We set up the Have Your Say survey to collect your views on the issues which the railways face, what changes or developments are needed to resolve them, and how Railfuture can help. The survey ran online from October to the end of December, and a questionnaire was also sent out with Railwatch in November to give the option of a postal reply. Replies sent up to 16th January have been included in the analysis. Thank you for your responses, which will help the Board to decide how we should operate going forward, what we should campaign for, and how we should campaign.

Rather than use multiple choice questions throughout like many questionnaires do, over half the questions required free text answers. This encouraged respondents to think more freely and to submit ideas which we may not have otherwise thought of. However this also meant more work to analyse the results! This was done by categorizing the answers to create statistics, some of which are given below – although it is the imaginative individual answers which may prove more valuable in the long term.

We received an excellent response: 79% were submitted online and 21% by post, reflecting the fact that unlike the previous member survey, we did not offer a reply-paid address. The survey was open to non-members as well as members to get a view from the wider public, which may be more balanced; the 13% of replies from non-members who took the time to reply represent potential new members who we need to know how to attract to join. Their responses indicated a greater motivation for campaigning, as noted below.

The first question asked for the most important issue facing the railways; overwhelmingly, this is seen to be capacity with 32% of responses, plus an extra 6% for Investment, which is a prerequisite for more capacity, and 4% for expansion of the network. Other popular responses were fares (12%), industry costs (4%), access to the network for people without a station nearby (5% overall, but 19% for non-members), privatisation (7%), fragmentation and the franchising system (5%) and HS2 (4%) – the latter were equally split between those in favour of HS2 and those against. We didn’t specifically ask for views on HS2 in the questionnaire, but of the respondents who gave a view, 59% were in favour and 41% against.

The next three questions asked why the issue was important, what the solution should be, and how this solution can be achieved. The objective of these questions was to take the respondent through a logical thought process to identify what needs to be done to resolve the issue and hopefully how Railfuture can help. The capacity issue is seen to be important to reduce overcrowding and satisfy demand, but perhaps more significantly to enable growth in the economy and to reduce pollution by other forms of transport. The solution is seen to be investment in infrastructure with more track and trains, and some new lines. Perhaps the most prescient response to the question on how the solution can be achieved was “This is the difficult bit…” as many respondents suggested more investment without saying how to get it, but the most productive suggestion was lobbying government and local authorities to give more leadership and long-term priority to rail development.

Fares are seen as important because high fares deter people, especially those on low incomes, from travelling by rail – although one respondent suggested that the issue is that people do not perceive the true value of travel, as users of other modes do not incur the true cost at the point of use. The solution is seen to be to freeze or reduce fares. Most respondents did not have an answer for how this could be achieved; some suggested higher taxpayer support, and a few nationalisation.

Access to the network is seen as important to link outlying communities. The solution is seen as building new or reopening selected lines, to be achieved by campaigning and working together with transport providers, local and central government.

The respondents that identified privatisation as the most important issue see it as wasting money. Most proposed renationalisation as franchises come up for renewal, although some suggested mutual ownership, to be achieved by political campaigning. Other respondents who identified franchising or fragmentation as the issue wanted improvements in the franchise system and better integration, to be achieved by political lobbying.

Having asked about how solutions to issues might be achieved, we then asked how Railfuture could campaign more effectively. There were a wide variety of answers; the most frequent were to lobby politicians (17% overall but 29% for non-members), increase media contact (9%), agree policy and focus on specific issues (8%), join forces with other like-minded organisations (5%), engage the wider public (5%), and focus on passenger issues (5%). Some respondents felt that we do not actually campaign at the moment but should; on the other hand it is reassuring to note that some respondents recognised our efforts to become more professional and objective.

The next question sought to personalise our interaction by asking what specific change or development the respondent would like on the railway. Unsurprisingly given our history, the most frequent response was to reopen a line (21%), followed by electrification (9%), improving services (5%), improving a line (6%) – generally all in the local area of the respondent - improving the travel experience (4%) and simplifying fares (5%). Other interesting responses were the need for more luggage and cycle space, and improving modal integration. These answers gave a lead into asking the respondent how they could help Railfuture to campaign for the change. Only 9% of those that answered already help to campaign, whilst only 14% were unable to help, mostly due to other commitments or limitations outside their control – but we should not forget that just being a member supports our campaigns, by increasing our voice. So 77% of respondents were willing to help, including 13% by general or local campaigning, 10% by lobbying politicians or rail companies, 17% by writing letters, and 14% who did not know how to help but were willing – our respondents just need to be mobilised and guided either nationally or by branches. 52% of respondents provided an email address so that we can contact them. One response suggested a template, based on existing successful campaigns, to help provide that guidance.

