
The problem is, having demonstrated demand, finding the supply, i.e the Paths/Platforms/Stock/Staff.
The paths are there for an extra train running up and down Salisbury - Swindon, four times a day, between the 06:15 and 18:45 from Swindon. You also have platforming OK along the way (it's been checked), and we have a solution for the stock and are told that staff is also sorted. The pieces fall - very nicely indeed - into place.
Increase the frequency / reduce the route length and it's a better service in many ways *but* you have path and platform issues.
Running even 90mph dmu's for 17 double-track miles from Swindon is probably not on. Equally, 20 stationless miles to Salisbury may only be duplication. The old South platform at Chippenham has been mentioned as a suitable bay to allow termination but whether NR» could achieve this and retain a workable B/C Ratio is questionable. Warminster may be able to turn a train at the MoD sidings but costs may accrue here also. Finding dmu's for a new(ish) service is also a problem with existing trains being too short. Perhaps creative use of surplus cl 508's and 73's with tightlock couplers and Westcode brakes might be a solution.
On routing on into Swindon, there are already a lot more seats than bums. That's because the 125 that runs every 30 minutes is on the quieter part of its route; it will fill up from Swindon in to London, and have been fuller from Bristol to Bath. So it makes sense to swap people over at Chippenham, even though the line capacity is there. Better to make use of a 158 or 159 (please ;-) ) on providing more TransWilts services on a section that it uniquly covers, and where it can attract more people to rail.
With an increase in freight, and a turnback at Chippenham, there's a capacity issue on the single track and a robustness issue if any train is delayed. A loop at Chhippenham, with a platform face, is already in Network Rail plans (2010 / 2011?) and that will provide a bay while the TransWilts reverses, and somewhere to sidetrack a train waiting for the route to Trowbridge out of the way. You then start getting into capacity issues on the single track, and an intermediate signal (Princes Risborough to Aylesbury example quoted) would be an first step, a loop near (but not in the stations at) Melksham a second step, and redoubling the whole section from Chippenham to Trowbridge a third.
Paradoxically, I'm worried about a turnback at Warminster. On current form, some trains turn back there and their timing is lousy for people who want to go onwards to the south, as a terminator blocks the line and can't have 'the Portsmouth' scheduled right behind it. A siding as at Bedwyn would indeed provide some sort of solution - however, I think it would be far better to run on to Salisbury.
Firstly, the Westbury - Salisbury can support a service up to half-hourly (I have data). Secondly, many passengers off the Swindon - Chippenham - Melksham section are actually for destinations south of Warminster. Thirdly, it would provide a revival for Dilton Marsh - Salisbury traffic (have you seen the residential growth at Westbury Leigh / Dilton Marsh?). Fouthly, the service from Salisbury via Trowbridge and Melksham to Chippenham will link the four largest urban areas of the new Wiltshire Unitary Authority.
Looking a coupling class 508 electric units to a class 73 diesel is an interesting thought. And I know that diesel + slide-door electric is done at Bo'ness sometimes, and the Bournemouth - Weymouth history. The campaign is emphatically not looking for a heritage operation, but rather a reliable service with a reasonable number of trains each day, but you never know. Two questions - would cl 508 clear the platform at Trowbridge? And being a type of stock in use to provide service on just one line in the area, how many would you need as backups / who would be trained on maintaining them / what would availability be like? Perhaps we should chat with the people who run the Taunton - Cardiff loco hauled service and suggest they us 1 73 / 508 combo too. (73 only has low horsepower off electric; would it be poerful enough?)
Welcome to Merseyrail!
OTC
Many, many thanks for that "foil" against which I've had the opportunity to provide a few more answers.
In summary, the case is well thought out, costed and resourced. It stands up. And we're looking forward too - 2011, 2014, 2019 and 2026 all appear in plans / cases / reports. We want to gain and retain an appropriate service!
