VT - Marylebone Flyer (Inter-City) - Oct 13th

Unlike the locomotive, I presume the water carrier vehicle is not subject to a fitness to run exam? It is hard to understand what the "failure" of this vehicle can mean. How long has this problem been known? Surely focus on this vehicle should have been a top priority weeks ago to ensure the non-stop run could take place!

All very odd, I am afraid to say and some may say that it could be down to lack of bookings but I hope that is not the case. In reality I suspect most passengers would have preferred the run to go ahead and to stop at Banbury for water. The chances of getting a perfectly clear road to Marylebone are quite remote anyway with the density of traffic.

Anyway, it is all very odd.

 

It's all supposition until the actual cause of the vehicle "failure" is known and without asking each individual passenger we don't know what they would have wanted but the advertising/promotion did focus on the non-stop aspect.

 

I was part of a support crew for quite a few years and the Support Coach was always subject to a FTR and I think the water wagon is the same.
Colin.

 

It's all a CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!

 

It's disappointing for sure, but the upside is, and there usually is one if you look for it, there'll probably be more daylight, and warmer / brighter weather when it runs in 2013.

As for the reasons behind the cancellation, and knowing how good Ben is at sharing any information he's able to share, I'm sure he'll explain more when / if he can !

 

Have you thought about the pathing? Perhaps the reason for the cancellation instead of adding a waterstop was because if they missed the slot, there wouldn't be another available for some time. It's ashame that this has happened to you now at this late moment Ben and VT, lets hope that next time, you'll have more luck!

 

Sorry Hatherton, but you are wrong on all accounts (as usual I might add).

One of the water-tanks split wide open yesterday and could not be replaced in time. Nothing to do with bookings at all!

If you look at the times, we had negotiated a pretty clear run to Marylebone - 111.33 miles in 1hr 59mins.

The majority of the passengers we have spoken to have agreed that we were right to postpone it - with a Banbury water-stop, it's just another run to London, and an expensive one at that!

 

Very well said !

 

Thanks for the info Ben, and the all round transparency I, and hopefully most of us on here associate with you and VT. Clearly, there couldn't have been any other decision in this case, so well done for doing the brave thing !

i have to admit to a little selfishness however as I couldn't make this Saturday. Now it looks like I'll get to enjoy the trip after all. Early Spring, just after the start of BST could be good, with the extra daylight, and warmth, that time of year usually brings, but obviously any date you're offered will be excellent !

 

All manner of things

I am sure not while tickets were still being sold and Ben was clearly excited about Saturday only a few days ago. How do you know if the problem has only just occured?

If you bothered to read the thread you would see Ben has been telling us there are only a few seats left.

Not when they have paid £100+ for a journey that can be done any day on a Chiltern service and for little time in London. You seemed to have missed the whole point of this railtour and the effort that has gone into it.

1. A very favourable path was provided
2. It has been done before
3. Re-signalling now means frequencies into Marylebone can now be quite high - how well do you actually know the route?

Please explain?

As usual Mr/Ms "Hatherton Hall" you seem to talk utter nonsense. Perhaps if you have any concerns you could get in contact with Mr Meanley who I'm sure will happily clarify the situation for you, rather than stirring up rumours of some sort of conspiracy.

 

I don't intend to advocate the devil but...

I too found the original explanation odd. "Failure" in railway terms normally refers to a vehicle failing to be fit to run but in this case it would seem that it referred to a water tank (plastic - I guess???) in the GUV split. It is a great shame that no resolution could be found for that in the 2 days between the call being made to cancel the run.

True, you cannot please everybody all of the time but I to am surprised that VT decided to cancel given that I expect that they are liable for NR charges and WCR charges on top of the full refunds.

From a PR point of view I would have thought running the trip with a water stop would be better for those who had made arrangements and will be out of pocket - perhaps with a small compensation for the lack of the advertised non stop run. Offering the customers not happy with that a refund/exchange would be positive but I would expect take up to be low.

 

I fail to see how it would of been better for VT to run this tour with a water stop the selling point has always been on the nonstop aspect of the tour and anything other than that is gonna leave the paying customer unlikely to book again in the short term yeah the tour running with a water stop might seem better but on the long term customers are gonna feel cheated and unlikely book another tour with VT I seem to remember there was a case earlier in the year with a route change and there was a uproar over that I can imagine that being twice as bad when you turn up expecting a nonstop run and suddenly there's a water stop I know if it was me I wouldn't book again VT were right to pull this tour rather than make customers feel hard done by and I'm sure the charges they will incur will be nothing compared to the custom they would of lost by running the tour in the after effect well done VT a brave but correct decision.

 

Clearly,Hatherton Hall has rattled your cage! But I would just like to say that I have always found his posts interesting and thought-provoking. To say that "as usual" he has talked "utter nonsense" is completely absurd,I would be interested if you would like to quote other posts of his to support your sweeping assertion?

 

As I said I was playing the devil but in part agree with HH and also am genuinely interested in the way charter companies operate.

I just feel that the only way to please the absolute majority of customers in any situation where a major change has to be made is to offer a full choice.

That to me means
Option 1 - Offer an ammended railtour and some compensation (Good will gesture)
Option 2 - Offer a full Refund
Option 3 - Offer a transfer onto another trip

As I say I am also interested in the business side. I expect VTL will have to pay charges to WCR and NR. There will also be admin costs involved in sending out letters and processing refunds. Staff, volunteers and suppliers will have set aside time to work on or around this trip. Cancellation at this late stage isnt a get out of jail free card so I am suprised that it came out as the economic option.

 

Thank you brasso01 for at least understanding some of the points I raised and providing balance to the various points raised. Ben of Vintage Trains can make insults as long as he wishes (he has done that before to other contributors - touche!) and propose not to engage in a prolonged tit-for-tat.

What I would say to compainr is that the chances of running non-stop, even if an excellent path has been provided, is in no way guaranteed and to be frank, probably unlikely. Yes the Bristolian achieved it although it almost stopped at Reading on the down run because an HST in platform 4 had only just cleared and on the up run it took amazing co-operation from NR and the signalman plus late running trains to enable a sparking record breaking run back to Paddington.

But here is the reality. Vintage Trains cannot guarantee 100% that the train will run non-stop. All it takes is a late-running or failure of a preceding train, points failure, signal failure, broken rail, etc etc to scupper those plans. Passengers will be aware and accept this and this is why my view was a stop at Banbury would have been accepted by most as the regrettable result of a failure of the Water Wagon.

Some will disagree and other will not. The fact is that we are entitled to an opinion and it is such a pity that there are those who have to resort to unprofessional responses.

 

I think we need to be careful here we don't appear to be "wanting our cake and eat it" !

Tour Promoters are often criticised for amending tours at the last minute to ensure they run, as indeed this NE could have been as has been suggested already. This time however, VTL have done, what is in my view, the brave thing, held their hands up and said, sorry, we can't do what we advertised, but here's your money back, and we'll get back to you with a new date when we can do it properly. That way, those happy with option 3 get their money back, and can book on another tour, while those wanting what was advertised can sit tight until the new date is made public. To offer option 1, as well as 2 and 3 is getting into the realms of ideal world territory in my opinion. VTL have taken a hit on this as it is. To suggest they provide a full refund, and run an amended tour for what would probably be a very small number of people, is frankly, asking rather a lot.

Surely, VT's decision here is what we should be encouraging Tour Promoters to do in exceptional circumstances such as these, rather than to offer the "fait a compli" solution we've come to expect elsewhere ?

 

Brave perhaps, but another reason not to book with any level of confidence if your booking involves hotel/travel bills, time off work, etc...