North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Who are the "no compensation, no refunds" contingent? A quick look at the websites of several of the major heritage railways indicates that they all have various terms and conditions, just a bit more nuanced than leaping straight to the "your train's late, you are entitled to a refund". For many lines, the primary ticket type on normal service days is a day rover (a kind of admission that in fact you are offering entrance to an attraction, not a ticket to ride a specific service). If I have a day rover and my first trip runs perfectly to time, but the second is severely delayed - has the attraction delivered the service it said it would or not?

There is another oddity in the NYMR conditions.

Clause 2.3 says:

2.3 NYMR is responsible for providing travel for the journey covered by a valid Ticket but may substitute road transport if operational problems occur.​

In other words, for operational reasons (presumably within NYMR control) they can substitute road transport.

Yet 9.1:

9.1 The NYMR operates heritage locomotives and coaching stock over elderly infrastructure using historic systems. Inherent in the delivery of that heritage experience is a degree of potential delay that might be unreasonable for a modern railway network. In determining whether or not the NYMR has exercised reasonable care in the provision of services due account shall be taken that their primary purpose is the provision of a heritage travel experience and not transport to a precise Timetable.
​

And 9.3:

If arrival of a scheduled train at the destination shown on the Ticket is delayed for reasons within the NYMR’s reasonable control then the following compensation may be claimed. (followed by schedule of refunds depending on how late the service is, starting at 45 minutes).
​

Now, let's take those three clauses together: If you had an operational problem, you might substitute road transport and if that road transport gets me to my destination no more than 45 minutes late, then I am liable for no compensation. And yet in terms of whether in that case the NYMR has delivered a "heritage travel experience" - no you damn well haven't! So the irony is that the organisation that operates a heritage railway and claims that it is in the business of offering a "heritage travel experience" could pack me off in a modern bus and claim it has delivered a service, yet will tie itself up in knots of compensation if the fire clinkers up and the loco has to stop for a blow up halfway up Goathland bank!

It just all feels incoherent, as if the organisation has bought a job lot of Ts &Cs from lawyers-r-us without actually understanding what they really mean in terms of the service it offers, nor how they work together as a whole. At the very least, the Ts&Cs seem to be weighted very much towards "have we delivered a travel service?" rather than "have we delivered a heritage experience service?".

Tom

 

I spent a long career doing exactly what you describe. I'd suggest in this case the vision is to be seen to be treating paying customers fairly and responsibly.

 

The vision is there, but the realisation hasn't quite gelled. In an earlier reply where I'd about precedent, you highlighted the role of new legislation. That's fair, but in the absence of case law or detailed regulation, precedent does matter.

If I were minded to be awkward following a disrupted day*, I would be much more inclined to be so if tipped off a train onto a coach, and the examples of T&Cs given by @Jamessquared would see me more inclined to argue for fundamental breach (no heritage experience) than a delay for the same root cause.

* - a choice that would depend on many factors, but especially the responsiveness of the staff (paid or volunteer) to reasonable questions, and how they delivered in the round. Last summer, I travelled on the Golden Pass Express in Switzerland, and a signalling problem meant that we had to be bussed between Boltigen & Zweisimmen. The frustration of that change, and the discomfort of combining the airport bus experience with a Swiss mountain road, was offset by the extremely courteous service by railway staff, and a classically Swiss determination to restore the timetable. By the time we got to Montreux, a mere 3 minutes late, any thought of snotty letters had gone. T&Cs were not part of the equation.

 

I very much agree and it mirrors NYMR experince. he road transport

 

Sorry.having pc trouble for which no compensation will be payable!

I wanted to emphasize that the road transport option is particularly important for the afternoon/evening returns for Whitby where delays can sometimes be beyond NYMR's control. It's reassurance that passengers will be brought back even if that's not possible by rail, On occasion a fleet of coaches have been arranged and, as your Swiss experience confirms, that and the efforts made by the staff and volunteers have earned praise from passengers, Similalry passengers at risk on missing onward connections or who have travelled beyond their plannned destination have in many cases been provided with a free taxi service. T&C's should always be a fall back but are an indication of the railway's attitude to customer service.

