An 'umbrella organisation' for mainline steam?

With a few ideas and topics ranging through several threads now I thought a central thread for ideas of improving mainline steam's performance would perhaps make sense and be potentially useful. Maybe once a thread on NatPres could make a positive difference?! What seem to come out from the 30777/70013 thread was that if mainline steam was to up it's game an overall body setting new guidelines and sharing ideas would perhaps be beneficial. This body would also represent us at a high level when negotiating with Network rail and help advise them. This would be much more than SLOA Mk2; it would provide advice on best practice loco maintenence, it would help co-ordinate volunteers, provide mutual improvement training and generally share advice from those who do things well to those who perhaps could do with help. It would enable TOC's, Network Rail, Tour promotors and loco owners to all come together, share expertise, sort issues and hopefully move forward. Overall something fit for the 21st century and the ever more intensive service steam operates. It would also help plan resources for the future and solve shortages before they happen.

Certainly perennial issues such as loco availability, over loading, crew familiarisation and gauging issues could all be tackled. Perhaps even bigger projects such as infrastruture changes could be considered with proper business plans put forward. I have no idea what form this organisation would take, but lets have some positive and constructive suggestions and maybe something could be born out of it. Steam is under close scrutiny at the moment and there have been too many human errrors of late. If we want to be taken seriously on the 21st century railway (& certainly as the railtour industry continues to grow) we need to organise ourselves into one professional voice instead of being so fragmented. We need to take a different look at the way we run ourselves as we evolve from one off excursions into now virtually 7 days a week 365 day running. Mainline steam is well and truly back, at levels many of us only dreamt of a decade ago. If we are to evolve successfully we need to progress in a professional manner and who knows what we could achieve? As one we can share ideas and move forwards together and plan for an even better future.

One last plea, could we keep comments on topic - how an umbrella organisation would look and work. Please no slanging matches about tour operators etc that some other threads have fallen into! This is about the future and how we can prevent past mistakes. We all know what has happened

 

Maybe in competition financially, but don't all have the common interest that steam should succeed?

 

Ive often thought it would be a rather interesting idea to reform the Great Western Railway, purely to represent the heritage groups whose name it bears, and to help with lobbying in Parliament and the EU (that must be quite decent amount of track mileage by now). It would also help with pooling experience, locomotives, tools, even training, perhaps even insurance. Organizing main line tours would also be another idea, particularly when running into heritiage lines like Minehead or (eventually) Honeybourne.

Almost certainly woefully impractical, and a little unfair on those lines in the Great Westerns Former area that represent Midland or LMS lines. I cant help but think any such organization would end up very bloated for what it would represent.

Amusing idea though...

 

I think that this is an excellent idea which I fully support.

 

Last thing we need is a SLOA MK2 if it is headed by steam locomotive owner bigwigs serving their own self interests like SLOA was.

If however it was headed up by someone who was completely independant from the various loco owners ect, then i think that would be a more receptive idea.

However railway preservation politics being what it is, i seriously doubt that would happen.

 

Er we already have a SLOA Mk 2 - the lower profile MSOL which is a group of loco owners who do not fit the rather extreme image portrayed in the previous post.

MSOL does act as a conduit for important information though but does not have in any way the tour coordinating role of the BR era SLOA. A wholly different approach (and a far greater workload) to the SLOA one would be needed on the current post privatisation open access network for such a coordinating body to be successful.

 

West Coast Rail, to me already does that role.

It's business is steam, therefore it's interest lie in ensuring it has what it needs from it's suppliers in order to trade, be it coal, water, engineering or track access etc.
Whats more, they are professional, independent and have years of experience doing it...

Whats to be gained from a Quango, when a profitable company can do it much more efficiently ?

 

So, who looks after 71000, 61264, 60163, and anyone else WCRC falls out with in the future? WCRC most certainly aren't an independent body and I've heard several involved with the industry question aspects of their professionalism. While I have a great deal of respect and admiration for what goes on at Carnforth, there are likely times when even they need to be held to account for how their actions affect the wider steam movement.

 

I've also heard things in the industry about other toc's professionalism, including DBS who themselves have had their fair share of incidents with mainline steam........... Thats just life with different companies, the one the person your talking to favours or works for is always going to be better than the other.

 

Agreed. I suppose that's kind of the issue - should there be an umbrella organisation / committee that represents a wide cross section of those involved with mainline steam with a view to overseeing proceedings in as unbiased manner as possible? WCRC certainly couldn't do that on their own, which was the point I was intending to make.

 

I never suggested WCRC would be exclusive, the question is who would be kingmaker..

WCRC are the biggest and most experienced when it comes to both steam, charter trains and providing services for ad-hoc operations, you could say they are todays equivalent of the Intercity Charter Unit. They are the only ones to have made a viable business out of being an "all in one" TOC for handling steam.

The thing is to me, the "knowledge share" proposed isn't really going to generate much new knowledge or thinking... it's already there and practiced.

