Tin Bath Feb 14th 2016

Flicking through UKSteam, I can't see nor recall any time in the past two years where any Jubilee has gone over the top at Sough, which is the route we were supposed to do between Blackburn and Manchester, so I speculate that this, and not the addition of 44871, is the problem. It is quite feasible that because a Jubilee hasn't been over the top at Sough in years, it has now been decided not to proceed with it this time. As you know, this is a story that is increasingly commonplace- the line has been singled, track alignments may have changed to improve travel over curves, ballast left in situ and not cleared, presumably with the result that anything with a greater height at key areas on the lean than a 'Black Five' won't fit unless the route is specially cleared.

There's evidently some sort of gauging issue when comparing Jubilees with 'Black Fives', otherwise we would have been sent around the original route from the word go- Brockholes Tunnel is my starter for ten. On the plus side, the re-routing has resulted in some more new track for me, for I have yet to do Lostock Jct. to Farington Curve Jct. by steam. What this means for the 'Coast to Coast' express in May is beyond me, for I seem to recall it was a gauging issue, followed by an intensification of Transpennine's timetable which has prevented steam from heading over Diggle for around six or seven years.

 

T&C have to be fair and transparent. Merely to reserve the right to significantly change the product before it is provided does not meet legal standard. While accepting this is a complicated product to market, shifting all the risk in terms of getting what they paid for onto the customer is not really equitable. A transaction has to be conducted in a position where each party is FULLY aware of the risks before the contract is struck. Some folk may be happy to take a lucky dip, others less so. It is the responsibility of the seller to be clear how much of a lucky dip each product may be. As @andalfi1 said, honesty is a basic prerequisite.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you- honesty is undoubtedly the best policy. But what precisely IS the legal standard in this instance, where a day trip by steam on the national network remains essentially an intangible product until the day it runs? The T&Cs are pretty honest insofar that they show a recognition that things can go wrong, and that changes can and do happen, and this should inform the potential passenger to make a judgement call- you don't have to book if you think its too risky. The T&Cs are also printed on the tickets, which again shows a recognition that things can change at the last moment. Accusing companies of 'hiding' behind T&Cs is a cheap shot; they are no different to those provided by holiday companies selling holidays, they are there to protect both sides of the transaction, and the customer is given ample opportunity to see them. Whilst people don't tend to read T&Cs, short of spoon-feeding adults this information in person, there is little more a company can do.

The problem then shifts to one of informing the passenger, but this trip has shown that even this is difficult to get right, whilst some changes have occurred the day before- as happened on an Atlantic Coast Express to Exeter in April 2013. Looking at it another way, the current situation reduces overheads and maintains a competitive price, for what you suggest implies that each trip should have an individual attached to it to make sure the level of service meets expectations. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world where office staff employed by the promoters are infinite in number. We can talk about this all day, but complaining about it on here and expecting a tide of change as a result gives us nothing but bruised fingers.

 

I think what's happened with the Tin Bath is acceptable. Things have happened to the route, to the loco availability and that combination has changed the offer. Some punters who wanted two Jubes or wanted to go by Penistone or on rare track in Cheshire will be disappointed. Some will be unhappy with the changed time back to Manchester. Most will be happy if it runs as steam on the route on the appointed day with 44871 and 45699. They will say the changes come with the territory.

The FS trips in the summer are another matter. Why is an entire programme of Waverleys fully booked six months in advance? Has Carlisle suddenly become a more attractive destination? No. People want the experience of travelling behind FS. Everyone on here knows the small print. But people on here are not representative consumers. The average person that's booked on those trains thinks they are going to get a particular iconic memorable experience. From all points of view I hope they do. But if something goes wrong then running it with 47 760 (thanks Sycamore) will not do.

