Railway Touring Company 2016

The issue is less about DL usage, which is inevitable and legitimate in many situations, but about the information a customer has to decide upon the basis their booking is made.
It really seems very simple to me, publish a catch all caveat as prominently as the other promoted features. From that point onwards there is no possibility of misleading anyone.
Ideally any tours that will undoubtedly be assisted etc should be advertised as such. As @BigAl has said the tour promoter must often be aware so ought to mention it.

 

But the nature of the market means that quality can never be 100 per cent assured, no matter how much is charged. If the advertised locomotive is unavailable in three months time, and a substitute underpowered for the job, then we are back to square one. As for price, this is a little complacent for trips outside of London, from where they will probably have to be reduced out of necessity anyway.

Yes they are businesses delivering a product, but at the same time, I get the impression that they sometimes have to play the waiting game with baited breath just like the rest of us. Scottish Lowlander- probably still the best one-day tour this century- is a key example of this process, where the challenge of getting to Edinburgh proved insurmountable in the final week.

We evidently have differing outlooks on the sector as is, and I think this sits upon what the individual wants out of the experience. I am very much in the market for the 'one off' to unusual places, and there should be no real problem with this aspiration if followed responsibly in the spirit of open access.

I do agree communication can be an issue, but one cannot be so sure that the promoter is the font of all knowledge until the timings are in the bag, and by then it's usually too late.

 

Transparency isn't always as good as it can be though. Certain promoters are prone to promise the earth and deliver a pile of mud! Classic case in point being tours listed with 6023 as haulage which were complete fiction - GWS hadn't promised bookings with any promoter pending mainline testing and despite that fact being made public tours were left advertised with 6023. Even now its on the Great Britain Tour for next year despite not being tested. That sort of advertising is simply irresponsible because whilst we all hope that in 9 months time the loco is operating on the mainline, the reality is that until the revised draughting is tested in anger, no-one knows whether its even possible. (Its also listed in the pool for the 17th September 2016!).

We all know that a chosen loco can fail and have to be replaced but to advertise one which has absolutely no chance of turning up (there is no chance of 6023 running mainline on 17th September) isn't being honest and transparent.

 

And there is a prime reason why these issues will never get to a court. If someone booked the tour specifically to travel behind say 6023 and it did not happen, and they were aware of what you have posted, they would be in deep trouble. There would have to be full disclosure to the Court including all correspondence with the provider. If the scenario you paint was the true situation, the operator would not have a leg to stand on. One day I'm sure the Trading Standards people will intervene.

 

Not so sure about that, as there is such a thing as 'in good faith', and if another locomotive lined up to take its place, then the promoter has practised due diligence in still providing steam haulage between A and B. It's one of the reasons I've generally moved on from booking on the basis of particular locomotives.

Where they do fall, and I've consistently agreed with this point, is when the caped locomotive continues to be advertised. But I suspect the magnitude of scale of disappointment is actually quite small if the rest of the trip goes as planned. It's not as though this is a new problem, either.

I don't disagree that the 6023 and 35018 advertising sagas are extreme, but they still don't disprove the rule that even when operational, locomotive availability cannot be guaranteed for the lead time needed to promote a tour. At the moment, 6023 is not featured in the programme for the rest of this year.

 

Can't be categoric about this, but I don't believe that's quite how events unfolded that day (11th June). Spamcan81 first broke the news that Tornado was in the frame for the Diversionary Tactic's return trip to London on the day of the tour itself, and the subsequent few posts immediately following this, in the "Unexpected Outing for Tornado today" thread suggested that it was unlikely that anyone on the excursion would have been aware of the plan to substitute Tornado for the DL in any event. But I may be wrong - UKRT's outing that day was really aimed at a different market to the mainline steam fraternity, and so I suppose its just possible that there wouldn't have been the same enthusiasm for 60163 as there would have been for most contributors to this thread.

 

The problem with the T&Cs is that they don't seem to oblige the tour promoter to do their best. When they are taking a booking by phone they should come clean with the latest available information as to what is planned and expected: which loco, which route, and the likelihood of diesel assistance. Likewise for bookings through their website, that should display the latest available information. If the desired loco is at that time still under repair or otherwise not yet available, they should be saying something along the lines that they hope and expect loco X to be available by the day of the trip and that if it's not available they hope and expect to have loco Y instead, and those statements should be on the basis of the best information available to them at the time. If circumstances change subsequently, those who have booked should be given the option to cancel and get a refund of most if not all of the fare that they have paid.

