Not sure ... it's certainly less bad than some (FGW^▸ (First Great Western) seem to have their heart in the long distance stuff much more) but I was reading tales of people standing all the way from London to Plymouth when browsing the other day ... so it wasn't really adequate that day ....

On the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) contacts page there are no email addresses given but it does add

NB email addresses: firstname.lastname@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Excellent idea to add in the DfT staff ... I should modify the board name, perhaps?

Well ... I want to help with the campaign all around ... I guess I'll make it if I can.   No suitable train for me, of course (I would have to leave Melksham on the 07:17!) and even the buses don't look brilliiant.   Guess First won'e be geting my fare if I can make it along.

Thanks, Lee .... you'll find that they didn't even bother to lay on a bus yesterday and passengers from Melksham had to phone up to get them to arrange a taxi.   I think I could describe the treatment given to the people of Melksham as an "insult" and a "slap in the face".

I'm looking at fares for this Saturday from Hungerford to Paddington; feeling that the 41 pounds from Chippenahm to Paddington is a bit steep for my two departing clients, and that 18.50 from Hungerford will be much more to their taste.  But - gosh - I'm suprised I can get a return for 18.60 - just 10 pence more! I'm tempted - very tempted - to join them for a day in London before they fly out in the evening from Heathrow.

Hi, Mike ... and welcome.    We'll welcome your personal and professional input here ... many of us are not travel / transport experts, but we think that even us passengers / customer can smell some fishy things and poor practises at times!

Regretably, there seems to be a lot of "hype" in what the train oprating company is telling us they're doing - statements seem to be emphasise / stretch the positive and ignore the negative, even when specifically asking a question about the negative.   So I'm afraid that I'm not surprised about trains being shorter than you feel we've been lead to believe.

But I have a further question - do the trains 2 coach trains get overcrowded?  And if they don't, is that because passengers have been driven away?   If the answer is "no" and "no", then First would have my support in running reduced length trains at quieter times of day.   If the answer to either part of thr question is "yes", then, naughty.

Hi, I'm Graham Ellis. I've been in the "IT" industry for 30+ years, and I live in Melksham, Wiltshire. I run specialist training courses here and many of my customers (or until last December, they came) by train - some local journeys from Swindon, South Wales, etc.  Many from London and other from places further afield including airport stations.  And a good proportion of my courses are held "on site" so I travel around - to London, to Oxford, and a variety of other journeys, none of which is a regular daily commute.   Where practical and cost effective, I use the train ... but I'm not against using the bus or car if they're a better option.

In the summer of '05, I saw a letter in the local press saying how the train service that my business relied upon was to be taken off at the end of '06, and that a minimal replacement service would be offered.  Consultation had already happened (I have SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) to DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) papers under Freedon of Information thet report discusssions of how to minimise the consultation) and we were told "too late", but never the less, you have to try, don't you?   And so started the "Save the Train" campaign.   

First objective - to get the powers that be to actually be AWARE of the "TransWilts" line.  Second objective - to give it serious consideration and work out what an appropriate service is. Third objective - to provide that service. Fourth objective - to support and sustain that service.

First objective, reasonably achieved.  Second - I think we're getting there. We had a long period of defensive tactics, referring back to ancient figures and decisons but I think - at last - we're moving forward.   Pity about the current service gap on the line, but we've now got a better-than-previous chance of getting a service back before Christmas.  I look forward to helping with objective No. 4!

On the personal side, you can read more about me on these links:

http://www.grahamellis.co.uk
http://www.wellho.net
http://www.wellhousemanor.co.uk

Yes - that last IS a hotel web site.  We've changed our business model, with the balance being tipped by the train service loss. I sit here on Monday morning no going down to meet the train from Swindon (which is too early and was cancelled anyway!) but with the smell of fresh bread from the kitchen, and with the sound of delegate who arrived yesterday stirring in their rooms.

It seems that I've run quite an effective campaign, and I've been asked to provide boards / information as it relates to other services.   And thus the site www.firstgreatwestern.info.  The key players are the same across many lines and services, though the issues differ.  And I'm happy to host / monitor a site for the customer / passenger, with contributions by the customer / passenger.

It seems to me that the big voices that have influence are the Department for Transport with an apparent objective that's more financial than service based, and the First group who's main objective and responsibility is to their shareholders.   Perhaps we can help redress that just a little in the interest of balance and - for the future - to the mutual benefit of all parties.

Graham Ellis
Melksham, 5th February 2007.

A  column on page 9 under the headline "Steaming Ahead".    Under a much bigger piece on a campaign against road deaths.   Yes, that's me!  I should probably do a "bio" ...