Is this proposal of an Umbrealla" organisation going to be not much more than a "union of steam locomotive" operators, and would it's agenda be to make an organisation imposing itself on Network Rail and TOCs... to me thats not a good thing.

In my opinion, NR works with TOCs, the TOCs work with their providers.
A Union of part time / volunteer / budget and bespoke locomotive providers will not influence NR, and probably wouldn't be taken that seriously for such a margin industry.

Therefore I still sit back to my original statement.. let professional bodies do the work. Like any other industry, if you have a complaint or a suggestion, go to your manager, let your manager goto his, and so on, until you have Service Providers communicating to other Business interests.

But rounding up with a motley crew of locomotive owners, charter operators, promotors, coal merchants and water suppliers, calling themselves a "Union","Coalition", "Party", "Organisation" or a "band of rebels" and going to the CEO of Network Rail for a monthly rout I can't imagine producing very much...unless of course they are providing a good lunch / entertainment package in which case people will always show up for a natter until the foods gone.

 

I think you need to be looking much higher up the chain if you're to find a 'kingmaker'. It needs to be someone who can hold organisations like Network Rail and WCRC to account, not those organisations themselves. It won't happen as it isn't of sufficient priority, so there's little point discussing it.

 

And here we see the naysayers completely misunderstanding the current trading realities and lack of co-ordination that have led to the situation where I, quite frankly, as a steam enthusiast, am more likely to lineside than travel, Jacobites and the like excepted, and therefore deny the tour industry the very cash flow that it seeks for its survival.

The current market for steam is a tiny, tiny, proportion of the UK population, and when the fare levels, nature of a typical full day itinerary, etc, are described to many of my circle of friends, they raise their eyes to the heavens and consider us fools with too much money to spare.

Yes, I have used the epithet SLOA21 to try to get this idea out into circulation, and I am glad to see some finally seeing a relevance for such a "Standards Body" for the railtour industry. I am not and never have been proposing Staite21, but a fresh and wide ranging group. Where Quango came from I don't know - because all parties would be private sector and none governmental - but there you go - if you are hostile to an argument why let truth and objectivity get in the way of your diatribe?

So - let's look at how the typical railtour gets organised

First - any promoter, seasoned and experienced or new and totally fresh to the industry has an idea

They then find that they cannot make an approach to Network Rail direct, but have to make their proposal via an operating TOC, currently one of two. This is ridiculous and counter productive. Any proposal has to take a triangular route upwards and back as the arbiter and respondent is Network Rail. TOCs may well have a valid advisory role - but this situation where they can control what is taken forward is neither competitive, constructive or desirable.

Network Rail - having been approached, and having said "yes" are then, time and again, found to be utterly unprofessional in their responses. NR are the owners of the infrastructure and providers of paths right across the national network - BUT - you wouldn't think so from the number of times that they give clearance for a route where engines won't fit, or agree to proposals which just can't be accommodated within route speed limits or pathing availability. Rail touring as an industry is well into its second century - you wouldn't think so when you see the amount of wheel invention that goes on.

Network Rail insist on a minimum of six weeks notice for such proposals, but time and again I have sat next to train managers on their mobiles, discussing and varying that day's timings with control, and varying them in real time. So much for six weeks and so much for the train timers' expertise which the train managers and drivers seem able to re-write quite regularly - with no notice!

Network Rail - once they have accepted a proposal should accept and be bound by a liability to their clients, and their end users, us the customers, to deliver on that approval or to participate in an industry compensation scheme. Government has a responsibility to the public and is active in consumer law in many other industries - it should be active here in respect to its wholly owned if nominally private subsidiary, Network Rail.

So - your tour promoter, bound to the TOC that he had to choose to make his proposal (at a non returnable cost) now has a 100% unreliable"yes" to his proposal and on the strength of that lack of assurance has to go out and arrange hire of rolling stock, catering contractors, a loco or locos and use of all the staff, volunteer and paid, that will be needed on the day.

At that point the tour can be advertised and sold - well that's what you would think! It would be instructive to see how many tours are sold "off plan" and money taken from interested punters without there being contracts in place to actually perform these tours. The howls of derision and denial that this happens are already ringing in my ears - but "Say it ain't so - Joe, Say it ain't so!"

Selling something you don't own is a disgrace in any industry, but we know that the wunches of bankers do it, with impunity - but that does not stop the practice being disgraceful and potentially fraudulent, but in the tour industry we also know it happens as its the only way to keep the tills ringing. In the travel industry you have ABTA and ATOL to protect you - why should tour operators not have a similar protective code of conduct to protect the final paymaster - you and I - the customer.

Equally - the National Network is no place for "playing" trains or "having fun" Train weights, locos for haulage, etc MUST be planned with good practice in mind - anything less is simply unprofessional, irresponsible and has no place on the national network. Overweight, technically non compliant, impossibly timed movements should NEVER be projected or occur. That they have been allowed to is beyond contradiction. Good management is the art of the possible, not forays into the unknown. Network Rail equally should provide reliable paths having regard to actual train movements - shuttling from fast to slow between Ulleskelf and Church Fenton on Tuedays to Thusdays to avoid a Mondays only movement...................

