Some really good questions asked of me, looking forward for rail to, from and within our region - with a bias in answer (but not in suggestions which are for the greater good of a wider area) to the Melksham and Devizes constituency. Questions forwarded to me for my thoughts at a constituency level. Current stations are at Bradford-on-Avon, Melksham and Avoncliff, with a strong proposal for a new station at Devizes Gateway.

Shared here on The Coffee Shop - which was not the original target "publication" medium - for informed discussion and more permanence than elsewhere.
 
There are no simple answers - much of this is a matter of degree, and answers interact.  And it depends on how far you want to look ahead, and what your objectives for rail actually are.  These things have different views - "what are we looking to achieve" and different compromises.

If you prefer to read this as a .pdf / download a copy, it is mirrored at https://www.passenger.chat/mirror/ge_answersforMP_20260619.pdf

Before jumping in too deep ... these answers written by Graham Ellis in midJune 2026. I was an IT trainer by career, setting up and running my own training company to teach niche programming languages which had heavy use on the web. Our delegates came from far and wide, typically stayed locally. So we opened accommodation for business guests, something between a B&B and a hotel, and my travelled locally which is were and how I got involved - 20 years ago - in the campaign for an approprite public transport train service for Melksham.  Cutting a long story short, we (Lisa and I) retired slightly before Covid, having ranked #1 of places to stay in Melksham, run an independent business for 25 years, served as president of the Chamber of Commerce, and so on.  The hotel and training went with retirement and that has left me much more time to dedicate to public transport campaigning.

As with the training and hotel operation, I thrive on a thorough learning and understanding of my subject which now includes knowing a bit about buses, trains, my home town and area, planning, managing teams of volunteers, etc.  Public transport campaigning is a bit like an onion in layers; I am chair of the Melksham Transport User Group, on the commitee of the West Wiltshire Rail User Group, and a director of TravelWatch SouthWest which covers everywhere from Gloucester and Swindon to Penzance. But what I write below is from a personal view and not signed off by any of those organisations; that said, I can't think where they may disagree.

To keep this readable, I have not quoted references and sources - but please ask if you would like them / to know more. And it's all written "E&OE" - Errors and Omissioms Excepted.  Done my best, no absolute legal guarantee of accuracy, but I think it's pretty close.

>> *** Would new B&W Metro services require revenue subsidy as well as capital expenditure on infrastructure interventions and rolling stock leasing?
>>
>> Only if operated by GBR or a legacy franchise.
>> If run as open access, an Anchor Investor is far more valuable than subsidy.

Rail finances are complex.  The service has to be paid for, and typically it's form the farebox for part / most / all of the revenue costs.  Rail travel is typically MASS transit and the cost per passenger mile should decrease as the number of passenger miles increases.  A full 4 coach train does NOT cost twice what a full 2 coach train costs to run, and a line maintained for a service every two hours is not half the cost of a line maintained for a service every hour.

Investment "up front" can in some circumstances give rise to reduced operating costs. Modern trains, especially if they are designed to turn around quickly, low maintenance and fuel costs, clean and light win out over trains that are the opposite - you could characterise the current fleet as time-expired, requiring higher maintenance, etc.  But the current fleet is streets ahead of steam trains / locomotives.  Running trains on electricity would make sense - that really moves the generations to other central points rather than onboard each train which happens with the current fleet - the wheels are turned by electric motors using electricity generated on board from diesel fuel.

But is an investment in a superbly efficient system going to generate enough in the farebox to pay full operational cost, and on top of that going to produce enough to compensate the investor?  If the investor is a private / public company one, they will have one objective set; if they are a local authority / development corporation with an interest in the longer term and wider good to the are, they will perhaps have another and that will effect what they encourage / support/ will pay for.  There is also the question of the taxation and regulation base under which they operate, and under which other competing and supporting travel and other systems operate.

>> *** Does Network Rail modelling show capacity for an hourly TransWilts with minimal interventions on Melksham branch?
>>
>> No, 2023 modelling only supported maximum of 0.75 trains per hour.
>> Capacity has worsened since 2023 due to constraints between Thingley and Wootton Bassett Jns, which functionally form part of the Melksham branch because there is nowhere to wait for a path.

Hmmm - lies, damned lies and statistics. With no other trains around (!) an hourly Swindon -> Westbury service each way would be practical. To make it clockfaced it would need 3 trains to do it even though the total (90 minute) running time suggests just 2, and that's because with a two train operation they would need to pass each other on the single line.  With 3 trains, with all that "slack" at the ends ... any delays would be recoverable over a short elapsed time - minimal knock ons for many hours. And the single line is only occupied for around two thirds of the time. But this cloud cuckoo land.

