Bedwyn, Pewsey and Westbury concerns

[whole diary]

[grahame]

Meeting, this evening, at Pewsey on the Westbury / Pewsey to London concerns for the future:

http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/9964074.Rail_users_plan_to_keep_high_speed_trains_through_Westbury/?ref=rss

[grahame]

I attended the meeting last night - a packed hall in Pewsey (far more than they expected), with representatives from the Bedwyn group, and from Westbury, and the West Wilts Rail Users Group amongst others.

Concerns on their web site - http://www.pewseytrainwatch.co.uk/ - and more will follow there.

On the 28th of October bids will be submitted for the renewed licence to run the Great Western Region.
The current terms of the franchise agreement offer, at best, an uncertain future for 'through' trains from Pewsey to Paddington, the likelihood being that passengers will thereafter have to change at Newbury to complete their journey.

Pewsey Train Watch is an action group formed by local people to bring pressure to bear upon the Department for Transport and the train operators with the aim of retaining current 'through' sevices from Pewsey to London. We can only succeed with your help. Please explore our website to find out what the threat is, how this will affect you and what you can do to make your voice heard by those who have the power to take away your train servce.

Few if any members of the groups had been aware of the Greater Western Franchise consultation in January to March.  However, they are now aware of the pause in bidding process and that the October date is no longer the date on which bids are to be submitted.

[BandHcommuter]

On the 28th of October bids will be submitted for the renewed licence to run the Great Western Region.
The current terms of the franchise agreement offer, at best, an uncertain future for 'through' trains from Pewsey to Paddington, the likelihood being that passengers will thereafter have to change at Newbury to complete their journey.

I don't see how they can draw that conclusion at all (regarding the "likelihood" of having to change at Newbury). Why on earth would a new operator wish to give up the opportunity to serve highly lucrative through passenger traffic from Westbury and Pewsey to London (especially when they have to run a certain number of trains between Exeter and Paddington, and serve Westbury and Pewsey with a minimum number of calls each day)?

I guess that the user group is looking for absolute certainty in the specification, which as it stands gives operators some freedom as to the manner in which they serve individual passenger markets.

[grahame]

I guess that the user group is looking for absolute certainty in the specification, which as it stands gives operators some freedom as to the manner in which they serve individual passenger markets.

The way that the ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) is drawn up, there's little absolute certainty ... and that's not just on the Berks and Hants.    I think I commented on the "Heart of Wessex" board that if the next franchise runs an extra daily train to Weymouth, they could cut out all stops (bar 2 a day each way) at Thornford and Chetnole, for example.   Of course, some may consider that suggestion a statistical nonsense and something they wouldn't do ... you would think that the bidders would want to do right by the stakeholders / users in the area served by thelines they operate, right?

But history has shown that such assumptions can be dangerous. 

In 2005, the SLC2 for the service between Westbury and Swindon was drafted as being 2 trains each way per day, with one arriving into Swindon between 08:00  (change to 07:45 soon after publication) and 08:30, and one leaving between 17:30 and 19:00, with (I am told) the intent or providing a useful commuter service from Westbury, Trowbridge and Melksham into Swindon.  Under the prior service, a busy 2 coach train arrived in Swindon at around 08:15, and a busy one left on the return journey at 17:44.  These trains also picked dropped off (a.m.) people at Chippenham, both to work there and to transfer from Melksham onwards to Bristol for work, with opposite return in the evening.  The return working of these trains (from Swindon at about 08:44, and back into Swindon at about 17:35) provided a sensible commuter usable train from Swindon and Chippenham to Melksham and Trowbridge, and a long distance connection for business people from London to Melksham and Trowbridge.  So common sense for the local stakeholders in the area would have been to retain these two round trips

What happened?  The 08:15 arrival into Swindon got pushed earlier to 07:48, and the 17:44 departure got pushed back an hour later to 18:44; with an extra 90 minutes on the day, the well filled 2 car trains became much more thinly used.  The 08:44 from Swindon got pushed back to run earlier - at 06:20, long before anyone on a normal working day would want to be able to commute to Melksham or Trowbridge, and before there was a connection from London, even if someone wanted to try the train for a business trip.  And the 17:35 arrival was moved later - to 20:20 - an unsuitable time for commuters and business men alike. So in this instance, the new timetable was in line with the franchise requirement, but out of step with the intent of the requirement and with the needs of existing and potential future passengers.

