North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

So if you expressly said you don’t contract to run to time, why is there a need to say anything about delay repay?

 

I didn’t quote all the T and Cs which explain under what circumstances alternative services will be provided.

 

It does seem to be a very murky world. The basis upon which the NYMR claims Gift Aid on its tickets is that visitors are coming to see the work of the charity. The whole line is an accredited museum (AIUI); on that basis, the service being offered is access to the museum to see its work. If you have opened the gates on the day for which you have sold a ticket, and some trains have run demonstrating the museum's work, I'm not sure there is a very strong argument for saying that specific trains have to run exactly to a specific timetable (and therefore passengers are entitled to refunds if they don't run).

IANAL - but I am feeling a bit bewildered where at times the NYMR is a museum so it can claim Gift Aid, and other times it is a transport undertaking that has a contractual obligation to transport passengers! Will the real NYMR please stand up?

(Just for the avoidance of doubt: I think it is good customer service to try as far as is reasonably possible to run to time, particularly for those lines that have a mainline connection where a passenger may be trying to make an onward connection at the end of their visit. I've been to some lines, particularly at galas, where the timetable is nothing other than an elaborately crafted work of fiction, and it isn't a great experience. But I've never particularly felt, beyond the fact that I get my ride, that a railway has failed in its statutory duties if I get back 30 minutes late - whereas I'd be straight onto delay repay if that were my morning commute to work and I had a meeting first thing).

Tom

 

I think there's more of a risk of the NYMR being sued for its failure to have much in the way of meaningful displays and interpretation in its role as a museum than there is of it being sued for its failure to run trains to time!

 

The majority of passengers will probably feel the same but they now have statutory rights. My point was that the increased familarity with delay repay that you highlight is likely to increase expectations by some that those rights will be taken seriously on heritage railways.

 

But that doesn't really answer my question: what service is it that you are offering - a museum service, or a transport service? It's only when you are clear on that can you start to assess what a failure to deliver the service actually looks like.

You seem to be hitching your wagon quite clearly to the "we are a transport undertaking" when considering what your visitor's statutory rights are - but that might be a rather risky strategy for an undertaking that seems to base its ability to claim Gift Aid on the fact that it is a charity that exists for public benefit by education!

Tom

 

Responding to @Lineisclear

where the service doesn’t run at all is covered by another clause, which in essence says “we will provide you with an equivalent or similar service on a different day “

 

I think the answer depends on who is asking the question and which way the wind is blowing that day.

It can be useful to have a foot into both camps, but I
Do feel the tightrope the NYMR walks is much narrower than many others. It’s one of the reasons I am concerned about their model being held up as an exemplar to others.

 

The NYMR is both Tom. The conflict between a charity claiming Gift Aid on "admission tickets" and being a transport operator entited to VAT relief has always existed and is illogical. It's far from unique in that respect. Tax law is riddled with inconsistencies .
As far as contracting to provide a service it makes no difference whether the inducement to buy a ticket is that trains are scheduled to run from A to B and back at certain times or that those are the times when you can expect to be able to view the work of the charity. Both are services to which the 2015 Act would apply.
Perhaps the Bluebell always runs to time and never cancels as service but that seems unlikely. What do you say to your passengers if there's a long delay or cancelletion and they ask about compensation or refunds? 60044 implies that passengers might sue but that's very unlikely. What's more probable is a complaint to the local Trading Standards Department who might be then come breathing down the railway's neck.

 

I prefer the Col. Stephen’s approach to timetabling whee it is simply stated that trains will not leave before the following times and have no arrival time. Thus they are never late.

 

I agree that it is unlikely anyone would sue the NYMR in the circumstances described, but society in general is becoming more litigious, almost by the day! My use of the word "sue" was because I couldn't really think of the right word to use, but "claim against" would probably have been better.

As might be expected, the thread has taken an enormous swerve to one size, but I'm surprised that I wasn't taken up by my comment on the museums status, which I see being implemented to the bare minimum needed to quote its existence hen applying for grants. When there is so much of a story to be told about the industries that once surrounded the line, and how it served them - and even the story of some of the forerunners of green power (Raindale Mill and the Pelton Wheel at Goathland) - it is shameful that so little has been done.

 

Most unlikely. Unless you’re employing completely incompetent commercial staff or not permitting them to make sensible judgements as the need arises. There’s a lot of effort going into addressing minutiae when there are much bigger issues to address. If the reality of how people use the line is that it is to go from Pickering to Whitby, but you hold museum status for things which no one ever wishes to see, then that is surely going to catch up with you some time.

 

In terms of payment of compensation or refunds you could just leave it to staff to use their common sense but you would not get consistency unless there is clear guidance. The relevant terms and conditions provide that.

 

Thanks @Steve for answering my questions about the speed restrictions.
Thanks to @Lineisclear for the explanation of delay repay.

It would be very useful to know the passenger figures for this year and the profits made on the new Santas.

 

And my question is why they need to be given this specific guidance, given the circumstances prevailing at the NYMR and in respect of this legislation.

Meanwhile, I tend to agree with others that the greater challenge lies in the classification of the NYMR in the first place, and especially the tension between “museum” and “transport” functions. That’s not about tax law (I agree that, at present, it allows a heritage railway to have the bun & the penny), but a more fundamental question of identity. My sense is that this is unclear, split, and leading the railway to try to present itself in too many different ways.

 

OK let's go back to basics. In the event that a timetabled service is seriously delayed or cancelled passemgers may have a staturoty right to compensation or refunds and that must be by the same method used to pay for their tickets . The NYMR Terms and Conditions set out the circumstances and levels at which those rights can operate. Booking Office staff know where they stand. The alternative is that they make it up as they go along possibly even denying the passenger any compensation or refund. Which of the two options suggests a railway that respects its passengers and takes its obligations seriously?

 

Depends whether it actually is an obligation. Have you sought specialist advice on applicability?

Sent from my SM-S926B using Tapatalk

 

I think the terms of the 2015 Act and the published guidance are clear enough.

 

Clearly not as you used the word “may” in your explanation.