Hi, BMN ... someone pointed out to me that the Friends of Reddish South Station are members of ACoRP^▸ (Association of Community Rail Partnerships), and asked me how come their application was accepted and the TransWilts one wasn't.   And I couldn't find a good answer from what we've been told so far.   I think it's absolutely right that they're members, by the way - my question isn't "why are they members", it's "how come we're not allowed based on lack of trains and the fact that we want more, when others are".   Answers sought - I'm more and more thinking we may not have the full story.

See http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=8690.0 for the linked story

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12945892

Posted in "The Wider Picture" cos it turns out to be mainly about parliamentary trains.  Not sure that Stockport -> Stalybridge should really be "Parly" ... I think there's a genuine flow there!

Gosh, MikeB, I hate to have to come in here too ... especially to say "oy" to a newly joined member. However ...

People have come along, Mike, and answered your original question / post.  They did so in good faith, but now feel that by changing your original post you have made their comments look rather silly.  I rather suspect that's not something you had realised might happen - it's a side effect that we all miss from time to time, so don't worry too much about it on this occasion.

For the record, here is a copy of the original text you posted, added so that anyone who comes back in the future will be able to read the thread and work it out in spite of the changes.   As a general note for all, I retrieved this text from backups - an action even beyond "admin" powers and the first time I have ever done it in 88,000 posts!


If you wish to go back to your original post and edit it yet again - but this time explain what you're changing and why so that it doesn't make some of the following elements look out-of-context / silly / stupid, that would be much appreciated.  And Chris and I can then tidy up our posts as appropriate.

Thanks

Graham

P.S. You appear to have deleted "Network Rail now admits that some people can become seriously ill if they live close to these masts." from your original

Edited to add the P.S. ... and to show you how an edit is acceptable with an explanation 

That's hugely appreciated, thanks, Jo.  I understand that there's considerable red tape ... even allowing hubbie was probably a special dispensation. Had it been a serious risk / issue for Chris too by bus, they / we would have found another way.  But ... I will / do know to ask in a crisis, thanks.

Ask her, on her blog, Chris.   


may hold a clue as to the preference for rail at every stage.   Had it come down to her having to attend in person, I would have recommended train to Paddington (probably NOT from Chippenham due to the bumpity bump over the tracks) and then taxi.

Exactly so, Chris

It struck me on reading back through this thread that I should have provided a link to the ACoRP^▸ (Association of Community Rail Partnerships) site (which we have studied in great detail both before and again after the application, I can assure you!).   It's at http://www.acorp.uk.com/

For anyone who's new to ACoRP, here's part of their front page "statement of aims" (my title):


And here are some of their central activities which we might have been able to take advantage of 

You will note the use of the words "rural" and "local" within this text.  Every station on the TransWilts has (within 3 km of the station) a population of at least 10,000 - most have many more; that's hardly rural.  And journeys tend to be 20 or 30 miles on the line, with onward connections being important for many users.  So that's regional - it's hardly local. 

Edit to clarify my wording

To follow up on your speculations folks ....

http://inthefringes.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/travelling-to-london/

and many thanks for your inputs.   The author of the blog is my daughter-in-law ...

Edit to change link to one that permanently points to the page

The news came through to the group about 10 days ago and we've discussed it since of course, deciding on a route forward before announcing it in public.  It would have been all too easy to react negatively.   It would also have been all too easy to rush in an "are you sure" / "will you reconsider".

We've not done either of those.   I'll admit that many of us were somewhat surprised and disappointed. Perhaps it's a lack of clear input on our part. Perhaps it's because we don't fit the bill in a way we're trying to understand.  Or perhaps it's because we in Wiltshire have had to shout pretty loud over the last few years to keep our line on the agenda and so - that word ethos - doesn't match.  Things have moved on, and it's not necessary for the CRP^▸ (Community Rail Partnership) to arrange for ministers to get a big postbag ... we're now at "lets get this sorted" but there are perhaps still a few people around who may have seen us as radicals in the days that "Save the Train" was the headline, and not be totally comfortable to work with us as partners.

So - as you see - we're looking at ourselves and asking "why did our application fail?".  We have a request in to ask for guidance on the service level required for membership - your point about the Settle and Carlisle is a good one, and we've noted that there are even ACoRP^▸ (Association of Community Rail Partnerships) member organisation to represent stations on the Stockport -> Stalybridge line (1 train per week).  And a request is in for a little more information about the ACoRP board who make decisions.   We know they only meet very occasionally (we've been waiting since late last year for this to be put to them),  and it would be nice to know / understand that aspect too.   There's certainly no point in rushing in a "will you reconsider" and until we have a few answers at least, no point in doing so. 

They could be right that we shouldn't be members - we need to find out. Perhaps membership would straightjacket us into accepting that services twice a day, heading out over the TransWilts-only section at 06:30 and 19:01 are fair and reasonable, and so we're better off having an element more flexibility than that.  Let's find out.

Oh good grief .... you'll be telling us that it's sometimes cheaper to buy your ticket in two halves than a through one for your whole journey next 

Indeed - many a true word written in jest.  There is actually a case - morally at least - for giving the person who pays his British taxes to help run the trains and buses something of a break.  You can get rail cards / special ticket prices if you're too young to pay tax, too old to work, disabled, a student, from overseas, and yet the people who provide the bulk of the subsidy also have to pay the highest amounts to travel.  Double Whammie!