Now - I have no reason to believe that any of the four companies bidding for the current franchise intent to read the specification for the Berks and Hants line in such a way that it provides such a travesty of a proper service as happened on the TransWilts, but I don't believe it can do any harm for the people of Bedwyn, Pewsey, Westbury (and Kintbury, Hungerford, Frome and Castle Cary too) to make it strongly known what would and would not work in the area, looking to make practical suggestions. 

All the bidders are (or rather have been) listening, and the delay caused by the West Coast stuff actually gives a short window of opportunity for them to make their case.   Normally, I would expect a billions-of-pounds bid that's been a year in the development to have been pretty close to complete by now - three weeks before submission - and any dramatic inputs to go into the file marked "interesting but too late to change what we've offered";  now there could be a chance that they trigger something.  I still don't think that a trigger's needed (I think the bidders probably have the line right), but it does no harm to ask and to make the case, I think.




Edit note: Amended to remove a one word typo, for clarity, as discussed with grahame. CfN.

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the Wiltshire Gazette & Herald:

MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) in talks today over feared threat to Pewsey rail services

MP Claire Perry was meeting rail campaigners and commuters this morning to discuss what they fear is a threat to the Pewsey to London Paddington train service.

She was on the platform at 7.45am to talk to commuters as they headed off to the capital and went on to have a private meeting with members of Pewsey Train Watch at 9.30am.

At 5.30pm she is due to greet commuters at Great Bedwyn Station to gather their views.

A spokesman for Train Watch said: ^Claire Perry needs to know this issue is of great concern to her constituents and that we expect her to do everything she can to protect our vital train services. This is our opportunity to let her, and in turn Simon Burns, the new Rail Minister, know how important this issue is to everyone living in and around Pewsey.^

The group is urging all passengers who want to see the present level of service maintained, or even improved, to write to the MP who has already had talks with the minister, as well as the Newbury and Westbury MPs, Richard Benyon and Dr Andrew Murrison, who are also concerned.

The campaigners say Pewsey station serves a wide catchment area taking in Marlborough, Devizes and beyond and caters for 200,000 passengers a year.

The Government has invited bids to run the next Great Western Region rail franchise. However, the invitation to tender does not require the winning bidder to provide the existing level of service between Pewsey and London Paddington, Pewsey Train Watch said.

The tender document requires only two through trains per day in each direction compared with ten at present. The remaining services are only required to be the equivalent of a shuttle service between Newbury and Pewsey and Westbury.

The group spokesman said: ^This means, at best, an uncertain future for through trains from Pewsey to Paddington and leaves Pewsey^s passengers at the mercy of the winning bidder. Currently there is no indication that any of the operators bidding for the franchise intends to do more than the minimum required of them in the ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) (invitation to tender).

^Rail services provide a vital lifeline to rural communities and are fundamental to the economic well-being of Pewsey and its surrounding communities. Any downgrading of services would almost certainly have a profound negative affect on the local economy far beyond the obvious inconvenience to commuters. Even for those who don^t use the train this could have consequences, affecting the value of homes and the vibrancy of communities.^

[eightf48544]

Is the Greater Western bid going ahead? I thought it was delayed due to the West Coast Fiasco!

[paul7575]

Whatever delays there are would surely be unlikely to result in the actual service specification being altered? 

Also doesn't really alter the fact that these objections are probably too late - as has been discussed previously the most vocal objectors always seem to come to the fore AFTER the consultation period has finished...

Paul

[eightf48544]

Good point Paul about objections coming too late, but that's due to the rediculous timescales for the whole firago.