There are indeed more trains running now between Thingley and (Royal) Wootton Bassett, and that has an effect on the timetabling and capacity of the single line.  For example, the new Bristol -> Oxford service, whilst overdue and very welcome, has taken the path of the 17:35 key commuter train and to that has to run 10 minutes later. Fortunately that change could be accommodated, and double fortunately a commute from Trowbridge and Melksham to Oxford has become practical - a wider gain.  Further fortune is that better connections, Melksham <-> Bristol Temple Meads are offered by the new trains.

Yes - there is a problem with knitting in the TransWilts service from Thingley Junction up to RWB, and there is also a problem knitting it in from Bradford Junction to Westbury.  Again, there is nowhere for trains to wait for the single line, or for a path off the single line onto the main line. Do note that Bradford Junction to Westbury is also a busy line, and MetroWest, though welcome, has added another train each way every hour.

Both Thingley and Bradford Junctions are on the flat, so train from the Melksham direction to Swindon also have to find a gap to "nip" across, as do trains from Westbury headed via Melksham.  But at Thingley, there's a significant distance of wrong-line running necessary - substantial, so "nipping across" is not the right term.

In this complex knitting, there is massive problem with freight trains that are woven in, but can turn up late - and sometimes even early.  And a further problem at times of disruption where diverted passenger trains have to be accommodated - often at short notice and inconvenient times.  Realistically, the line can handle one train each way every 35 minutes if they are ready and waiting to go, and can get off quickly. With the signalling as it is, no reduction in the headway time can be made (no capacity gain) by sending trains "in flights" following one another.

>> *** Is Westbury Platform 0 really the key capacity unlock for Melksham?
>> Not universally accepted and this should be challenged.
>> 2023 performance review already unlocked significant capacity on existing platforms through:
>>> Reduced dwell times
>>> Better station staff deployment for prompt dispatch
>> Similar or greater benefit could come from:
>>> A second signal block on the Melksham branch
>>> Allowing trains to wait beyond Bradford Junction rather than occupying Westbury
>>> Clearing Melksham–Chippenham earlier so following trains can leave the main line
>> Larger constraints are Wootton Bassett, Bradford, and Thingley junctions — none allow waiting or passing.

There are a number of aspects constraining an increase in passenger trains through Melksham.  "Something" needs to be done about the series of awkward operational points and log jams along the way.  They do not all need fixing, but some of them really do. And bear in mind that it's not just the operational convenience / robustness of the existing Swindon services at Melksham that are effected. Also consider that an extra platform brings benefits on top of timetable operation - for example it will allow for routine same-platform changes in both directions - Swindon->Weymouth train and Bristol->Southampton on either side of a platform.  It ail also save those incidents where a train has to wait for a platform or is timetabled to arrive just onto a platform that has only just been vacated by a train people could usefully change onto.

"Greater reliability" was achieved (or, rather it was a goal at Warminster and Westbury) from last December by culling a passenger train.   Which means that the people of Dilton Marsh no longer have a proper train or connection from Salisbury from 16:45 to 19:14.  Sure - withdraw trains and you won't need capacity improvements.  This is really tweaking at the edges though - all sorts of fiddling to try to avoid replacing the line along the fourth platform.  Make other interventions by all means, but all you do is make for a tighter bottleneck at Westbury.

The whole thing gets tighter when you increase ANY service - be it to Weymouth, doubling to hourly, or London (and on to the West Country?) doubled to hourly. And tighter still if you turn services around there. Some services already turn at Warminster and Frome, but neither of these is ideal either. The single platform at Frome has other trains using it (and perhaps more in the future) and at Warminster a shunt is needed which slows down the turn around - 3 stops not 1 - and it has to be done on the main lines.

Other aspects - you have listed - that will make a capacity and reliability difference would include:
* Junction improvements at Thingley and Bradford (places to hold trains off the main lines, higher speed, faster crossover facilities to let trains run at or near line speed, and even "flying" junctions
* Intermediate signalling to allow two trains to follow each other at reduced headway
* One or two intermediate loops to allow trains to pass each other. This / these could also allow a train to be held out o the way (overtaken) and would provide an intermediate signal allowing closer headway as a consequence.
* Although it is well away from the single line, a flying junction at Royal Wootton Bassett would also make a differernce

At Chippenham, the main lines are "bidirectional" to Swindon though in practise the distance without the ability to cross back is so long it is rarely if ever used in normal operation. At Trowbridge, the lines are NOT bidirectional into the platforms and this means that in an emergency trains cannot be turned back there. They CAN be reversed on the main line just south of Bradford Junction.

