Cumbrian Mountain Express 20/05/17

That probably amounts to a contract so you would be entitled to know the "subject to availability" clause invoked which altered the terms upon which you had purchased. Quantifying your loss would be difficult though.

 

Nothing new. Back in the 80s under BR there was a CME pool. You'd book a tour and had no idea what would be on the front until it coupled up. Booked three CMEs one year and got 4498 each time over the long drag. Another time I booked 46229 out of Marylebone - not sure if it was a BR or SLOA series of trips - only to get 35028 with 46229 merely as the stand by loco. C'est la vie and just be thankful you've got steam even if it's not your preferred loco.

 

The major difference today being the opportunity to communicate with much greater speed. If @1020Shireman was assured of something particular when booking he is entitled to rely upon it. If something unforseen arises at the last minute obviously that has to be taken into account and your closing remark holds good.
However, the little information available implies that the loco swap, to one not in the pool too, is an arbitrary and considered one. That is a rather different basis for a change in arrangements from the ones said to be in place when booking.
Whilst I agree 46115 is a super sub, for anyone being selective about tours and doing their research properly to be informed of one thing and receive another is not good service.

 

Cancel and demand your money back then would appear a more constructive way to proceed rather than to be raising matters on an unconnected forum?

 

A 'pool' that has a somewhat strange mix in, I can only assume that having a Jubilee (although Leander seems to be getting very little work at the moment) a Brit (is Ollie actually fit at the moment) and a Duchess in accounts for possible differing train lengths based on ticket sales.

As noted above RTC book the locomotives and are the contracting party to the passenger so perhaps all of these questions should be directed at that directly in the first place?

 

Wasn't really a matter of communication back then as in the case of the CME/CCE trips the loco wasn't advertised. You had a list of which locos were in the pool and took pot luck on which one turned up on the day.

 

Agreed and I daresay @1020Shireman will let us know if he gets a response as to the loco change decision after he had been told 46233.
All of the responsibility to make sure advertising is correct rests with RTC. Only if the TOC imposes a late alteration is RTC powerless.

 

Yes, whatever was in ticket at 10A. You could also go to the shed and have a wander round, chat to the guys prepping etc. Different times, different place. No relevance at all to today.

 

Yes, but you know you take a risk. And until you know the reasons for the loco change (maybe the Duchess crew requested it??), it seems strange that you are accusing WCR of cashing-in on using their own loco. "Kerching" to use your own words.

OK, you're disappointed but throwing around baseless allegations isn't going to help.

 

Seems a case where the WCRC policy of "little to no talk" works against them, There could well be a good reason it wasn't the Duchess, But the wall of silence leaves speculations and a suspicion of mistrust.

 

Perhaps you need to read other posts, particularly this one as there have been questions asked elsewhere regarding the non-use of the Duchess.

The West Shed: Home of 'Duchess of Sutherland' and 'Princess Margaret Rose'
12 May at 06:25
For information - 'Duchess of Sutherland' is not running on 13th or 20th May as originally planned. No operational problem, simply due to being in a pool of available locomotives. We are currently updating the list of trips on our website - one trip that has been added is on 4th June coming close to home - London to Derby: http://www.railwaytouring.net/uk-day-trips/the-peak-forester

 

Only for those people who need someone to blame, or need ammunition to have another go at an organisation they dislike. Others accept it for what is was - a change of loco for a reason which doesn't need to be in the public domain.

 

Sharing experience is not a bad thing. That's what forums are for.

 

You speculate that negative comments are motivated only by a dislike of particular firms?
In which case why would those "complaining" give those same firms their patronage?
If there is any mistrust it probably has its root in historical occurences. Even the most one eyed supporter cannot fail to acknowledge a less than perfect trading history of certain firms. Trust is hard won and easily lost, especially when sellers give undertakings but then do not provide what they day. If the PRCLT say there was no operational reason for being dropped it seems reasonable of customers to at least be told why their preferred loco was not used. A matter of simple courtesy really and there is nothing confidential about it because PRCLT has made a public statement. Hopefully someone from RTC will be good enough to inform their customers, but not through this forum necessarily.

 

Agreed but in this case a private expanation/apology from RTC to any customer disappointed would be entirely appropriate. It was clearly not of PRCLT choosing so a decision was taken, somewhere and for some reason, which integrity demands should be shared with anyone affected by it.

 

Not disagreeing. My post was in response to someone moaning about what they saw as somebody else moaning.

Interesting that the Pool listed on RTC website does not include 46115. So how are customers able to make an informed decision.

Since @1020 Shireman rang as was specifically told that the Duchess was on, his decision to buy tickets clearly relied upon that information. A court would ask a simple question - if you had been told it was a different loco, would you have booked. The answer being no makes the telephone conversation relevant and a part of the contract.

As you have said, trust is hard earned and very easily lost. I thought I saw green shoots earlier in the season generated by @meltonnorth . These shoots seemed to have withered.

 

Let's hope that they bury it and forget where, instead of digging it up every few weeks for yet another gnawing.

The way main line steam operates is maybe not how business is normally conducted, or how some people would wish it to be but we know what to expect, right or wrong. If someone who has bought a ticket feels that RTC has mis-represented their product, challenge RTC, if necessary in the courts. However, be prepared for costs to rise, the number of trips to fall or for RTC to pull out of the market.

I can live with what we've currently got.

 

RTC and other operators will never let it go to court. None of them want a precedence set. T&Cs are all fine on paper but they can be challenged and may be found wanting. I would guess all operators have done that risk assessment and decided to pay up to those who demand refunds or similar.

The only way to conduct a business is the right way. If you are selling something there are basic business rules, most important being that the customer is king. Also key to success is that the best prospect for future business comes from your existing customers. It would seem the railtour industry has forgotten these classic rules. As a result, many have been staying away and watching to see if the industry improves.