We need to have the historic discussions - yes - but we need to look forward.  For today, I don't care who's to blame for the mess we're in.   Please - if you haven't done so already, add YOUR name to the nearly 1600 who have signed my petition calling on the Prime Minister to provide an appropriate service when and where it's needed by the travelling public.

Please link to ... http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/wessextrains/ ....

(When I started this petition as a private individual from home, I felt I would be lucky to get a few hundred names.    The PM's web site only requires 100 signatures to take a petition seriously enough to provide an official answer.  500, I felt would be nice.  1000 - beyond my dreams.    Well - it's caught the imagination.  We have 8 MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament, or Mile Post (a method of measuring the railway in miles and chains from a starting point - usually London), depending on context), 5 MEPs^▸ (Member of European Parliament), lots of councillors, many well know names - either from life in general or transport / railway circles - and hosts and hosts of people like you and me who use the train, need the train .... but are usually just another face in the crowd.     If you've signed already - THANK YOU. If not, yes, YOUR voice is important ... please do.   You've only got until Wednesday though)

A fare structure which offers some 6 or 7 different return fare options on a journey from Melksham to London (the case I know best) seems overcomplex already ... and then when you spot it says "two single fares may be cheaper" and click on that link you get over 20 more options ... has to be considered "confusing" at best.

When you them find that there are other fares there but not on the system too, and that the staff themselves don't know it as well as they should either (I have examples), then to say "some controversy" is likely to be a bit of an understatement

Thanks, Lee .... I note that compaints entered on that site ARE forwarded to the relevant train companies.

In terms of letting people know when you feel something's gone wrong, we have ...

* Groups such as ours, Railvoice and others who can pass things on
* Customer services at the individual train companies
* Directors and managers directly at the train companies
* Directors of the train operating company's parent organsation
* Department for Transport (I feel a who's who coming up!)
* Office of the Rail Regulator
* Passenger Focus
* The railway, local and natonal press
* Your MP^▸ (Member of Parliament, or Mile Post (a method of measuring the railway in miles and chains from a starting point - usually London), depending on context).

Each tends to have its own specifics in terms of what effect it can have, whether you're looking to sort out an individual case, how much clout  you have. 

It's probably a very good thing that there's no single place for these inputs, but - my goodness - which to use in which case?

A short quote for critical review from Christian's article:

"I must say, this statement [Alison Forster ... we underestimated demand] is barely credible. First have been running this franchise for ten years and the bidding process requires a huge level of detail about individual passenger flows. The truth is far more likely to be that First hoped to get away with a series of cost saving measures imposed on people travelling at peak times on various unprofitable short journeys. .... First clearly their cuts would pass off with little protest. It was not demand the company underestimated, but the passengers^ reaction!"

Yes, I think that's the crux of the matter.   Christian's article describes how First put in a bid so high that they had to squeeze the passengers .... so it's very much their choice that they're in this mess.  I do understand (point made in other threads) that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) controls the chains they're tied up in - but FgW chose to bid for and specify those chains in the first place.

CJ, Welcome to the forums, and many thanks for providing some fuel for our discussions.   I've had a look through some of your blog (indeed, I was very tempted to copy large chunks of it but that would be against copyright) and you put the case - very well - for pointing fingers at the Department for Transport.  Very little I can fault in your writings.

BUT (that had to come, didn't it?) First put their name in the bidding process to a flawed operation - they chose to do so and to some extent or other accept the responsiblity.  They took the King's shilling, without duress and they negotiated their contract.  I get offered jobs from time to time that I'll turn around and say "no bid" to, or "I can do that IF it's a bit different" and that option, was, I'm sure open to First.  Now that they have accepted the contract, they accept responsibility - they're not children where we can say "never mind", kiss and make up.

In balance (ah, so difficult in a debate), I think I come down slighly more to laying the current ills at the door of the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) rather than First, but now overwhelmingly so.   And I see both organisations as the legitimate recipients of suggestions, complains, requests for change; not only are both responsible for the current situation and service levels, but both have to work together to resolve it in the best possible way.

I was at the Bradford on Avon celebrations (evening) on Friday, and I looked forward to the 200th anniversary.  Unless something better comes along to replace the train, let's hope that we DO have a train service then and that it's not been overspend, overmilked and micromanaged out of existance.

Hi, Lee -  thanks for the intro and all your posts to help us start up.    There's such a lot to do ... the new December timetable was 10 steps backwards and we've taken since then - just - one step forward (I'm counting from the passenger's viewpoint here - this IS a passenger site) so we've still got nine to go ... and perhaps more beyond that as we encourage a sensible service for the future, nit just the current