>> *** If signalling money is spent at Westbury, what else should be fixed?
>>
>> Add a signal block at Bradford Junction.
>> Ideally also Thingley, though it’s on a different panel.
>> Resignal Frome North sidings to allow waiting and passing.

Apart from the single line and signalling of it, and the signals that will be needed for a new platform, there are very long sections between signals from Avoncliff to Bathampton and south of Westbury towards Salisbury, and these could usefully be fixed.

The outer track "behind" platform 0 is usually used only for freight and indeed cannot be used for passenger trains. It may make sense to allow passenger trains to use it - not normal daily operation but there are times it would have been very useful!  Also useful for excursions and diverted long distance trains not calling, especially if platform 0 does not get re-instated!

If Chetnole, Thornford, Yetminster and Dilton Marsh are to remain as request stops (but Dilton Marsh should not!), customer buttons on the platform to let signaller and train staff know there are waiting passengers would be a good idea - this is being done now at stations like Lochluichart

It was in 1990 at the last resignalling that the line across Bradford Junction linking the Melksham and Bradford-on-Avon was taken out. Many people have asked for a re-opening.  In regular passenger service, only useful if the service through Melksham becomes much more frequent as we do not want to divert services and thin out Chippenham -> Melksham -> Trowbridge provision.  However if 2 trains an hour or better are running, it would make huge sense. Will also be good at times of diversion.

Resignal Bradford Junction to Westbury bidirectional. North of Bradford Junction??

>> *** How advanced are Devizes Gateway and Corsham?
>>
>> Devizes Gateway: well advanced.
>> Corsham: less certain (unless new info exists).
>> A Wootton Bassett station could deliver patronage and capacity benefits, unlocking:
>>> Corsham
>>> Melksham
>>> Somerton and Langport
>>> Bathampton

"More" or "Less" advanced is difficult to quantify - there is no absolute measure.  The GRIP process (Governance for Railway Investment Projects) sets 8 steps along the way and they give an overview - https://www.railengineer.co.uk/grip-governance-for-railway-investment-projects-process-explained/ - however, the steps are not equal and the relative lengths vary between the projects too.

Both Devizes Gateway and Corsham are new stations which are more complex service wise than just adding stops on existing services.  You need to look at what would stop, how it would occupy the line and eat up paths, and how it would slow down the journey times for people on those trains that could call.  Both have lots of passenger trains going through - more than enough - but it would be a very difficult case to ask for a superfast train to call at either of them.  Corsham and Devizes would not offer the same number of passengers as Bath or Taunton do.   Both Devizes and Corsham DO have a service that's semi-fast that passes through every two hours - would that be enough?  Would more trains be needed?

When we were looking at Melksham Station service improvements between 2006 and 2013, we were offered a service every couple of hours in the middle of the day, but with a gap at peak times as it would have used a spare train when it was not wanted elsewhere.  We concluded that this was not going to be viable - below the threshold at which the service would grow.  Evaluation suggested that the minimum for it to be futile was a train every 2 hours and starting December 2013, that's what we had - initially a single carriage, now up to 2 or 3.  However, that's a minimum and for the service not merely to be viable but to flourish, the works suggested it needs to step up to hourly.  Just compare Melksham and Bradford-on-Avon station for passenger journey number and you'll see what a frequent service can bring.  I can give more specific data there if you like ...  where am I headed?  You might accept Corsham and Devizes Gateway station builds on the basis of calls by the Bristol -> Oxford and Paddington / semi-fast via Westbury services, both of which run every 2 hours. They will survive, but may not thrive, at that level.

A single extra station will rarely provide a full case for an extra train service, as trains are very much travel devices which combine a whole lot of flows onto a single transit vehicle. This also applies to buses, but is not usually the case for ferries and aircraft.  As an example, train services at Melksham are justified in part by journeys to and from Melksham, but there is a heavier traffic through from Chippenham and beyond to Trowbridge and beyond, and indeed at certain times there is also substantial traffic from Swindon just to Chippenham.

A Royal Wootton Bassett station was mooted as another potential traffic generator for the local TransWilts services as they were improved in 2013.   With a train only every 2 hours for the very short journey (everything else superfast at the time and no extra stop opportunity) and a very short journey into Swindon - the major identified direct flow it would have served - and with a frequent bus service, this was to some extent ruled out.  We then looked at our passenger flows to and from Swindon to Melksham, Trowbridge and Westbury and considered that the single carriage peak train at 17:35 (especially) could get absurdly overcrowded - and that is putting it kindly - with passengers there for 10 minutes, while denying travel to people headed further down the line with no alternative.  Hindsight suggests that latter was a wise reason to resist the request; I have memories of the train manager walking along outside the carriage, and shouting to people standing inside between the seats to move up so that more people could get on.

