Conduct a street audit near you and send it to your local councillor. They are elected by you and therefore have a responsibility to take note of your concerns. Find out who your local councillor is by searching according to your postcode at www.upmystreet.com.

TravelWatch have issued a response to the article in The Times in which they say that after a series of talks FGW have agreed to withdraw the threat.

It makes me feel uneasy to think that a company who are clearly profiting greatly from providing a public service feel it perfectly reasonable to make the threat of legal action against the ‘watchdog’ that monitors service and performance on behalf of its customers (passengers). While I do not in any way advocate the incorrect pedaling of ‘facts’ I cannot help but think that this was a muscle-flexing exercise rather than one aiming to reveal the truth.

The daily experiences of those who used services on the First Great Western network in and outside London clearly demonstrate general levels of disappointment at the service provided. It is not possible to measure this ‘accurately’. It is much easier to get worked up about a delay or cancellation than an entire journey that runs on time, makes connections and is on a train with ample capacity for people and luggage, that is clean, not too hot and stuffy and with seats, aisles and windows that are clean and in a good state of repair (and perhaps even with a buffet cart that doesn’t aim to sell you Stella or Coke for breakfast).

All too often the indicators used in creating statistics which measure ‘service’ do not take into account the whole experience of the passenger from buying tickets to arriving at the destination (“that’s a different company, not our responsibility”). Of course reliability and punctuality are fundamental but on whose terms are these measured? At the moment passengers cannot claim any recompense for a delay of less than one hour. Therefore is a service reliable if it gets you to your destination anything up to 60 minutes later than you planned?

Yet we are in a position where we are squeezed into a corner, stuck with arguing about the technicalities of Service Level Commitments, themselves set by people who are unlikely to use the service, nor have made an effort to get to know the communication needs of difference places – or rather they have in terms of consulting with ‘partners’ and ‘stakeholders’ but little is actually acted upon, giving the illusion that views have been taken on board hiding the real desire for providing a minimum service (cheapest) for maximum profit.

Those who set the commitment (government) and those who are charged with providing it (train operators) too frequently pass the buck from one to another when problems are raised with little recourse to users. In addition, those independent bodies such as local authorities and watchdogs claim they have little influence or power to make a difference. So where are the facts in all this? What is the truth of it all and will we ever be in a position to raise criticism, and have it received without it being either stonewalled or countered with legal threats?

I am, at least, now hoping that travelling from north to south and south to north of the county will become a priority especially as so many services are based in mid and north Wiltshire, such as the Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre in Chippenham. Will I have to leave the county to reach there from Salisbury or else take a bus and change in Devizes? Is this really improved access to facilities and services?

To be continued.

There is no doubt that the motor lobby in this country enjoys the ears of the powers that be far more than people like us, often thought of in the same way as a special-interest group (who ought to just stop complaining and pay for it all themselves) rather than people who can see that vastly improved railways could solve many of the problems the country as a whole suffers due to car-abuse. Aren’t rail users also tax-payers?

It is worth noting that I am not a rail campaigner because I am anti-car (I am not). I am simply appalled by the way so many people, mostly very intelligent, who abuse their privilege to drive, then complain about traffic and the costs of petrol and road pricing but do not a) realise they are part of the problem, or b) consider what alternatives might exist or, c) if the alternatives are unpalatable, try and do something about it like lending support to campaigns such as CANBER and starting their own. The latter can be done with a simple letter to your MP and local councillors expressing your disappointment at public transport provision in your area. Imagine the changes we could make if every MP and councillor in the country was lobbied likewise.

The question is: did other regular services suffer?

All these are congestion issues that need to be addressed. However much I find it distasteful at how much attention London rail users receive compared with the paucity of attention given to regional rail users, I see how their needs have overshadowed those of others (something to do with few people generating lots of money).

However, the only way the benefit of these projects will be felt into the future is if they form the ideological basis for rehauling the railways across the country, opening up new lines, bringing freigh lines to passenger standard, and reintroducing older disused lines with proper funding. London does not have to be Britain’s only major financial centre. Connecting other centres together more effectively will improve the quality of life for workers and their families and reduce the need to travel for hours to and from the capital.

Relieving congestion in London and Birmingham will do nothing to get people using the railways elsewhere. Why are bypasses still being considered, centrally funded and built when it is such a well-known fact that their effectiveness is merely a band-aid on a knife-wound? Why are rail users expected to pay for improvements on the railways and trains with above-inflation fare increases when motorists are not expected to contribute to their grossly larger negative impact on the environment and communities? Why was road pricing shelved? Why can’t we all pay more for the petrol we use so that the funds generated can go to creating a rail network which works across the country and connects the most deprived and remote areas of people to jobs and leisure?

We can all help make it so by maintaining pressure on ministers, MPs, councillors, train operators and potential rail commuters to see rail improvements as the only viable solution to road congestion and environmental sustainability.

That would be like adding about 18p on petrol duty.

I’d pay it for a fantastic rail service and £4 billion ought to cover it.

14 May 2007

Dear all,

I am writing to query why the new May 2007 timetable retains the 60 %
reduction in services that connected Salisbury, Melksham and Swindon
and intervening stations on the ‘TransWilts’ line. This was a
well-used service and the only viable way of getting from south to
north Wiltshire via public transport. This service, according to the
Rail Regulator saw in increase in its use by an average of 35% per
year prior to the cuts. Why has this deficit not been remedied in
this timetable?

Wiltshire desperately needs a better public transport infrastructure.
Currently, I have to leave the county and re-enter it (via Bath
usually) to visit my sister in Chippenham, almost adding an hour to
the normal journey on a direct service.

With Wiltshire County Council’s Unitary Bid still on the cards, I
cannot see how the county could be serious about functioning as a
coherent whole without this vital link. The roads in, out and within
the county are full of unnecessary traffic because the rail options
are so poor. The TransWilts line needs support now. Why not
introduce a decent service including late evening trains between
Salisbury and Swindon, taking in Dilton Marsh on request?

I trust you will seriously consider re-establishing this service in
the near future.

I have copied this to my MP Robert Key (Salisbury) for his reference.

Yours sincerely,

Tehmina Goskar

Be enlightened. Come and take part. Stop moaning and actually do something to help save your train service.

We only have about 13,000 dairy farmers left in Britain and there is a very real danger of losing all milk production in a few years time. The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) are making a piddly £1.3m available to dairy farmers to “address issues of efficiency.” Defra refuse to introduce a milk regulator and insist price negotiations should be a private commercial matter that government cannot get involved in so long as competition rules are being adhered to, however they continue to increase the burden of rules and regulations onto dairy farmers who cannot take the burden of the cost anymore.

How can Defra be singing from the same hymn sheet? On the one hand, this is a key department responsible for pushing forward plans to reduce carbon emissions and find more sustainable ways of producing energy, on the other, they are quite happy to ‘let markets decide’ where our milk comes from (even if that means yet more food miles). Cretinous.