Great Western Coffee Shop

I took a call yesterday evening from a somewhat unhappy gentleman. Looking for the Transport User's Consultative Committee / Rail Passengers Committee for Western England. These were set up in 1962 and lasted in some form until 2005.


Some functionality may now be found in Transport focus (formally Passenger Focus)


But is should be noted that it's characterised as a watchdog – with a slant towards handling failures to deliver to specification (pressing train operators to perform to contract) and to the generation of customer feedback information – where it does an excellent job.  It does now include fares within its remit, but it lacks a role in forward planning and feeding customer suggestions into the system.

So – my questioner asked me - "Where do I go to get my views heard – to have my inputs into the way the transport system I use will be in the future". I'm not sure that the Transport Users Consultative Committees were even the place, nor how effective they were; we tend to see things through rosy tinted spectacles, but certainly these days there is no such supposedly central point.

1. DfT and other consultations (e.g. Rail Delivery Group on fares)
2. Individual Train Operator "meet the manager" and "customer forum"s
3. Your local Passenger Transport Authority (e.g. WECA, Wiltshire Council)
4. Your Member of Parliament
5. Transport Focus
6. Your local Community Rail Partnership or Rail User Group
7. Your Local Enterprise Partnership

All of which make for a pretty un-coordinated set of inputs, a setup so complex that it's hard to know who to go to about what, and a system under which – whoever you approach – you can simply be referred on to someone else. You're also likely to register in a count of inputs (especially with a consultation) which various bodies, to varying degrees, use to confirm that they are meeting their obligations to listen to the public.  But make no mistake, it is difficult and expensive for these organisations to field the wide and wild variety of inputs they receive, most that come from individuals being good ideas to the originator, but failing in the practicality stakes because...
a) Won't work operationally
b) Cost a lot of money that has to come from somewhere / will lessen operator profit
c) Great for the proposer, but mucks things up for someone else / created more problems
d) Falls foul of legal hurdles
e) Doesn't fit longer term strategies
f) There's no-one charged with / willing and able to take it forward, or they don't have the staff
g) It would set a precedent that "they" are fearful of
h) Would not be popular with [name a noisy group / population segment]
i) Too much of a risk, especially if the proposer doesn't stick around to support
j) Based on factors that are far too optimistic (people say they will use, but don't)

OK. TravelWatch SouthWest. Not a replacement for the Consultative Committees, but it does provide a route through which (at the general meetings) all the various community groups can:
i) Meet up and make contacts
ii) Learn from each other and from transport industry folks and civil servants
iii) Set up their own follow ups – helping the best of cases to come together in a stronger combined case
TravelWatch also sets up occasional more specific meetings – covering whole-regional issues such as new rail franchises, or areas where new thinking / laws / regulation are on their way in.  Examples are the Bus Services Bill / Act work of last year, and the GWR and XC franchise consultations this year. Upcoming, eyes are on various elements such as the way infrastructure expenditure which was routed via EU regional development will go next year.  These extra elements give
iv) Combined inputs with some authority at critical times
v) Food for thought to groups and individuals who can support the common line that will work for everyone.

TravelWatch SouthWest is not a replacement for the TUCC – it lacks statutory powers and it's run very 'lightweight' by a team of volunteer directors with (in most cases) many years of experience, who are public transport advocates, and who are surprisingly capable of thinking and commenting outside the box, including being the 'critical friend'.  Gaps remain in community input / provision – such as guidance and training for newcomers, and indeed my role at TWSW to some extent helps move into that gap – having come up through the community route – I have no government nor rail industry experience.  We also have some excellent (but time limited) paid admin / organisational support - and with transport and executive experience that's put to good effect too.

Follow up question - "If you have no powers, [why] do government / rail listen to you, and can you get the likes of Mark Hopwood along to talk?"

It is in the common interest for public transport providers and their customer and potential customer base to co-operate on reaching mutual goals, and those goals line up / are mutual most of the time.  Far better for the providers to have well thought out and mutually compatible inputs than ideas that don't work with each other or can't be implemented, and far better for the interested customer to know how to tune his inputs (and where to make them) such that they are effective and can head towards a positive result.

