Great Western Coffee Shop

I know where 10 is, no idea about the others!

6 is Corsham

2 Hungerford

Is 4 Dilton Marsh perhaps?

No 2 Hungerford,

No dig at you Grahame, but if you check your photo collection you will find lights burning when not required all over the place.

The money FGW would save could pay for a Hourly Swindon-Westbury service!!!!

I'm going to agree ... and disagree ... with that.  Yes, experience shows that a petition does result in the government clarifying their current position in the majority of cases.  And that's likely to be all that the signatories see in their response.  However, it can also help to move the specific case up the agenda and in association with a whole load of other inputs, including well argued longer cases, local press, political pressure, etc can result in some movement. And it can also help open some doors for the people behind the petition, getting them a seat at a table here and there and helping to make their voice heard that little bit more.

I ran a petition that ended over a year ago now - ran for just three weeks (that's the minimum period - I think the Cotswold one has gone to the opposite end of the spectum and runs for a year) and got over 1700 signatures to:

""We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to provide a reliable train service with adequate capacity at times that travellers wish to make journeys from Swindon to Westbury, Bristol to Severn Beach, Portsmouth and Weymouth to Cardiff, Taunton to Cheltenham, Swindon to Cheltenham. This includes all intermediate stations and journeys in both directions.""

The response was, indeed, a restatement of government policy that gave very little and was econimic with the truth - presenting statistics that when taken alone and assumed to be the total case would seriously mislead.  But - take a look at what the Prime Minister was asked and you'll find that certain things have been acted upon. There's more capacity, more trains to Severn Beach, more reliability now. Of course the petition wasn't the key, but perhaps it did make the government sit up and take a little - just a little more note. It all adds weight to the campaigns alongside others too numerous to mention.

Swindon to Westbury has not yet been solved; trains at 06:15 and 18:45 (only) remain timed to suit the convenience of the operator and not the people of North, West and South Wiltshire and Swindon who wish to travel on this corridor. But we are still talking, and indeed various draft timetables and proposals are floating around for next December.  On a somewhat different tacki to a p.m.'s petition, we've also been looking for support via, http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/pledge.html where individual user can sign up in a more targetted manner - we're looking to sign up people who actually know a little about the area, live and / or travel in Wiltshire for the most part and / or are rail experts or represent people who do travel.  The text reads:

"""I support the return of a more appropriate train service linking the five largest population centres in Wiltshire, as shown in (or similar to) draft timetables from December 2008"""

On that different basis, we have over 440 names (or over 500 if you look at the names of people who have signed up but are yet to confirm / haven't clicked ontheir final email link. 80% live in Wiltshire, over 80% travel regularly in the county ... and we have seen already that all three of the major players - DfT, WCC and FGW - are aware and have produced interim responses.

The Cotswold petition reads

""We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to reinstate double track on the Cotswold Railway Line (Oxford to Worcester)."" and currently has 350 signatures.   It's not my area / expertise so I'm in no position to comment on the weight it will / has added or its timing, but I am not as negative as swlines in adding the word "just" into my post.

A bit of an aside to answer queries raised

Comparisons are bound to be drawn at times, as they give a good reference point and balance.  And I have drawn many comparisons with regard to traffic levels that should be on offer between Melksham station, currently with a truely dreadful service, and other stations within 20 miles or so.   The closest comparison turns out to be to Frome, which has a population that's just 5% higher than Melksham and a station that is not right in the town centre. Other useful comparisons in the local area can be made to Warminster and to Bradford-on-Avon, but both of those have a significantly lower population.   I decline to compare to Westbury - that has a significantly lower population, but is a special case in that it's a major junction and changing point with a significant proportion of people changing trains, and a significant attraction potential as a park and ride for services headed off in six different directions rather than the two directions of each of the other stations mentioned.  Current traffic level comparisions are dangerous, as they tend to enshrine any weaknesses of current service and distortions into future plans. 

The TransWilts has its current service because of 2002 figures, which were distorted because of an excellent increase in service in 2001 which had not been allowed to "bed in" before the surveys were taken, and a false assumption of virtually no (0.8% per annum) growth.  Compare that to 10% compound growth (county council figures) or 35% compound growth (ORR figures, measured on Melksham ticket sales which are somewhat misleading too).

A future service based on current ridership NOW would also be false.  From an (estimated) traffic of 60,000 journeys per annum at around 2002, traffic rose to 120,000 journeys per annum accouring to First at the time they took over.  My current estimate is - being generous - around a tenth of that.

Future provision needs to be based on future use, and I'm very glad to see Wiltshire County Council and First both looking at that, and coming up with a far more positive picture than a simple continuance of either 2002 or 2007 figures.

Future use is based on things like (a) Population served by the railhead, (b) the potential growth in that population, (c) the need or desire for that population to travel, (d) the availability or otherwise of other practical alternatives as well as (e) the frequency, reliability, speed, timing and price of the service offered.  To base it on current data alone would enshrine the faults in the current system.

In the May to September timetable, the Devon and Cornwall Sunday trains are already scheduled to run via the TransWilts and indeed are shown in the TransWilts timetable.   The question was asked about stopping a single service each way on one or two Sundays to provide a "day out in London" to help us promote the line. No suggestions have been made (to my knowledge) concerning any addition rerouting of service scheduled to run from London  via Bristol, or via Salisbury, or via Newbury to Devon and Cornwall

One of the First Great Western regional managers explained to me once that even a pack 2 coach train running up and down a branch all day would not break even, although it's possible to do very well, thank you, on a 125 operation.    Reasons included things like:

Lower pence per mile fares on the branch
Fewer miles per hour on the branch
A longer proportion of time spend loading / unloading / turning around
Fewer passengers per crew member
More fuel needed per passenger on the shorter train
More stations served in a given time, so relatively more Network Rail station charges
Shorter distance traffic tend to be more peak-time biased

Back(ish) on subject? I know people who have had to give up their jobs because the December 2006 timetable changes (cuts) made it impossible / impractical for them to continue to commute as they did, and indeed I changed my own business in a major way due to those cuts.  That's not "just" a table being removed - it's a complete train and, frankly, it's on a different scale.  You'll see that I've not been active in this thread concerning the refurbs - as far as I'm concerned, the absence of presence of a train at a time when it's useable, reasonably on time and not cancelled too often, is more critical than whether I get a table (which I do really like!)

P.S.  On the TransWilts, the forecast traffic levels for the current franchise were based on so few samples that they were statistically insignificant, and a growth forecast so pessimistic that it was acheived 40 times over prior to services being cut.  On the basis such a data foundation, it's quite possible that the stock levels looked ok; problem was that the figures used were flawed, and the TOC that won had no previous experince of operating the lines that are the biggest problem to realise that they were flawed!

The point I'm making though on that one though Graham, is you do it in a lot of topics. Here goes...

[snip]

Oh, that's on the first 10 pages of your posts too...

Feel free to delete once read, Graham!