What should a tour operator do when the routing or the locomotive has to change ?

The matter of loco availability post planning - but not on every occasion caused by force majeure - would be very largely covered by pooling. Operators and clients would know in advance what the game plan is

Ideal - Loco A
LBU - Loco B. C or D in that order

The matter of engineering works being imposed after routes have been approved by Network Rail , or routes being found to be out of gauge after proposals have been accepted by the same company, are a xxxxx disgrace.

The infrastructure owner should know and be responsible for its activities and infrastructure and not try to hide behind the small print by transferring the responsibility for postponement / cancellation onto promoters who are the innocent victims of their uprofessional stewardship of their routes and structures

 

Depends on the objective of the tour in this case. If the tour is purely about being 6233's comeback then if she isn't going to be available (decision to be made 6 weeks before hand, plenty of notice) then postponement is probably best in this case. As it is purely a comeback tour then the majority of punters are likely to be enthusiasts booking for 6233 and would understand and would prefer this option. If it is a 'dual purpose' tour with punters also booking for the destination then substitution would be better, but with clear explanation that a different loco will be used in advent of 6233 being unavailable in the brochure. No one can argue then as it is clear what will happen from the outset and enthusiasts are booking at their own risk.
In both cases though the tour shouldn't be advertised as being with 6233 unless there has been clear consultation with the owners that 'A' she will be in one piece and 'B' will have been tested well in advance of this date. It wouldn't be the first time locos have been advertised with the loco owners bursting out laughing when they see the date knowing full well there isn't a hope the loco will be ready by then.

 

Perhaps there should be an agreement that promoters shouldn't promote a loco that still hasn't had it's boiler refitted? Once an overhauled boiler is refitted then in most cases 6 months should be sufficient to complete and test barring unforeseen issues. For newly restored (rather than overhauled) locos then this would obviously be a bit different, but normally a period of running in would be required on a preserved line anyway.

 

OR - A certain Bury based operator only contracts his locos out when he is confident he can perform - and is also likely to make it known when locos of his are associated with workings in respect of which he has had no approach and to which he has no commitment.

Openness and honesty.

 

Maybe it's time for Service / Operational Level Agreements within the steam charter business ?
Something like:

The locomotive owning group has the contract to provide their engine, find another if their own is unavailable or face a financial penalty ?
TOC has the contract to confirm the route and timings within an agreed time frame or face a penalty.
and so on.
etc.
This doesn't have to be one-sided against the locomotive owners or TOC etc or a reason to increase costs, it's basically about agreeing a standard which everyone can reliably work with.
In professional SLA definitions it's a consultative process.. the supplier details what service level they can provide for what cost and the operator negotiates on this in order to reach an affordable guaranteed and agreed level of service.

The organiser can reliably advertise their tour on a route with a locomotive or back up within a certain time frame with confidence in it's suppliers.

This could see a lot more cooperation between groups / related locomotive types and guarantee locomotive availability, it may also introduce a bit more risk aversion on committing to decisions.. but if that means the end product is more reliable isn't that better ?

 

Or, to paraphrase all of the above we go back to the SLOA marketing model as developed by the late Bernard Staite!

 

I just thought I'd try to sum it up in one line to show that it can/has been done!

 

if you talk to Mr Riley he absolutely would have nothing to do with anything resembling that model - but I have been banging on for years about a SLOA 21 type of concensus between Network Rail, VABs, TOCs Loco Owners and Promoters to set out some kind of users charter so that everyone including the eventual final retail buyer knows what they are getting.

The fact that the industry doesn't want it perhaps speaks volumes - but eventually if the industry is to have any reputability in the market place it will learn to listen to Uncle Frank and look at what he is saying.

We all know that a better more reliable product that goes where it says, when it says, hauled by what it says is what the eventual customer wants. At the end of the day the successful business will be the one that supplies that - and at the moment that is WCRC who run summer trains countrywide with often their own motive power, their own stock and their own staff to a level of reliability and frequency that no-one else can touch. They are the ones to take as a model and seek to improve on.

If they applied their level of negotiating ability to turning the railtour industry into a similarly reliable product then everyone would be happier - and I do mean everyone and every business - well every business except the chancers - and they aren't long term propositions anyway with their level of inherent risk - which is what is spoiling the market and its prospects every time it fails

 

Here Hear!

 

It is hard to judge these things such as booking on a certain loco only for it to be changed or a route change. I voted change the date but this is mainly due to me wanting to see 4492 on the Lewes to Ely Cathedrals Express but 4492 has been replaced by 70000. I don't think it was said why and was only changed this month. But also if you book on a tour with a loco you like and route you'd like to travel.

But as I said its difficult to come to a good conclusion. For myself anyway.