Charter trains under threat

I haven't seen this posted on this forum yet. I've copied this from RailUk forum I hope the person who made the post is ok with it. Could we see the end of rail charters in the near future?

 

I wondered when this was going to surface on here...

Personally I think it's a bit of scaremongering, as delay minutes tend to "even themselves out" over time, in that your paying out for delaying one TOC one week and someone else is paying you for having delayed you the next with the result that over time, the profit/loss is very little unless you have a hideously unreliable loco on your hands (in which case I reckon the TOC would refuse to operate it until rectified)

Certainly over time, I don't think charters are any worse performance wise than any other TOC.

Certainly there's an opinion among many running the day to day Railway that the "delay minutes" system is a waste of time and should be dispensed with as it's largely the same amounts heading back and forth between TOC's every week with the result that no one really gains or is penalised by it, apart from wasting paperwork/time.

 

A former NR friend of mine has told me a few stories regarding the "delay minutes" system and overall it seems quite pointless. You'll be surprised, or maybe not, how often the biggest cause of delays is NR itself.

 

Woulden't surprise me in the slightest, things like points failures, overrun engineering works ?, if the taxpayer is funding NR via the Government and that cash is going into private companies hands (TOC's) via the delay minutes system, then that's a good enough reason to scrap the system on it's own.

 

Although I believe someone's flying a kite with this suggestion, I think it still best to enjoy our charters it while we still can; one can never know what might emerge from around the corner.

 

I wonder if the biggest looming threat is actually increasing line speeds leading to fewer (or no) paths on more and more routes

 

So lets look at the math...

The "steam" industry is nigh on 400 trains a year, the diesel market is considerably more.. Around 800.
if we assume an average of 1000 trips a year...

Now the NR article states £600k in 3.5 years...that's £171k per year

171k/ 1000 trips... That's £171 per trip.... Divide that by say 350 passengers...

That's 49p per passenger.
thats not going to break the industry.

@£2 per passenger as an insurance premium (and build a kitty fund), don't forget LE/ECS pose risks to... That's not too unattrractive for an insurance company... Would I pay £71 instead of £69 for a winter CME... Yes.

my only question would be... If my trip was delayed by a toc and I payed my £2.. Do I get a share of The other toc's payout.. I prefer those odds over a euro millions lottery ticket, if not.. What happens to the insurance kitty.. As it could grow to become quite a pot.

it would be interesting to know the size of the "unpaid pot" which NR doesnt hand out to the railtour operators when someone else delays a railtour in that 3.5 years.

One thing to consider here is the imbalance...

1 charter train could cause delays to many service trains and grow to 000's of minutes
but it is unlikely that
1 service train could cause delays to many charter trains and grow to 000's of minutes
therefore charter trains are facing an unfair risk compensation model.

finally...

ORR notes that the £5,000 cap also applies to NR in paying compensation to charter operators, but that this is not applied in practice.

 

Yes this is big threat. It could end mainline steam and put a lot of people out of work. Not only at the tour promoters and their supporting indistries, but people who are employed by loco owners and engineering concerns, such as: WCRC, Riley's, Crew, Southall, A1SLT, Tysley, etc.
Adding a contingency to charter ticket prices is a sensible way of building up a fighting fund to pay compo claims. But only where delays amount to 30 mins, plus does Joe public get offered compo. That has to be fixed as < 29 minute delays currently only line affected TOC's pockets...and in grand style. This is wrong. If there was a charter promoter fighting fund in place for NR to dip into when steam charters cause delays, who is going to manage the blame game? The tour ops would pay in the ticket price % to preserve their businesses, but they, as a rule don't cause delays. How would loco owners be protected? All they get is their hire fees, which in some cases don't even cover the actual costs, when support crew, wear, tare and running costs are taken into account. Would they have to pay in too? Would hire fees increase so some insurance could be built in?
There is enough back biting in the industry as it is. I would be interested to hear how any joined up charter train industry solution would work in practice...even if the ORR and NR agreed to it.
If this does come to pass maybe, for once, the industry can bury its respective hatchets and work together to keep steam hauled trains operating on the national network. If it can't we would be in deep s*&%t! I suggest the industry looks at lobbying some steam friendly celebs and MPs to counter this potential threat.

 

Question--- is there literally no cap on the TOCs potential liability? What insurance arrangements do they have? Consider the hypothetical if Hatfield had been demonstrably the responsibility of GNER and its train maintenance regime.

I'm sure people in the know can think of some strong responses along the lines of

The DA system needs to be fully open and transparent; the NR cap of £5k should be lifted (sauce for the goose....); the basis for decision making around void days should be clear ; it is not the job of the regulator to raise barriers to entry to the rail market ; what are the arrangements elsewhere in Europe .....; what does the scheme cost to administer.....; is the handling of part-cancellations acceptable (ever had to run the length of Cambridge station with luggage when they turn the Midlands- Stansted train short)?

With a few well-placed supporters asking a question or two in the House, there might be enough to persuade ORR to get back in its box.

I'm in favour of abolishing or greatly reducing compensation to Joe Public for delays on single trip tickets (seasons are another matter). This has to be the most generous compensation scheme across the entire economy. But that is a different argument.

 

One thing to consider.. £600k over 3.5 years (£175k per year).. is a drop in ocean to the industries problems.
The consultation exercise itself will probably cost more than this... indeed staff costs over 3.5 years to manage will be higher..

It's so small beans it almost sounds like a customer looking for someone to pay for his christmas party by going to a supplier with a complaint.

 

Hope it is ok to post the link, there is quite a lengthy discussion about this on WNXX.

WNXX Interactive &bull; Login

You may have to log in to read it.

 

If line speed does come an issue why can't main line loco be allowed to run at high speeds? I know we have been down this road before. But surely a steam loco now running at 75mph shouldn't have any issues running at say 80 or 85mph. I know there is a safety issue with running faster line speed. But loco owners should be able to over come this issue. Be it extra paper work or extra maintenance to locos. If this does become one of the main reasons of steam being removed from the main line. Then a higher line speed needs to be looked in to for main line steam locos.

 

Would a class 91 doing 125MPH but stopping say every 25 - 30 mile, really be making much, if any ground at all on a 47 at 95 or a Deltic at 100 going non stop ?, in the time the service train would take to brake, call and accelerate, a charter running at that speed would be some miles up the line and take quite the time to catch if the speed difference is only 30MPH.

 

Another thing that doesn't help some Diesel charters is train weight, 2 years ago I was on one which was a 47, load 13 and a shut down 47 on the back, the speed over Shap Summit was one which most steamers would leave for dead...