Offering those terms would result in some customers cancelling, so trains would sometimes be running with a lot of empty seats, so fares might need to be a bit higher, but wouldn't that be better than the present situation?

 

Ideally, there should be no reference to any particular steam locomotive in the marketing, but I can't see that happening as it creates more of a 'lucky dip' than we have at the moment- and if members on here are not happy with the current situation, then they certainly wouldn't welcome a complete veil of secrecy as to what will turn up on the day. Once again, without hard evidence, there is little point in suggesting that promoters 'aren't trying hard enough'; prices set four months in advance may not permit wriggle-room for outcomes which would satisfy some commentators on here.

There was a comment in the 'Beano' about seven years ago that the UK market was not really providing a great deal of profit in comparison to the market for global steam, and I'd hazard the guess that the situation remains the same, hence why SD are heading for Ireland and Germany. So if the UK market is actually not as profitable, why do they continue, and is there a point at which raising prices will start to produce diminishing returns for a promoter? I think the market is increasingly attempting to achieve economy of scale (ie. the number of tours) and economy of scope (operating in two or more distinct markets) to square this circle. In such a situation, less, more expensive tours doesn't necessarily achieve more.

PS. I think we should start another thread!

 

The standard "effort" committed to in T&C differs. Vintage Trains manages to have "every effort", "reasonable efforts" and "best efforts" in its T&C (although they need to be read in context). I am not sure what "every effort" means but it sounds onerous. "best efforts" is very onerous, reasonable efforts is what it says. It is in the operator's interest to specify a particular locomotive, as availability is largely binary and even best efforts would not cure last minute failure of FTR or gauging of that loco, or some fundamental fault that emerged a bit earlier. However, such "efforts" are not a sinecure, and even reasonable efforts would probably require the tour operator to get the loco operator to do a mock FTR a few days in advance (as the formal FTR in and of itself does not constitute an "effort"), you can't satisfy this by leaving it to the real FTR and saying, "Oh it doesn't work, sorry". One imagines that loco owners would want to do that anyway. Specifying just "steam haulage" on the other hand could open the tour operator up to significant last minute effort and financial liability, particularly if they have been rash enough to say best efforts, and to line up more than one locomotive, would at some point in time come with a significant price tag, without necessarily achieving much, as failures can be last minute.

As already commented on above, advertising a locomotive where there is more than usual uncertainty that it will be available (or not changing the advertising once it was clear that there was considerable doubt), is poor practice, and would likely void any disclaimer, but one assumes it is due to a combination of the optimism of entrepreneurship and incompetence (in not maintaining the website) rather than bad faith. It would be useful to understand quite what a flow diagram for operating a train looks like and when the operator goes on risk financially for each element. I suspect it is a dynamic and iterative process, and not for those who are prone to anxiety.

There are suggestions that the locomotive owners/operators are innocent parties. If you are overhauling a loco, one can see a great temptation to make its potential availability known to the tour operators, rather than wait until it has had its loaded test run etc. Of course, the owner may say, we are targeting to have it ready in month x, and the tour operator can choose to ignore whatever caveats are made which accompany that target. If though the lead time for a tour is say six months, then to only advertise locos that were certified would imply for instance that 6201's first tour would be next year (this is an example, I am not singling out any loco or tour operator). It really would be good to know how the balls are juggled for a particular trip though - NP residents might be more sympathetic.

 

That seems to sum things up nicely for me. Thanks for your considered contribution.

 

I suppose if you haven't got a signed contract to use a particular loco on a particular date and tour, then you should not advertise the tour with that loco.

 

So we're back to just stating a trip will be 'steam hauled'. Catch 22 once again, and a symptom of reliance upon third parties to provide a substantial part of the final product. Still, it makes one wonder how much of the tour industry is based upon spoken word, rather than by formal contract.

 

I hear you, Ralph. Let me say my sympathy tends to be on the side of the tour operator, and the loco owner who seems generally to be subsidising the operation. But, if the fate of the tour is contingent on someone wheeling out a barrow of wood on the day before the tour, lighting the loco up and seeing if it passes the FTR, then that is no effort, it is certainly not reasonable effort. Now, you may say, the economics of the business do not support it, which is conceivable. But if that is the case, the parties cannot rely on normal disclaimers. They need to agree a code of conduct e.g. "the tour will be run in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Steam Hauled Railtours, which is available at ..." , which may indeed say "We will make no effort to see that the loco is fit to run before the FTR exam". If this was a loco operator's attitude, it would surprise me, but at least parties know where they stand. If I was the tour operator, I would probably think they were joking, but if that was the only deal on offer then you have to suck it up or quit the business.