I had great fun putting in acronymns, obscure rules and 'inside' jokes - I can just imagine lots of people seeking out the duty manager at Brockenhurst and asking him to photograph them with the station sign and a copy of the "Sport".   And some appropriately irritating exclusions.   Would you be able to claim for tickets to / from Paddington?   Actually not!   And if you want to just walk to the station, take a single train and claim you're usually able to do so.   Can anyone see how?

Excellent questions / comments ... I can't provide you with too many answers, nor do I wish to guess at what the answers might be.

I can confirm that Community Rail is about making the best of a line and the services on it - making people aware of existing services, stations more welcoming, etc - and perhaps asking for small service changes that make a big difference.   You'll see from my earlier comment / response that we feel we're doing exactly that.

TransWilts Rail (http://www.transwiltsrail.org.uk/) is a far wider group than the CRP^▸ (Community Rail Partnership) (http://atrebatia.info/), and TransWilts Rail IS looking for major service improvements.   Our CRP has a seat at that table, and is / was looking to do the CRP thing as defined above and on the ACoRP^▸ (Association of Community Rail Partnerships) site with existing services and as they may change with any extra service that are added.   Doing what we can with the current service, with a high summer Sunday extra if it happens (a definite answer on that is now 2 weeks past the "hope to let you know by" date), and further services should they come along.

The TransWilts Community Rail Partnership's application to join ACoRP^▸ (Association of Community Rail Partnerships) (The Association of Community Rail Partnerships) was turned down at ACoRP's board meeting on 16th March.


The TransWilts CRP^▸ (Community Rail Partnership) is naturally disappointed by this decision; a great deal of thought and work was done prior to the application, and the members felt that this was about the right time to apply to be a formal member of the support group for community rail lines, services and stations. Since the decison, of which we were informed on 22nd March, we have been discussing the situation around our wider group prior to announcing the result of our application.

The TransWilts line currently has 27 services per week (26 francshised services plus one extra) through the least well served section, and we are working with Wiltshire Council, First Great Western, Network Rail, Chambers of Commerce, our elected parliamentary representatives, local councils, organisations and members of the community to make the best use and publicity for these current services.  Our new CRP has already produced two editions of timetable leaflets have been produced for Dilton Marsh and distributed throughout the catchment area of the station (thank you to Wiltshire Council and a local business spondor for these).  We are working with the HoW^‡(resolve) CRP on a joint project to clear wasteland that's an eyesore at Westbury station (like many rail projects, this gets very much tied up with health and safety issues) and are adopting Melksham station to help keep it looking tidy by brighening up the environment and by making small but significant improvements.  We would like to thank the staff and children at Westbury Leigh school for their work in producing pupil silouettes to help decorate the station, and hope to have those displayed in due course.  We would also like to thank First Great Western and Network rail for a timetable change - moving the 09:02 connection from Westbury to Swindon on Saturdays to 09:05 thus creating a connection for passengers from Salisbury and Warminster to Melksham, Chippenham and Swindon.  The new (as required) stop at Dilton Marsh in the 18:18 Warminster to Westbury service gives a previosuly missing return journey opportunity from Salisbury to Dilton Marsh at 17:10, change at Warminster.

Looking forward, the TransWilts CRP is working with partners in the rail industry to look for an additional Sunday morning return trip from Westbury to Swindon this high summer, giving seaside day out opportunties to Weymouth from Swindon, Chippenham and Melksham, and an earlier than present option from Trowbridge. It would also give Westbury, Trowbridge and Melksham residents a Sunday day-out option to Swindon, the Thames Valley and London.  Should approval for this service come though, the CRP will produce leafletting to cover the summer service, and the ongoing autumn weekend service too, which does offer day-out northbound opportunities on Saturdays, and return trains on Saturday afternoons and Sunday evenings for countryside walks in Wiltshire.  Further ahead, under TransWilts Rail, the CRP aspires to further improvements (December 2011) increasing the service on the line towards an appropriate level as described in the GWRUS^▸ (Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy), and confirmed by MVA Consultancy (business case) and Network Rail (operational case).

The members of the TransWilts CRP have decided that - at this point - they will not rush to reapply for membership of ACoRP. Use of ACoRP resources / access to their newsletters and material would have been very useful, and perhaps some doors could have been opened, but we value our independent ability to discuss train service developments amongst our partners, and to put the case for them. At the same time, we will not take steps which will preclude a future reapplication for full membership. A more limited "associate membership" or ACoRP is not open to us, as that level is specifically for "organisations who are not CRPs".

TransWilts CRP and members will continue to work with other partnerships in the area - businesses, ACoRP members, local and national government, elected representatives, Rail user groups, groups such as RailFuture and Campaign for Better Transport, and the various elements of the rail industry to make best use of existing services on the TransWilts line and their appropriate improvement too, through support, publicity, work at stations, suggestions, and all the other means traditionally used by a CRP.

Edit to correct typo!

Press Release From the Connectional Rail Alternative Package team

Advise appreciated and has been passed on and taken, I understand.   04:00 bus from Chippenham!   Rather C**** than me!   Got it for 20 quid.

Thanks, Chris ... that does look like a better idea than rail in this case!