Great Western Coffee Shop

At TravelWatch SouthWest yesterday, I listened to a very upbeat talk from Anthony Smith, Chief Executive of Passenger Focus.

Passenger Focus states on its web site:

We are an independent public body set up by the Government to protect the interests of Britain's rail passengers.

And Anthony talked about how they're doing this - showed us some impressive survery results, which I applaud.  However ... their surveys and the data that they collect is taken on-train, and so it is strictly - as it says - a Rail Passenger survey, and it takes no account at all of former customers who have been priced off the trains, or have had services withdrawn from under their feet so that they are no longer rail passengers.   In my view, a survey would be of far more use in helping Government, Network Rail and Train Operating Companaies adjust and plan for the future is it was a Rail Travel survey that took into aproproiate account all the groups, and did not arbitarily exclude those people who are so pi**ed off with the trains that they don't use them any more, and that it did not arbitarily abandon passengers that the Department for Transport and the Train Operating Companies have decided it's no longer worth serving. And in my view, a survey which excludes these groups is flawed.

Is the group I talk about a small one?

No - it isn't.  Have a look at this chart.

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/fgwsatis.jpg)


This is one of Anthony's own diagrams, showing custromer satifaction levels this spring.  The FGW line at the bottom is for the whole franchise area, and the upper lines are the old consituent parts for the same period.

It's noticable that the main factors of concern on long distance expresses are punctuality / reliability, followed by price - that accounts for nearly 4 out of 5. But in the old Wessex area, you're looking at different factors such as "is there room to get on the train" (28%), and "frequency of trains" (18%). That latter, remember, is heavily skewed by the fact that (as far as I can see) no account what so even is taken in the surveys of the people who would travel by rail if First Great Western (in this case) actually provided an appropriate service.

I asked Anthony about the basis of PassengerFocus and its surveys - and asked wether it should consider travellers as a whole rather than the narrower remit it has.  I was disappointed that he considered my question an "astonishing" one, and that after the event one of his staff told me that he felt my question was a personal attack.  It wasn't; rather, I suspect I hit a raw nerve and was very much closer to the truth of a flaw in the structure of the surveys than PassengerFocus would like to admit.

Here are two quotes (from the past) from PassengerFocus's local representative which - in my view - show the unfortunate limits of their remit and activity.


My comment - PassengerFocus does not question the level of service in the franchise agreement ... so it is truely the PASSENGER's representative and NOT the representative of those who WANT to travel but are prevented from doing so by the DfT (who, I think, fund PassengerFocus) of the train operator.
 

This was in answer to the commonly held view that - with a limited service of 2 trains a day - 06:15 out (first train) and 20:20 back (second train) were unrealistic.  I don't know how much of a role PassengerFocus played in getting the view changed, by clearly someone convinced the DfT, contrary to input from WANT TO TRAVLLers, that the times were appropriate, and that 20:20 arrival has been added in to the latest version of SLC2 (Franchise specification) ("Must arrive in Swindon between 20:00 and 20:30" as I recall).

I would like to make an unreserved apology to the people of PassengerFocus if they felt that my asking of the question was a personal attack on any of them.  That was not my intent - I'm very sorry if it came across that way.  What I am questioning is the basis on which their work and surveys are undertaken, in that they do not appear to be watertight, but rather include a massive exclusion that the DfT and FGW can (and have) walked right through, to the detriment of the people who would dearly like to use a train service.

Conclusion to the question in my subject line. PassengerFocus probably are doing a good job looking after all the people they're mandated to look after - but their mandate is flawed. I look forward to working closely and positively with them in the future, once we have an appropriate level of service again on the TransWilts line ...

Graham

One for Private Eye me thinks, especially after Ian Hislops showing recently, and I completely agree that it seems a bit of 'he who pays the piper' scenario, which is probably why PF were getting a bit shirty at being found out. Great entertainment.  ;D

While looking for other things I came across this which might re-enforce the fact that people were being forced of rail not that long ago and would have benefited from being asked why, and what would lead them to return.

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=302.msg809;topicseen#msg809

Thanks for that feedback, Tramway - yes, it could very much be one for "Private Eye".  Certainly not suitable for a piece of fictional writing, though, as people might say it was unbelievable.

Sorry I've not come back on this quicker - I HAVE heard back from the PasssengerFocus representative, but I have been asked not to publish the letter, which I (somewhat over-hastily) agreed to then regretted my promise.  It leaves me (perhaps this was what was intended) somewhat muzzled at the moment; I am not a political animal and I know I can get caught out like this sometimes by a clever operator.

What I am going to add here is a piece of text I wrote on Thursday which shows the trouble that a couple of people had in using public transport to get across the South West (starting from Melksham) on Friday, and how their journeys and reactions will not show up in PassengerFocus surveys.  Sometimes, there's a need for us to remind ourselves that there are real people with real journeys behind the statistics!

Written on Thursday ....

A very old thread ... Anthony Smith is a name who, it feels, has been around since my early days of rail campaiging; he is retiring at the end of this year.   In early days when I was an aggressive young campaigner, the relationship between the circles I worked in and Transport Focus - or Passenger Focus as it was in those days - were a little strained at times but I have come to work closer with them, while at the same time still noting that the organisation is set up in an awkward way with a role to represent and put the case of the rail customer to its own paymaster, and that is rather awkward where the rail customer isn't happy with that paymaster. 

*Sits on hands to keep them from the keyboard*

Mark

Smoke is pouring out from somewhere under your legs, Mark.    Passenger engagement remains an area of concern - be it though Transport Focus, Community Rail Partnerships, Train Operators, Local Transport Authorities, SubNational Transport Boards, the Rail Ombudsman, the Office of Rail and Road, London TravelWatch, Rail Delivery Group, National Rail, the Great Britisha Railways Transitional Team, Network Rail, the Department for Transport, and any other statutory bodies I have forgot.

Fast forward to 2023 and on the morning of what is possibly the biggest switch in capacity away from local rail services (along with the abandonment of aspirations for many high speed services), Transport Focus sees fit to troll the UK on the platform that was Twitter. This is very bad.

Mark

(https://i.postimg.cc/LsP6jnK5/transport-focus-troll-repost-4-10-23.jpg)