Railway Touring Company 2016

There's no CME this week. The next one is 3rd September.

 

Sorry; that's the one I meant

 

Alan

Last time they went to Bognor (My first trip with RTC) 23/9/2006 a diesel carried out the reversal.

Paul

 

I don't read it like that. I read it as diesel on the front out of Bognor then steam down to Littlehampton and diesel back to the main line.

 

It's your archetypal branchline trip- diesel should be expected unless it's in the North East, and even then if engines are fighting fit. I'm on it, providing the alignment of a couple of stars come to pass, as it's a potentially difficult weekday slot. However, few complained when a 37 accompanied 34067 on its forays to Folkestone Harbour back in 2009.

 

Whichever way it goes to Littlehampton, it reads as diesel pulling the train out of Bognor.

 

Either way suits me on the return- haven't done Mitcham. However, why would you need to access the Streatham route to get to Victoria when you can use the dive-under by Latchmere? However, the advert is ambiguous which form of motive power will do the transfer between locations- I agree there is an issue if they advertise the DL on the Dorset Coast and the Christmas Sussex Belle and not this one, but the answer to the following would permit the benefit of the doubt:

1. Is it possible to release a steam locomotive at Bognor? Although there is at least one release road visible on Google Earth, I don't think its connected at the terminus end. But again, there's 1 hour 30 minutes, so enough time to get to Littlehampton Triangle?

2. Is it possible to release a steam locomotive at Littlehampton? Looking at photographs, this could entail a propelling movement towards the depot- there's penty of time allocated at Littlehampton. Alternatively, they could release the locomotive for turning on the triangle.

Either way, I wouldn't complain if there's a diesel leg to get between the two due to the branchline nature of the trip. It looks pretty complex to me!

 

As @BigAl says I may have laboured the point but failing to disclose known facts in advertising has the same effect as making false claims.
It would be an interesting exercise if the booking process for a charter offered a diesel option at a lower price to determine the actual premium folk choose to pay for steam. Obviously it won't happen but the challenge is there for an organiser to find out exactly what their customers want.

 

The answer is very simple. If accuracy, openness and transparency were respected, the tour itinerary would state clearly if the diesel was to be attached to assist the train and/or actually perform part of the route. That being the case, many would see through the untrue statement of "steam hauled" and not bother to book. Hiding a sentence deep in the T&Cs is not good enough. Tell us what the product is. If you are confident your product will be bought, what have you to fear?

 

I've not been there for a long while but I think I remember a release was possible from P3.

 

At the risk of being unpopular, the way I read Dobbs0054's arguments is that if such standards were followed to the letter, then one should be equally disappointed if a DL was advertised when steam did the whole thing. Morton's Fork or Catch 22, take your pick. The sector has its issues, but it's about as transparent as it can be given the circumstances- the only thing I consider irritable is the lack of website updates, but you are prompted to subscribe to the T&Cs before booking online, at any case.

However, if things were to be done strictly according to such beliefs, then:

1. Prices would go up.
2. Less people would travel- there's cheaper premium leisure activities out there.
3. Less trips need to be marketed.
4. Promoters would cease trading due to the inability to meet annual overheads.
5. There would be no steam programme in the way that we are currently used to.

If that's what's wanted, then great, and go for it, but leave those of us who want to see steam on the network in some form get on with it. I'd also suggest that if there's a better way than the market is currently organised, then those concerned should show the sector how it should be done, or at least legally test the T&Cs in court.

Regardless, the latter are there for a reason, so I would also hope complainants are equally willing to pursue insurance companies, banks, holiday firms and others for 'hiding' clauses in their T&Cs. PPI is a key example of success in this, but the simpler nature of a promoter's T&Cs would suggest a less than certain outcome. Also, if I were a promoter, I'd have run them past a lawyer in any case.

 

There is a risk of trying to over complicate how the dl involvement is brought to the attention of the buyer. I have suggested a simple one line statement of equal prominence to the main tour details would suffice.
It cannot be stated with any certainty either that the points 1-5 above would automatically be the result of clearer advertising. The main outcome would be a fairer market and informed buyers neither of which are likely to cause a reduction in patronage whereas the longer the present deception goes on the more probable long term adverse customer reaction becomes. This will damage the market more surely than being honest.

 

The T&Cs won't get tested in court. If complaints with a good foundation are made assertively enough, fair refunds are offered.

 

Thereby conceding, without prejudice, the deficiency in the published terms?

 

Agreed. I have had refunds despite the first response being the T&Cs. When told I was happy for a District Judge to adjudicate on the T&Cs my money came back quickly. No company wants the T&Cs tested as that would truly open Pandora's Box for them. Better to pay off a few stroppy customers and continue as is...

 

1.If the quality is assured, then people will pay the price. Better to pay for a premium product and actually receive than pay for a premium product and constantly receive substandard products.
2.I doubt that fewer people would travel. The majority of customers are in Premier and First Class which show price is not the issue.
3. Is that such a bad thing? Given the scarecity of Class 7 & 8 locos this year, so many tours have been cancelled. A consolidation of services on good routes with loads suitable for the loco to deliver pure steam has it's attractions.
4. It's not a Train Set that promoters are playing with. It's the National Network and they are in it to turn a profit. If they cannot deliver the product they puport to sell then there is no place in business for them.
5. Again. Not a bad thing. A more efficient and reliable tour programme delivered honestly.

I may be being pedantic here but you talk of those who want to "see" steam on the network. I don't want to just "see" steam on the network, I want to ride behind it as well. But I want to receive the product as sold to me.

 

Maybe in the meantime while waiting for the perfect world, UKSteam should add a column with a score from 1 to 10 of the predicted chances of a particular tour being steam only. Then this tour which is obviously going to run with a DL anyway to be sure of getting up Grosvenor Bank on Dec 13 can be rated 1. I find the more annoying thing to be something like the Buxton Spa or the Welsh Mountaineer where it's pretty inevitable that the rating will be 5 and it's really just a gamble on the loco, the arrangements with NR and the weather.

I agree with Bulleid Pacific--- and I think I recall people baling out of a UKRT trip to York recently because they weren't interested in a trip back to London through Lincs behind Tornado.