 

The line through Darwen was single track with a passing loop at the station. Last summer NR installed a double track section for approx 1 mile either side of the station; the existing line became the down line and the new line the up (towards Bolton). There is now a 2 mile section over which steam has not travelled and would need to be checked. I can't recall when a Jubilee last came through Darwen, steam has been infrequent in recent years usually one, or a pair of Black 5s - I travelled behind 46115 on the ill-fated Cotton Mill Express 17 July 2010.
I'm guessing that there is some misinterpretation in the passing of the information about why a Jubilee "fits" but a Black 5 doesn't and perhaps NR never checked to see if either would fit. I'm sure the checking process is a little more complex than, "will the mouse go through the hole without touching the sides?" On that basis alone a Jubilee is over 3 inches taller than a Black 5. Possibly as significant is that it's axle load exceeds that of a Black 5 by over 2T and its total weight by almost 9T. But, I hear you say a Jub is still over 3T lighter than a Scot and has a slightly lower axle load, but there was only one Scot. Put 2 Jubilees together and there is a load that could possibly be detrimental to bridges or viaducts, I suspect that it would have to be checked.
I hope that everyone has a Grand Day Out on Sunday, we did on a similarly curtailed trip in November. I had hoped that come Sunday I would have been able to take the ten minute stroll from home and watch the train at Grimshaw Street bridge (Darwen) - thwarted yet again! I've decided to do a nostalgia trip on Sunday and watch it somewhere around Accrington shed, Church station or Oswaldtwistle; I'm sure nothing much will have changed in the fifty-odd years since I was last thereabouts. I've packed my duffel bag, spam butties and a bottle of Tizer. Now I just need some Spangles . . .

 

But don't forget the Jubblies !!

 

There's only one now Fred........oh, Jubblies, sorry.

 

Disregarding the specifics of the TB saga for a moment, in general the requirements for terms and conditions are very clear having recently been clarified in law with the introduction of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which deals with, inter alia, unfair etc terms. Comprehensive and clear guidance is published
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ta/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf
and the pertinent aspects in the scenario under consideration are found within 'Right to determine or change what is supplied – Schedule 2, Part 1, paragraphs 12 and 13'.
It is possible to have contract terms which permit for changes with valid reasons. However a reason can be considered ‘valid’ only if its inclusion in the contract offers real protection to the consumer against encountering unexpected and unacceptable changes in his or her position. Vague or unclear reasons are most unlikely to be considered valid. In any case, no statement of reasons can justify making consumers pay for a product that is substantially different from the one they agreed to buy.
In essence the consumer retains the right at all times to cancel and be refunded when there is a significant change to the contracted product. This product may have the characteristics of "herding cats" but the responsibility rests squarely with the supplier as to how they manage the problem. In other industries insurance against losses for cancellation due to unexpected changes is expected, especially where the trader can insure against the risk more cheaply than the customer.
What occurs to me is that the current business model for some steam railtours may not be viable without the consumer agreeing to waive rights to a large degree and have consented fully to do so. Ultimately therefore traders are only ever one dissatisfied customer away from having to defend a challenge; relying on some of the current terms may not support a successful defence.

 

Only 3 tours have gone pear shaped and that was when 48151 sparked a fire, the steam ban on the East Coast and then the Hotbox with 45699.

 

I think you will find all the tickets have been bought up to be sold on as part of a package at a premium,perhaps a comment from RTC on this ?.

 

I thought you booked the first WCME to get 60103 but got two fives ! That's pretty pair shaped to me ! Not having a go just saying your seem to have bad luck at times .

 

This looks like 44871's move to Blackburn on Saturday......

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/U50652/2016/02/13/advanced

 

Some tours I will admit iv not had the best of luck with motive power wise but of the 21 railtours iv been on only 1 has suffered a failed engine and 2 have suffered from lineside fires.

 

Fair point David , I only ever mentioned your bad luck last minute engine change not engine failure tour wise .

 

And return on Monday.....

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/U50651/2016/02/15/advanced

 

Why does it have to go back via Manchester when it's less than an hour to get back via Todmorden Curve. Is it so that the loco is facing the right way for next time?

 

45699 ECS for the next day's tour at Bolton Le Sands level crossing .

 

I hope the other diesel goes back to Carnforth tonight ! Four locomotives on one train would be OTT !