It's rarely easy to get the top industry / government people to talk to you as an individual or a small local group
001) there are so many small local groups it would be less that efficient for them (leaving little time to do anything else)
010) meeting small local groups may be cause concerns that the meetings are more about protest than progress
011) local groups tend to overall be less fully informed, and an alternative representative may be better than the top poncho

So – yes, TravelWatch is listened to. That's a very very long way from saying "we get our way" but we do recognise some of our inputs in the ongoing franchise consultation responses and ITT projects, for example, and other steers behind the scenes may be noted in things like timetable and fare responses.  In the end, it's very hard to say that "X caused Y to happen" because it's all about teamwork, working together, partnership. And open partnership with ideas and comments flowing around.

---

Next TravelWatch general meeting - 6th October.  http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=19659

Comment / thoughts / corrections / additions to above most welcome

Part of the fight campaigners such as myself fought against the Closure Guidance changes of the mid-2000s was the associated neutering of the TUCC system. I wasn't hugely enamoured with TravelWatch SouthWest either during that period which also encompassed the battles against the December 2006 Draft FGW Timetable - They were pumping out some very heavily pro-FGW material, which was hardly surprising given the prominence of their bus and rail company sponsorship.

As those who know me will be aware, I do extensive research before I come to a definitive view on something, which means it generally takes an awful lot to convince me to change that view once I've formed it. However, I can honestly say that TravelWatch SouthWest is one of those rare examples of where my view has been changed.

When the TransWilts rail service was reduced to near-extinction in 2006, I uncovered significant evidence in Network Rail plans that part of the reason that TransWilts got nothing at all while others got at least some concessions was that the paths needed to be kept clear for a projected big increase in freight traffic. I detailed all this in my "The Freight Angle" series of articles at the time, but was generally dismissed as a conspiracy theorist by those higher up. However, at pretty much all of the public meetings I attended at the time, one such "higher-up" would always back me to the hilt when I raised the freight issue. His name was Chris Irwin, and he was the head of TravelWatch SouthWest during this period. He had taken the time to read all my articles, assessed them in depth, and was convinced that I was right.

His backing made a big difference to the credibility of how my case was viewed officially, and I'm sure helped to lead to Network Rail admitting their intentions in 2008. (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=2356.0) Since then there has been a far better level of open engagement between all the relevant parties, and policy to accommodate projected future passenger and freight growth is now increasingly focussed on the kind of necessary infrastructure enhancements that grahame and others have always advocated.

TravelWatch SouthWest as an organisation, and in terms of its output has definitely become more balanced over the years since as well, and that I'm sure is partly due to the inclusion of people like grahame on the board who you certainly cant consider to be bus/rail company yes-people.

I can also confirm that, whether as an individual or as a representative of an organisation such as TransWilts, CoffeeShop etc, I have always been granted an invitation to TravelWatch SouthWest events when I've requested one, and always been made to feel welcome at such events.

Grahame, I thought the Great Western Coffee Shop was the place to go with ideas about forward planning? ;)

Many a true word written in jest.

I tried in my original post to list those with official or mainstream roles / routes into the decision makers. The Coffee Shop is styled as a "by passengers, for passengers".   Exceptionally useful in helping inform each other, and surprisingly often read by those who do help decide on the route ahead, but I would discourage anyone from posting here and feeling that in doing so they have taken the appropriate steps to reach the people who matter.

Who knows, though, what the future holds? The Coffee Shop is planning ahead - see
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=20342.0
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=20324.0
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=20187.0
and whilst I am not pre-determining any outcome, it's quite possible that we take the exceptional route we took with the GW Franchise consultation and actively make other submissions.  Other doors may be available for us to open too based on these plans.

You'll note at the top of this thread, we come back (again) to the newcomer's questions "Who do I ask" and "How do I find out". Added to that are "How do I make my questions / inputs effective", "How do I get a result" and "How do I find others who might know" and I see a distinct place for the more technical end of the forum, and perhaps a mentoring/training wing.