"Information at the Station".

The requirement, and the story so far (written 19.4.2026)

There's been a recognised need to have a more friendly station area, and better public transport information in Melksham, for many years. The "Melksham Hub Cafe" was opened shortly after covid by our line partneship - but the timing was wrong and it closed. However, the need has not gone away, the building has sat unused, and every week we see posts like "how do I get the bus/train to ..." and "I am retired and looking to volunteer/for social company". So we consider the absence of local advise in person and the lack of re-assurance for transport users something of a passing phase rather than a permanence.

In January (this year, 2026), Great Western Railway called for bids for their Customer and Community Infrastructure Fund (CCIF) with a short timeline for applications, and we at MTUG concluded that the time's now right to help join up public transport and make it more accessible in the Melksham area. And so "Information at the Station" was born, research done, a proposal and business case written, and support sought. An impressive array of stakeholder was quickly built up, and a case submitted by the end of January - copy online at https://www.mtug.org.uk/mtug_ccif_2026.pdf

On 16th April, we heard that our bid had not been successful. Fair enough - we know the project had unknowns when we bid, and that this fund is always oversubscribed - GWR have confirmed as much, and correspondence over the last couple of days has clarified the matters they saw as weaknesses in our January submission. see foot of page for detail. I am - delighted - that there are no "show stoppers" in there, and indeed the outcome and comments strengthen us to move forward.

Plans proceed, and we look forward to going ahead this summeer

Looking Forward (MTUG, 19.4.2026)

Information at the Station
* Share the news just added to this page
* Update the business case, plans, proposal; Melksham Town Council (to whom we applied for match funding have postponed all grant decisions from March to June, and that gives us a window to do this
* Update the landlord of the building and indeed continue details discussion. We may now be in a position to commit which we could not to prior to last Thursday.

Timetable brochure - May edition
* Timetable left the printers 17.4.2026 and should reach us on Monday 20th.
* It will be in the TIC, Library, and council offices by Wednesday
* Article submitted to MIN for this week suggesting people pick it up
* Will also advertise online
* In early May will hand out in person at the station prior to train changes on 17th May

60 years on
It is 60 years since Melksham Station closed, and just over 40 years since it re-opened. We have come a long way in the last 20 years - from just 2 trains a day to 9, from 3,000 journeys a year to 60,000 - but we still have a long way to go. Elements needed to bring that about:
* A more frequent service, preferably the same time in each hour
* Connecting transport within the Melksham area to and from people's homes
* Better information / more friendly public transport
Significant work needs to be done to allow more trains reliably and that's the hardest call - see https://www.mtug.org.uk/sixty_years_on.pdf. We are working towards better transport / access to the station - leveraging housing development. And "Information at the Station", Timetable brochures, etc, are addressing the information gap.

And Also
* Newsletter covering many much wider issues out within a few day.
* Also advanced publicity for Manvers Street / Bath - closed from 26.5 until November

Why our CCIF bid was not granted

Lessons to remember as we move one, written 18th April 2026

In January (this year, 2026), Great Western Railway called for bids for their Customer and Community Infrastructure Fund (CCIF) with a short timeline for applications, and we at MTUG concluded that the time's now right to help join up public transport and make it more accessible in the Melksham area. And so "Information at the Station" was born, research done, a proposal and business case written, and support sought. An impressive array of stakeholder was quickly built up, and a case submitted by the end of January - copy online at [xxxx].

Late last week, we heard back from GWR, thanking us for our application. They write "We were genuinely pleased to receive such a wide range of thoughtful and high‑quality submissions this year. Unfortunately, this also meant we had to make some very difficult decisions." and "After careful consideration, we are sorry to say that we will not be able to fund your project on this occasion. We fully appreciate how disappointing this news may be, especially given the time and care that goes into preparing a bid. The current financial climate has made the selection process even more challenging, and we were faced with many strong proposals competing for limited resources." and "Please know that this decision does not reflect a lack of value in your project."

I confess I'm not surprised at this outcome; it has slipped in past years that the fund was ten times oversubscribed, and there were elements of our proposal which - in January - had significant unknowns and risk. We haven't stopped - we have worked forward to firm up on those unknowns and successfully reduce those risks, without being able under the CCIF terms to actually commit to anything. We did feed updates back to GWR and whilst they were politely acknowledged, we got no indication as to how much, if at all, that extra data was considered; no questions raised on either the proposal or the follow ups. The nature of the beast?

CCIF was just one of a dozen potential seed funding sources listed for "Information at the Station" which even on a pessimistic business plan would pay its way once up and running. Grant funding sources and their availability are always going to be fickle at time of application, and the proposal was written with a less than even expectation of any particular one(s) coming in. And the list of potentials was in any case trimmed, as it's not really a clever idea to ask "X" to fund you while providing them with a long, long list of other funders you have or could explore, and on that basis, I'm happy that we move forward, disappointed for sure but in some ways almost comforted by the relaxation of some constraints that CCIF monies would have brought onto us.

Since we heard back from GWR, in a form letter to all unsuccessful bidders, I have corresponded with them enquiring as to the elements which they saw which lead them not to chose us. And I am looking at those lessons now to help them bring even more strength to the ongoing "Information at the Station" project. Here - once only - are the three issues that GWR highlighted:

a) Lack of clarity on the budget / where the money would go. Noted; our proposal had a big unknown in the rental cost for the building, which has now been clarified. And further market research has also helped us clarify further. Building terms and conditions allow us to add some certainty to what we'll be doing and an updated proposal written today would be much clearer. We will do this as we progress other grant and sponsorship channels.

b) We are told it was unclear in our management summary as to how "Information at the Station" would specifically benefit customers of GWR, even though it's acknowledged that such data was available within the 26 pages of detail. Fair enough; back to my "sales training" and making sure that I sell the benefits of to the reader in the reader's terms - hit them in the face with it, rather than letting (or hoping) that they see it from the feature-rich (perhaps over-rich and over-long) description

c) I will quote "Printed information at stations is challenging for us to support, as we are unable to provide leaflet stands or similar materials due to government customer service quality requirements, particularly at unstaffed stations". OK - that's from left field. Past experience at Melksham means we are all too aware of the danger of leaving leaflets out at unmanned stations and it was never our intention to do so at the station, nor across the way outside the Information point. Only one reference in the proposal to printed material - "A handful of chairs and a couple of tables will be available. There are already high-bench shelves in the building and those will both house the compact range of leaflets we have available and provide extra seating should that be practical" and I am struggling to understand how that gives any suggestion of loose leafletting.

Where, I confess, I was expecting kickback was on clarification that our information will be provided as helpful suggestions and pointers, and we won't be able to represent the public transport service providers, and also that the proposal didn't fully address volunteer and other safeguarding and training - topics that were very much in our experienced mind than need(ed) to be addressed but would have made the proposal even longer.

There was also potential kickback in having an information point which takes helps passengers find the most appropriate public transport and fares for their journey. People often buy more expensive ticket than rangers, rovers and super-off-peaks simply because they don't know of the better value options. And from Melksham Station, headed for Bath (for example) best advise is often going to be to catch the bus. There's an irony in that if Information at the Station is not railway funded, we will be able to be more passenger focused and won't be limited - as ticket offices are, for example, in the legitimate lower fare alternatives we point out.

Enough said in review.

Top of this page