So - tickets having been sold, the tour promoter finally receives details of the times and routes available to him - about forty eight hourse before the tour occurs. usually much slower times requiring longer days on the road, and often route diversions - which just should not happen. At the last minute changes of plan, booking or cancellation of hotels, panic about car parking, taxis, or family to set down and pick up are needed. What other industry does this to you at price levels of this magnitude? This is a disgraceful,but almost universal practice and Network Rail should be held up to the opprobrium they deserve for this treatment of the public - their final customers

Then comes the on the day experience; In what other world would you pay at this level and be frozen or cooked to death - and I have experiences of both in recent times - the latter only yesterday in stock owned by a very high reputation outfit! Days out in stock with no lighting, or water, or windows you can't see out of - This is the twenty first century and the stock is only used for charters - why is it not kept better? Age is no argument - When did you last travel in a coach, or plane,or ship, with no light or heat? Not all passengers are hale and hearty and the potential effect on any pre-existing conditions of such circumstances may well be actionable in today's world. Safer to provide well lit, heated and ventilated and watered stock at the outset.

I am certainly contacting the stock supplier after yesterday - the tour promoter is only the supplier for the duration of the tour, the condition of the stock is the owner's responsibility.

On board services is an interesting situation - In England hot meals are only available to "posh" class. The SRPS feed many of their clients in all classes breakfast, lunch or dinner. Sandwiches with a life expectancy more than mine are not the only option. Equally the ubiquitous trolley from the national network does not appear to be a railtour accoutrement. Itis always better than people having no choice but to walk the train with mugs of hot liquids.

One thing I will give Riviera their due for is the speaker system. Train to passenger communication was clear and audible - not chinese whispers by word of mouth as on other trains.

Finally there is the matter of locos. Its an old adage "don't promise what you can't deliver!" But its spot on right! If you have only applied for a particular loco - have the honesty to say so, and what the alternatives are. I book by choice, and am not committed by lies. Tell me the truth and I will respect you - lie and I will hold you in the deepest contempt. And lies will not support those exclusion and contingency clauses - they will drive a horse and coaches straight through them.

Railtouring is bound by exactly the same consumer legislation as any other retail industry. It is bound by such as the Misrepresentation Acts, the Supply of Goods and Services Act and the Sale of Goods Act. Exclusion clauses are only applicable provided they do the same.

If all the foregoing does not indicate a role for a standard setting body, I don't know what does. The results of the unregulated chaos that is the current set up abounds on this forum.


There is only one way forward for those seeking to improve the industry - and sure as Hell - it ain't the status quo

 

Frank,

I'd be quite certain Network Rail would campaign for a steam ban (or do everything in it's power not to run steam) if it were to follow your recommendations.

1. Why would NR want to be liable for "on demand" rail tours from any member of the public who owns a "railtour website", who may not have any experience in scheduling, resources, funding of a mainline steam and stock operation, then having used NR resources to find the path and route for the "mad tour" the promotor then goes off running round trying to find someone to run it for them....are you serious ?

turning this mad idea on it's head.. if applied to freight, your method would mean anyone wanting to run a freight train, phoning Network Rail demanding a path at a time and route.. then going shopping for someone to run it for them... ( ever tried short notice booking a taxi on a friday night at 7pm in a major city ?)


2. As for stock and locomotive, thats down to the promotor's choice.. there's plenty of providers of charter stock, plenty of locomotives out there and today they have a choice, it sounds like your SLOA2 would dictate which locomotive and which stock you can use... thats very much at odds with your "free for all" proposal for Network Rail access.

So coming back to guidance..

3. Route availability, Train weights.. (and you ignored the logistics.. the driver, fuel, schedule) are all thing not really down to network rail, but the TOC. Are you suggesting the 2 TOC's are not qualified to do this today and need a SLOA2 to guide / govern them ?

However...

I can extract some positives in your post..,

1. A Passenger representative body (an ATOC for Steam) to see that the service offered matches the description offered by promoters and an insurance scheme to cover the eventualities that go wrong... so are you going to pony up an extra £50 a ticket for the privilege of guaranteed clean windows, right times, right route and right locomotive or your money back ?

2. There could be a case of a concern to guide Network Rail on accepting railtour requests.. but the TOC's have already got that job, and why not as ultimately it's the TOC, not the promotor or Network Rail who is "driving" the train on the day... so if they get a mad proposal it's their choice whether to accept it. Your SLOA2 could do the same job (taking WCRC/EWS regulation out of it..) but then all you've done is move the decision on "if it will fly" from a TOC to a single body.. and even if the body said yes.. you still need to TOC to sign up to it.. so what have you gained ?

3. Network Rail could do a better job of planning, but they could do it even better still, if they limited steam to selective routes / times and paths, and refused all other requests.. that would be easier faster and cheaper for everyone...railways have run this way for over a century, it has a name: "A timetable", using your own example: The Jacobite runs exactly and predictably on that basis for 20 years and even your post suggests we both agree it's the better option.