 

I do not think anyone would have an issue with that sort of service recovery.
As @35B knows, because we have discussed it before I am not a fan of delay repay on the big railway. It is a transport system and stuff happens like it does on the roads. It also allows you to claim when you are not disadvantaged. For example before xmas I was coming back from Salisbury off the RTC Sherborne/Yeovil trip. Arriving at Southampton instead of a 20 minute connection after glancing at a screen I had to run but caught a heavily delayed train. That got me to my destination a few minutes earlier than planned, but if HMG want to chuck money at people so be it, and I will claim. It also to me seems strange to stand on a platform and "will" a train to pick up a couple more minutes delay so you can get some money back.
I accept a Heritage Line has far fewer services, but offering DR, or some version of it seems perverse to me. Having said that I tried to find on your website how I would "claim" this and can find no mention. Now maybe on a delayed train someone at Pickering would be advising people, but last time I stayed up there at Levisham, it was get off the train and into the car as soon as possible. Do not ever remember seeing any staff at that time of night. If you are offering it then surely its existence should be made clear.

 

A now ex NYMR director has on more than one occasion said that you write the minimum that you have to do. To do more is to make a rod for your own back. He's not wrong.

 

In September 2011 we were 158 late back to Grosmont after Foxcote Manor sat down at Levisham, free can of lilt and a twix was on offer

 

And it didn’t stop you from coming back I guess you would have expected that from a GW.

 

Then you’ve failed. You have drafted unnecessarily complex T and Cs (that no one will read) and which are both unnecessary and contradictory. I think more of the bigger picture thinking is required. If you treat customers fairly and responsibly, you won’t ever need these terms ! And you don’t. The thought process here is backwards.

 

I'd dispute that. Where is the evidence that railways with verbose Ts&Cs do their customer service better?

Customer service is an attitude: you can't legislate for it. If we had a major operational issue, we'd make sure that, by hook or by crook, we got our passengers to where they needed to be as expeditiously as possible. And yes, in extremis that might mean arranging taxis to take people home who had missed a connection. But you don't do that because it is set out formulaically in the minutiae of terms and conditions; you do it because it is the right thing to do. Apart from anything else, the more you document your precise response, the more you constrain staff on the ground to act in what they see is the best manner as the situation presents itself.

Tom

 

The Autocar visit certainly brought the numbers out this weekend despite the weather, how many were using the annual pass residual period is of course a moot point, good to see the gradient and wet rail were no hindrance.

 

Is the annual pass valid? They are not running the full length of the line so, arguably, these are special trains. I don’t know.

 

Annual pass is accepted for railcar and steam this week.

 

Thanks.

 

Yes an amazing experience to travel on the 1903 Autocar, and sure footed on the climb up to Goathland. I travelled on the 1415 ex Grosmont service today and was struck how many people waited to travel on this particular service rather than slightly earlier with Repton on the 1355 to Goathland, similarly on the 1500 return from Goathland. Having travelled on this I did wonder why it took over 50 more years from its introduction back in 1903 before the ubiquitous DMU finally started to replace steam on the rural branch lines…

 

So pleased there should be these reports of the Autocar: evidently really attracts people to choose it and goes well. What more could you reasonably want?

It is extraordinary, the body on it is absolutely the real original thing, underneath and all the power train - chassis, bogies, electric motors, generating set, control gear - had been lost but have been replaced in the spirit of the thing when it was new while taking good advantage of the next hundred years of development work. The livery speaks for itself - I think enhanced by contrast to the trailer: bright, eye catching, verging on garish perhaps but nowise objectionably so. Indeed enhances the landscape.

In engineering terms: quite the right right line of development but coming along at an unlucky time with all the upheaval of the First World War - delay, reorganisation, more delay, then economic stringency and the immediate opportunity lost. But a marvellous thing to realise and have now.

 

Indeed Steve!!!

 

I'm delighted it was popular.

On the subsequent question, I'd just ask about trailing loads and reliability - noting that the "1st Generation" DMUs were known neither for spriteliness nor reliability.