So how about reversing the franchising process? TOCS bid what they are prepared to run, based on improvements to the current timetable, new services eg Gloucester Weymouth via Swindon, increased frequencies etc.  what stock they would require (train lengths etc) plus any improvements and capital investment. The bids are then put out for public consultation. You could then put all the best ideas from each bid together as the spec and ask the bidders to cost running that level of service. The costs would then be based on a level playing field.
 
Treasury wouldn't like it but it would probably be cheaper all round.

[ellendune]

Good point Paul about objections coming too late, but that's due to the rediculous timescales for the whole firago.

So how about reversing the franchising process? TOCS bid what they are prepared to run, based on improvements to the current timetable, new services eg Gloucester Weymouth via Swindon, increased frequencies etc.  what stock they would require (train lengths etc) plus any improvements and capital investment. The bids are then put out for public consultation. You could then put all the best ideas from each bid together as the spec and ask the bidders to cost running that level of service. The costs would then be based on a level playing field.
 
Treasury wouldn't like it but it would probably be cheaper all round.

So you ask bidders to put together their best ideas - that will cost them alot of money to work out - and then they are handed to their opponents for them to bid against them.  That really going to bring out the best ideas isn't it. 

[paul7575]

Good point Paul about objections coming too late, but that's due to the rediculous timescales for the whole firago.

I disagree about the 'ridiculous timescales'.  There's basically been a continuous re-iteration of plans for 'the railway' across various documents such as route plans, RUSs^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) (to be replaced by some sort of long term plan process), franchise specs, DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) HLOS^▸ (High Level Output Specification)/SofA etc.  Everything is subject to consultation of some sort or another, and organisations and individuals with a real opportunity to inform opinion, such as MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament), local authorites, county councils etc, are firmly 'in the loop', as can be seen from distribution lists contained in the various consultations I've read.

It is minor local lobby groups who nearly always appear late to the party and pretend for the local paper's benefit that no-one was forewarned...

Paul

[ellendune]

Good point Paul about objections coming too late, but that's due to the rediculous timescales for the whole firago.

I disagree about the 'ridiculous timescales'.  There's basically been a continuous re-iteration of plans for 'the railway' across various documents such as route plans, RUSs^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) (to be replaced by some sort of long term plan process), franchise specs, DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) HLOS^▸ (High Level Output Specification)/SofA etc.  Everything is subject to consultation of some sort or another, and organisations and individuals with a real opportunity to inform opinion, such as MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament), local authorites, county councils etc, are firmly 'in the loop', as can be seen from distribution lists contained in the various consultations I've read.

It is minor local lobby groups who nearly always appear late to the party and pretend for the local paper's benefit that no-one was forewarned...

Paul

I agree

[eightf48544]

So you ask bidders to put together their best ideas - that will cost them alot of money to work out - and then they are handed to their opponents for them to bid against them.  That really going to bring out the best ideas isn't it. 

OK supposing each bidder comes up with a different new idea which because they are in the bid must seem viable to the bidders and would either increase their premium or reduce the subsidy.

How do you chose the "best"? Then disard 3 other viable "new ideas".

I believe First put in through trains from Bolton (and other places) in their WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) bid, which Virgin didn't, will DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about)  put those in the new  specification? Does anyone know if there were any other new ideas in the other two bids? 

As for local groups not realising consultation is going on were they told? Did they understand the implications of the documents.

I couldn't understand the implications for   stopping pattern of trains at  Taplow in the consultation document! Maybe I'm thick but it's not terribly obvious being in the form of the number of stops but not for one station but groups. See another post somewhere where someone kindly tried to explain to me.

[grahame]

Andrew Murrison, MP^▸ (Member of Parliament), will be at Westbury Station tomorrow morning at 08:20 for an "event" (that's the word I'm given).  Probably to talk to commuters and help raise the profile of the issue ...

[Chris from Nailsea]

Hmm.

At the moment, I can't find any press coverage of that 'event' - and there's no mention of it on Andrew Murrison MP^▸ (Member of Parliament)'s own website, either.