In the public transport / campaigning / improvement 'game' there are many organsations, and the direction and motivation may be very similar, strongly held views and passions mean that even the tiniest of differences can get blown up out of proportion. Organisations that shouldn't be competing with each other (but rather partnering) do compete, and individuals may find "if you do something for them, you can't do something for us". Such a thing blew up for me a couple of months back - glad to report (without details) that concern has been overturned (and for the long term too), but it has set me thinking and looking at how all the various organisations and types of organisations fit together - how they differ in approach from looking primarily to the past or looking into the far future. And considering very carefully what I take on, and indeed whether I step back from one or two things.
Anyway - I came up with this chart of organisations and organsiation types in the rail / public transport business; it's from personal observation and members are welcome to disagree / persuade me change my mind
Some keys* - main thrust
+ - significant interest
- - limited interest
blank - no noticable interest
(1) - no public membership, but there is a public input role
C - Community
R - Rail Industry
G - Governmental
capitals for lead players; lower case for significant support
Community Rail Partnerships are an especially diverse bunch! I have written "varies" for open public membership there because it DOES vary - TransWilts is a member organsation for example and anyone who agrees our objectives is welcome to join. See
https://www.transwilts.org/friends-area . But I will admit that's not a common setup; volunteers and helpers are very much welcome, but in may cases the
CRP▸ 's governance is from one, or a handful, or a scarsely managable rabble (in one case), of local authorities.