 

Great assessment.
Based on a recent post by a senior industry source, however, we may be crediting the model with a degree of sophistication that is absent. In fact it was categorically stated there simply is not a business model for steam charters.
The reality is that steam charters are an extension of other heritage railway operations not a stand alone enterprise. Viewed through that prism what has been acheived is remarkable. In the context of a competitive leisure industry, however, the product seems less sustainable if it fails to provide the advertised premium priced product.

 

The trouble is, while enthusiasts make up a large part of the tour, and all of the above posts are true, it is as advertised a rail TOUR, not an enthusiasts trip (even though clearly it is aimed at that market)

I would imagine in the eyes of the law, the product is as follows:

Collect passengers and take them on a touring route as specified when the tour is booked. Serve those who have paid for it a breakfast and 4 course dinner throughout the tour. Allow the passengers sufficient time to explore the destination before returning.

While the motive power is advertised as steam - the Ts and Cs clearly allow leeway for it to be all steam, no steam or steam either a DL on the back.

In court as long as you've taken your passengers and done all of the above you have ticked the box and provided a rail tour. There is sufficient wiggle room in those Ts and Cs to basically account for all that's been discussed above.

Yes, slightly more transparency from an enthusiasts point of view would be better - but a 'normal' booking a day out and dinner on a steam train would read 'diesel attached' and think 'oh I won't book that one its not a steam train' and as such RTC would loose out on some of its business outside of the enthusiast community.

Normals really have no idea - the number of people I have seen lineside who have 'popped out to see a steam train' and say 'oh no it's a diesel' when 34067 has turned up. Or say it's a diesel when the regulator is shut and a loco is coasting....

We are extremely lucky to have what we have - while I agree all discussed here is annoying, the more we moan, the less flexibility the tour operators have, they tighten their Ts and Cs and we are left with a tiny package of tours that are too expensive for us all to travel on.

At least now I get the impression that, at least from RTCs point of view best efforts are made to make things happen.

If there is anything to take away from this, RTC need someone to manage their media front end better. As do WCR and hundreds of other heritage establishments in Britain...

 

Isn't that the point? Tour operators are NOT being honest, open and transparent about the product that they sell because they fear the product they know they are to deliver will not meet the description and people will not buy.

I've just quickly thumbed through the RTC brochure and the only diesel references made, save for the DCE being diesel houled out of Weymouth, are those ehere a part of the tour is diesel hauled to the start of steam. Statements such as "A magnificent steam locomotive will haul this train, which recalls the glorious days of steam travel." are misleading. There are many similar examples.

I know that RTC push the envelope with the variety of tours, but they are a business and they are there to turn a profit. The loco providers are looking to turn a profit to maintain their assets, the TOC is there to turn a profit. It is not a game.

 

It's definitely not a game - the point I'm trying to make is that they can advertise what they like, but their small print gets then out of trouble.

There is a lot of grumpiness being expressed here which sort of overshadows the point being made. I think all that's needed is a section in the back of the brochure showing which tours could perhaps have diesel assistance for operational reasons. But that's is a NICE TO HAVE rather than something RTC actually need to do.

Let's face it, we are all enthusiasts, and we all know where to look to find out about wether a diesel will be on the back, or which loco will be available - social media/forums such as this mean that if people want to know that information, they will find it out. Just don't book if it's a problem.

As for advertising a loco before it's ready - a lot of the brochures and materials will have been made months in advance - you can't very well re-print and send everything or when you find out an overhaul has overrun..

I do think as I mentioned in my first post thy regular updates online from companies such as RTC would be good and helpful, but again this is a nice to have rather than an essential...

I do often wonder if the time for pedantry amongst the enthusiast community has passed, and a time for embracing what we have and looking forward to when there is a pure steam tour instead of moaning is upon us....

 

Enthusiasts are understandably more forgiving of tour operators lack of clarity. The fact remains that enthusiasts alone will not provide sufficient numbers to fill the trains. If "normals" as they seem to be commonly referred to lose faith because the provided service does not match the advertised and expected one it will be the death of steam charters. It is an immutable business fact not confined to this realm.
The brochure issue is a red herring too. The vast majority of business is now done with reference to online information so maintaining a false hope of certain locos being ready by continuing to advertise them is very shabby. As is advertising motive power that has apparently not been agreed with the owners.