Train pains: how would you want passenger views represented?

I think it is a good idea to have customer representatives, but the people need to be regular train travellers who have some business experience so as to understand what the Board is talking about, especially in the area of finance.

Greg Fletcher’s and Charles Ward’s comments make a lot of sense. Does WHICH? have anyone who fulfils those criteria? Or does any other “consumer oriented” organisation have such people? I’m thinking organisations like 38 degrees, whose raison d’etre is finding out what people need and representing those needs to the important people.

I am not a regular commuter by train, sadly. I wish I was able to use the train more as this makes so much sense and I (usually)enjoy train travel when I go on longer journeys to visit family and friends or for meetings. Train passengers need to have a clear voice in decision making, both regular commuters, and those who chose to use the train for long journeys (despite the fact that it may be more expensive.) This is for some a decision based, at least in part, on environmental considerations. Full electrification of our railways is long overdue. Ideally the rail network would be renationalised for the good of all rather than profit for the few. Just look at Spain and France to see how comprehensive, non fragmented services can work. Yes- there needs to be a voice for those who really care about the railways.

Having a voice on the board must be a good thing. However it is most important to listen to the collective voices of the customers and treat the customer with respect. Example – it was much promoted that rail fares last winter went up by 1-2%, however not said was that many weekend fares from Southampton to Waterloo on South West Trains, now South Western Trains, went up from £25 to £29.10 that is 16.4% increase. It is this sort of hidden information and exploitation of customers that needs stopping.

I regret the privatisation of our railways and want them to be taken back into public ownership.
Railways under British Rail were more efficient without millions being taken for dividends to private companies and out of the pockets of passengers. Re-naionalisation can be achieved by not renewing franchises and making the existing ones unprofitable.

I think that rail passengers’ voices must be heard and it would seem to be a step forward. However while rail companies have to answer to shareholders and shareholders will want to see profits, rail companies will continue to put profits before rail users sadly.
I am a regular rail user, although thankfully no longer a commuter. Whilst a commuter I endured some horrific journeys between 5pm and 7pm on the Cambridge to Kings Lynn line. (It has changed franchise a number of times and usually for the worst!) Now we have some new trains on this line….rather more comfortable, but still desperately overcrowded at key times and often running late. We were promised more trains on this line and are still waiting, although a token few have been added. Privatisation means profit not service to the customer. In fact the previous rail company actually said that they were a business, not a service and that probably says it all!!

Train companies never listen to passengers views. I have complained about lack of seating on the Transpennine Express Edinburgh/Glasgow to Manchester Airport joining at Lancaster, the trains are like a cattle wagon, people everywhere, standing and sitting on the floor, a health and safety issue here I think !. The trains are not long enough, they need at least 2 extra on top of their usual 4 carriages on the class 350 electric sets. Too many seats are reserved, some not even taken up, not enough walk on passengers seats available.

Unless a passenger representative has experience of how the Boards of Public Companies operate, they will never be effective. I am a reluctant convert to the campaign for renationalisation as the only way that passengers will be treated like human beings, not contributions to the balance sheet, is if they can complain to their political representatives.

In theory, it sounds a good idea to involve the passengers in decisions but in practice, I fear it won’t make much difference! The First Group has a monopoly in the south west on trains to London; we used to have South West Trains Service running from Bristol to Waterloo but First managed to get that franchise awarded to themselves! The original franchise for the South West has been extended so many times that I have no idea when it will eventually come up for renewal! Luckily we do have Cross Country for going up to the midlands or down to Exeter and beyond. Although a lot of people are tending to think re-nationalisation might be the next big thing, those of us old enough will remember the dirty, unpunctual and expensive service, poor station facilities and lack of information. When Sir Peter Parker tried to introduce new fares and special offers, the resulatant surge in passenger numbers mean’t the system couldn’t cope. The whole system needs to be looked at and rationalised, and the mess the conservatives left us with should be swept away. Whether passenger voices on boards, etc, will make any difference, with firms like First in charge, I thint it will be very unlikely! And apart from that, we have to put up with Ministers cancelling schemes so that money can be diverted to another London cross rail!

Surely it has to be better to have people representing passengers. The companies will probably ignore their concerns, but they will not have the excuse that they did not understand what those concerns were.
The companies seem to think most passengers are young, fit and not struggling with babies or luggage. I wonder how many of the executives actually travel by train!

One current problem is that accountability has to go through central government – cumbersome, remote and very indirect – all tied up with the present system of Franchising.

It would probably be much more effective , instead of this “one size fits all” approach , to separate the natural monopoly , captive market operations ( typically commuter and local ) and put them under local democracy, with directly elected supremo’s , who could appoint managers / franchisees / concessions, on behalf of their electorates.

Meanwhile , intercity and longer distance service, where effective competition is feasible, to be given over to long – term, open – access competition.

These two mechanisms would give passengers more consumer power and effective accuntability.

Regular, updated feedback could be done by having feedback cards/slot boxes for completed cards on all trains which can then be collected at the end of the day or more often if necessary. This then gives accurate, feedback by all train users at the time.