We then asked how Railfuture should attract new members. The most frequent responses were to increase media exposure (18%), leaflets or posters at stations or on trains (13%), advertising (8%), active campaigning (6% overall but 14% for non-members), and to make ourselves relevant to passengers. Active campaigning is necessary to gain increased media exposure, and leafleting stations implies that our message needs to be relevant to passengers. Other interesting ideas were to link up with university student unions to encourage more young members (who are likely to use rail), to offer a membership gift pack to new members, and for members to recruit their friends and colleagues.

We asked how respondents had first heard of Railfuture, as that should give us a clue as to the most effective way of making contact with potential new members. 3% said that they had joined one of Railfuture’s predecessors (which as one respondent put it, is code for can’t remember) whilst 30% admitted they couldn’t remember. However 18% heard of us through a friend, 9% through a rail user group, 8% though the internet, and 5% through local campaigns, indicating that these are the best channels to use for recruiting, and that we need to give members recruiting material that they can use with friends. A few members first heard of Railfuture through active recruiting, eg by a member walking through a train – the number may be low because few of us have tried that approach.

Having made contact with potential recruits we must still persuade them to join, so we asked what had persuaded our respondents to join. The main reasons were a desire to campaign actively (17%), belief in rail as an efficient and sustainable form of transport (26%), interest in railways (24% overall but only 4% for non-members) being a regular rail user (8%), and despair at the state of rail at the time (5%). The key factor which would persuade non-members to join is visible successes by Railfuture.

In the previous survey, 76% of members said they were not involved in branch activities, so we asked what activities respondents would like the branch to organize. 7% feel branch activities are OK as they are, and 7% do not attend. Overall, 39% (50% for non-members) wanted activities where they could actively further Railfuture campaigns, for example campaigning, engaging other organizations or the public, canvassing passengers, meeting decision makers and TOCs, fundraising, and station adoption or counts. The remaining 47% (40% for non-members) wanted activities in which they can participate passively, for example visits, speakers or outings. We also asked what determined whether respondents attended branch meetings – the key factors were the distance to travel (32%), including for some the time and day (11%), having spare time (14%), the topics (10%) and whether the meeting was productive or campaigning (7%). Non-members in particular felt advance notice and the welcome were important.

In the multiple choice questions we first asked respondents to rank the top 5 key issues which Railfuture should campaign on. The outcome was capacity, fares, new lines, electrification and network connectivity. We asked which of a number of actions would be most effective in those campaigns – a few respondents said ‘All of them’ which is of course the right answer. The most popular choices were building relationships with local politicians and railway managers, and building a partnership of key stakeholders and decision-makers – achieving these relies on also doing the other actions.

Most of us would like to see more investment in the railways and lower fares, but given the present difficult national economic circumstances, no government is likely to give the rail industry significant additional taxpayer support, so - until investment in making the railways more efficient reduces operating costs – any move to reduce fares is likely to restrict the money available for investment. The next question forced respondents to make the difficult choice between fares (26%) and investment (74%).

Railfuture might have more influence with stakeholders if it were seen as representing rail users, so we asked whether Railfuture should focus on improving the service to customers (17%) or development of the railway network (83%).

For many members, Railwatch is their only contact with Railfuture. Many respondents volunteered praise for the magazine, saying it is informative and well worth reading, but a few felt that it should say more about campaigning, that the layout needs updating and that the tone is too negative.

Finally how is Railfuture perceived? This drew a wide variety of responses, from effective to ineffective, punches above weight to limited influence, confrontational to not challenging enough, forward looking and backward looking. The responses to worry about were that we are enthusiasts and remote from users (being perceived by stakeholders as rail buffs or anoraks will reduce our influence), that we are not well enough known (particularly from non-members), that there is too much conflict internally, and that we are unfocussed, staid, boring, bureaucratic and spread too thin. On the other hand we are committed, knowledgeable, becoming more professional and influential, and have the opportunity for a key role to bridge the gap between users and the industry. We will continue to work to make Railfuture an organisation which is seen as professional, relevant and influential so that it can campaign effectively.