But times have moved on, and so have services and service plans.  With a train up to hourly from Swindon to Westbury, and hourly (planned for next year), that's 2 trains per hour rather than one every 2 hours Swindon -> RWB.  The TransWilts train is now 2 or 3 carriages, and experience shows a substantial flow of passengers joining it at Chippenham headed south, so although capacity would be needed SWI->RWB, it would share and make better use of the same seats used by the CPM->MKM/TRO flows.  And in that way, a really good benefit for those of us who want a better service at and through Melksham - sharing a train is huge sense.

I am less certain of data for Corsham, but it's predicted that they will have major flows west - to Bath, Oldfield Park and Bristol Temple Meads. So again those seats on that same train from Oxford to Bristol could be shared between SWI->RWB and Corsham->WestThereof flows.

To my knowledge, after much enthusiasm when it was proposed as a park and ride, Bathampton station has slid down the list.  The major service there would be two stopping trains from Bristol via Bradford-on-Avon in every hour, and with up to two more trains an hour is you read Network Rail and Bath and Wiltshire metro suggestions. No-one has yet pointed me to a major Bathampton eastwards flow, but that does not mean it does not exist; just that I have no evidence of flows to and from RWB or Swindon.  The Oxford -> Bristol service *could* call, though I wonder if it's turning far more into a local train than a semi-fast by doing so ... and that's if there's a platform on the main line.

I don't see Royal Wootton Bassett being an enhancer for Somerton and Langport or vice versa.  Bit of a stretch, than one.  Where Somerton and Langport would make a difference is Devizes Gateway, providing more shared traffic along the Reading -> Taunton route's intermediate stations, perhaps to the extent of making a business case for a service every hour from London, Reading and Newbury then all stations west (including the loop stations at Westbury and Frome) at least as far as Taunton.  With these services extended west and calling (but not terminating) at Westbury, there could be a slight reduction in platform occupancy at Westbury.  Just saying - it's a small factor there

>> *** Does 75% freight growth require full redoubling of the Melksham branch?
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>> Redoubling is consistent with that growth, but not required.
>>> Lower‑cost alternatives:
>>> Passing loops
>>> Junction redesign
>>> Resignalling
>> The real constraint is headway, not track length.
>> Example: Athelney is doubled, but 10+ minute headways still limit throughput.

"Not necessarily" is the right answer IMHO. Passing loops, signalling improvements, and junction redesign can all add substantially to the capacity, as can electrification to give trains a better performance envelope. Please remember that passing loops, if correctly signalled, can also be used as lay-by to let passenger trains pass freights headed in the same direction.

I am minded of Rheinfalls station that I used a couple of weeks ago. A single platform, four to six passenger trains stopping there in each hour, at least two express passenger trains passing through.  I can't answer for freight there.

On the Melksham "branch" as you call it (!) there are two expensive pinch points I am aware of to full redoubling - Melksham Station itself and the bridge over the River Avon at Staverton. Double the rest, sort out the junctions, allow for bidirectional running at the loops, and you're getting somewhere.  Signalling on the long ("dynamic") loops would help reduce the headway; intermediate signals on those loops worth a thought. 

A further thought - "75% freight growth".  Daytime or overnight?  How reliably will the freight trains turn up?  What will their running profile be - fast freights or relatively slow ones? These things make a differfence!

>> *** What does the delayed Wessex SMA and STB funding cut imply?
>>
>> Delay unsurprising in getting SMA
>> Ending funding for the two STBs is a shock. Hope that government reconsiders STB funding cut in light of slow progress creating SMAs

I am going to admit to being no expert here - you're asking me to comment while standing on thin ice.  In general, I have found it worthwhile to have ideas and plans "shovel ready" for when an opportunity arises.  Such planning has helped show a consistency of approach in the past (volunteers are often suspected of being inconsistent and this helps prove the opposite) and a plan that's only a year or two old can typically get a quick update.  Such consistent work and advocacy - qualified to ensure it does not include over-optimistic time lines - does wonders for local visibility too.

Graham Ellis
48 Spa Road, Melksham, SN12 7NY
graham@sn12.net
07974 925928 or 01225 708225

Edit to correct link broken on transfer from Facebook