Railway Touring Company 2016

So you go to order a new car. You order, from the brochure, the 2,5 GT Petrol variant with the associated specification. You pay your money and wait for the car to be delivered. When it turns up and you go to collect, the car is a 2.0 diesel with a different specification. You are not happy but the salesman pulls out the brochure and says "it's here in the T&Cs - we will make every effort to provide the car you have ordered but for operational reasons we may substitute for an inferior model."

Principle is the same - what is sold is what is described. Any variation, if not CLEARLY displayed will fall foul in the Courts. That is why RTC etc refund when challenged.

 

Was just using the principle in an exaggerated manner. Can use any product. What you order you expect to be provided unless conditions are clearly shown.

 

Yes, crude examples aside, at the end of the day, a car can still be ordered in; a particular steam locomotive can't- would have thought that was patently obvious.

My understanding of the above perspective is that if a trip from X to Y is advertised, runs generally as planned save for different motive power with generally happy patrons, then evidently it should have been cancelled because it wasn't what was originally advertised.

By following this logic to the nth degree, even if changes were clearly advertised, the tour company could still be challenged for these changes as they still represent a deviation from the original concept. At this rate, nothing will run. The point is they are selling a journey with certain perks, namely steam.

 

But they are shown, in the Ts and Cs....

 

We do seem to be going round in circles (again), and on a subject that is relevant to more than one tour operator, so might perhaps be better in a separate thread. The essential points are (a) that some tour operators are too good at continuing to advertise what they were originally hoping to provide, even after it is known that what will actually be provided will certainly be significantly different, and (b) that their T&C give them excessive scope for providing something different and offering their customers inadequate compensation, if any. They do need to give themselves some cover for developments that are foreseeable but not expected and entirely outside their control (e.g. loco fails FTR or breaks down on the day), but they do seem to take that too far.

 

I don't think it is excessive, as I believe there's no other feasible way of doing it. A dedicated team of staff could be employed to produce a bespoke package for each tour advertised, but I doubt any promoter is large enough to do this.

The scope provided by the T&Cs is designed to allow for the fact that the promoter relies upon Third Parties who also have their own agendas to pursue, namely WCRC or DBC trying to limit delay minutes, locomotive societies trying to scrape together money for their next overhaul and suggesting future availability in good faith, and NR providing timings and route solutions to get the train from Y to Z. There is also the fact that support crews may not be forthcoming for a particular locomotive, or are only able to service the locomotive for a set number of hours. In such an environment, how can the T&Cs be tightened up, and why would the passenger booking it want to read all about this in the tour write-up?

I agree compensation depends upon whether the customer in question is a) aggrieved and b) actually willing to pursue it, but if the thousands are really unhappy with what they have received, then all tour promoters will have gone under by now. People aren't stupid; if they want to pursue compensation, they will, and the promoter is usually able to accommodate this. The second point is essentially describing the current situation, which leads us back to your first point.

 

It is not so simple as believing because there have been insufficient compensation claims to drive a business under all must be well. The sensible thing would be to take a proactive approach to maintain customer satisfaction in the face of changing context ie an increasing incidence of DL usage. That is an inescapable fact as are the latest loading stipulations both of which need to be reflected simply in the information provided to customers. What was once an exception may become more the norm so advertising needs to be updated accordingly.

 

As 26D_M says, the new loading regulations need to be factored in. Overloading an engine which means a diesel is a must have is disingenuous. A tour should be sold with a loco and appropriate load for that loco and route. It should then be priced accordingly. If the tour fails to sell then a lesson is learned. But is price a big factor seeing that most of the consist is usually Premier or First. And yes, enthusiasts do sit there. Cost is a fact- price is a policy.

 

It is not really disingenuous as the loadings of recent trips were a legacy of the pre-ban situation when there was no enforced loadbook. Equally, if the originally advertised motive power had a last-minute glitch and was substituted for an underpowered alternative, then the problem is plain to see. Cancel and take a hit, or run and face the brickbats? We'd also need proof if a train is being overloaded on purpose, but as things generally stand, most arrangements seem to be done in 'good faith' that the right locomotive will be available at the right time.

Flexibility is what's needed in this game, not lashing to a mast. In this respect, the pool system used to work quite well before the shortage of locomotives took its toll. However, even this must have cost someone money, as it meant keeping a locomotive on standby in one part of the country when it could have been earning in another. I think by retreading this ground ad nauseum, we are repeatedly demonstrating that quality of advertising aside, there are some fairly intractable problems associated with the model- the number of Third Parties being the most obvious.

 

It is what it is and will remain so until the fleet of mainline locomotives increases substantially in number, probably not until 2018. Using the lure of locomotives out of ticket or not even 'complete' is out of order. Subject to FTR or late failures surely the 'code' should be no mention of a specific locomotive until it has been contracted for the train.

 

Their T&C are, as has already been stated, often unenforceable as they are unreasonable. They are designed to put off unhappy travellers. I would not object if tour companies were honest but I believe their advertising is deliberately obfuscating.

 

I wasn't referring to the current situation but looking prospectively as to how RTC and others could start to behave. As 1020 Shireman says, we are here we are at this moment in time. It has been a fairly frustrating year with so few class 7 and 8 locos available. What others are available that could double head are also well spread out.

I accept totally that nothing can be done in the event of a FTR failure on the day. That can happen to any service, heritage or scheduled. Indeed here in the North with our standard Heritage DMU service pretending to be a 21st Century railway, failures are all too common.

It is how the future is managed by the tour operators that matters. It is only a matter of time that Trading Standards will be approached by a less than gruntled customer and the wheels will come off.

 

I wish Trading Standards luck picking over the whole thing if they do. They'll probably end up wondering why people bother with the uncertainty, and I'm talking passengers and promoter alike. Anyway, as a new thread should have been started on this a while back, this is the last I'll say on the subject until this little lot has been shuffled over.

 

The 10/09 Norwich - Chester 'Cheshireman' has disappeared off the website.

 

Presumably no engine available.

 

It wont be more than a few weeks before 'Cromwell' moves back to Southall. Tender springs were reprofiled I believe last week and was having a boiler washout carried out yesterday while I was cleaning Lamiel.

 

NWCE on Sunday now showing on the website as 46115 Chester - Holyhead - Chester due to 45699 failing

 

WCRC fleet seem to be setting new standards of failures - in the wrong direction. Poor old 45699 hardly gets to run unassisted either so hasn't been a great year for her.