2009

Fully agree, the two interesting steam sections, Man Vict to Hellifield and the Southbound run over Shap have both been deleted from the itinerary and with only about 5 weeks before the tour is due to run. What is left is nothing more than a "Dalesman". If PTR / WCRC cannot deliver what was promised [and at this stage the reason for the changes is not known] then the trip should have been postponed to a date when it could have been delivered as per original itinerary. I guess PTR will receive several cancellations over this. I hope they write to / E-Mail all intending passengers informing them of these major changes. I would have thought with the "credit-crunch" all tour promoters would need every booking they can get at the moment but there is currently so much of this advertising one itinerary and delivering something else that people are going to give up booking.

 

What a shame, I was going to come up from London just for this railtour.

Glad I hadnt booked it yet!

it's another case of booking a meal at a 5 star restaurant and showing up to find it's become a macDonalds.

It's only a matter of time before trading standards look into the Railtour market, or we see it show up on Watchdog.

 

It depends on the reasons for the changes. Railtour operators sometimes get messed about by Network Rail, so it is not fair to blame them all the time.

John

 

Yet again the need for SLOA 21st Century rears its head

The problem is that the tour promoters are the "retailers" and they rely on loco owners, rolling stock providers, TOCs and NR to run - but that does not alter their responsibility to sell what they are advertising - or refund / walk away. This is still a multi million pound business but the way NR poo all over it, you wouldn't think so.

850/46115 last November, and the Perth turntable are the two most recent fiascos - albeit that the latter lies at the door of DBS

I am sure that yet agin we will find that the cavalier and autocratic Network Rail, which wouldn't understand a customer if it was biffed on the nose by one, will be found to be at fault - again.

Once the railway was handed over to the civils in 1993, from the business operators who had held the power for the previous 170 years, the writing was on the wall - and it is getting no better.

 

Doesnt quite stand up to the restaurant analogy...If I order a steak in a restaurant and get a burger instead, "because thats what the butcher sent".. you wouldnt be paying full price now would you ?

Tour promoters are responsible for their menus and if it aint what was advertised...for whatever whatever whatever...then refund / compensation is due.
They should be more responsible and advertise "locomotives from a pool" and steam from a source to a destination with a "preferred via".. so if it wasnt available it's no loss.. Scots Guardmans from Victoria is NOT the same as Scots Guardsman from Hellifield.

 

I beleive if SLOA were to make some sort of return it should not be the type of organisation that ruled main line steam last century. A dictotorial organisation like SLOA of old would be a leap backwards to a time when steam was restricted to only a few routes for a few locomotive owners. If any owner rocked the boat or fell out of favour the work for their locos would disappear. Yes open access has its own problems, but cast your minds back to the days before running over west coast and east coast main lines. Calder valley and Copy Pit for the Cotton Mills and others, widespread steam across the network didn't happen in the 80s under SLOA.
I travelled on the Fair Maid around 82, booked for 46229 from Edinburgh to Perth and return, out via Stirling return over the Forth Bridge. On the day 5690 Edinburgh-Stirling-Perth and 44767 Perth-Inverkeithing, no steam over Forth Bridge at that time unless you had Union of South Africa on the front. So a class 47 back to Waverley.
Good old days, I think not.
Regards John.

 

Sorry i don't think that is viable at all.

Firstly unlike a resturant which can go to another butcher, tour operators dont have another track access organisation to go, you either work with Network Rail or you don't go mainline, this is not to excuse their occasional incompetancies but they are a necessary evil in the chain.

Secondly are some locomotive owners going to be happy at being in a pool of 5 loco's and only occasionally getting a run and therefore revenue when another operator would happily pay them for 5 runs of their own ?.

This idea of a SLOA type organisation has a flaw, your assuming all tour operators and tour TOC's would be willing to play ball and have what they might view as outside interference in their operation, while open access exists such an organisation could only ever be optional.

Granted the present situation isn't ideal but things have moved on since the 80's prices and resources are much different.

 

I am merely using SLOA21 as a forum for discussion, not the closed shop that existed then - and which would be contrary to EU law now.

The restaurant analogy is 100% correct. I am not a lawyer - but consumer law is as clear as day and the example would function exactly that way, because that is how contract law works.

Network Rail does NOT own the railway - we do - and they operate the infrastructure on our behalf reporting via a publicly appointed board of trustees to parliament - so if they become too autocratic there is a reporting line. The problem is that we haven't got a Gwynnedd Dunwoody any more to tell them their job

 

Past Time Rail have added another 3 tours to it's itinerary. The Buxton Spa Express will operate on the following days:

Sun 15th March
Sun 12th July
Sun 29th November

These tours could be double headed using 45407 and 76079. The November trip does not state which loco will haul the railtour.

http://www.past-timerail.co.uk

 

3 dates ?, are PTR experimenting with a possible 3rd repeat intinery ?.

 

44871...or....45407...or .......... 76079.....or two of them together?.... :-#

 

True. But are you saying that was all down to SLOA?
I was one of Bernard's regulars in those days and although not in any way involved in SLOA's operation other than as a customer, I was often privilege to information about matters behind the scenes. In the early 80s, SLOA's trains were for the most part amazingly popular, witness some of the enormous trains running over the S&C and the majority of passengers were enthusiasts. SLOA wanted to do more, take my word for it, but had to do something that would be acceptable to the generally anti-steam BRB. They were happy for a limited number of routes with generally trouble free operations but drew the line at the idea of steam everywhere. SLOA did gradually widen the field when the opportunity presented itself; 4473 Peterborough to York in 1983, Fort William in 1984 and Bristol - Plymouth etc. in 1985 for example.
Because of the way the railways are managed (if that's the right word) now, a SLOA style organisation wouldn't be a possibility but some kind of co-ordinating body could be useful. I've no idea how it could be made to work though!

I was on that too. 46229 was refused for the route by BR and the lack of steam over the Forth Bridge was down to the ScR Chief Civil Engineer. He was supposed to be concerned about hammer blow but was persuaded to allow a limited number of trips for No. 9. I think it was a maximum of 6 crossings but wouldn't allow steam over the Tay Bridge at any price!

I though they were good days. Trains I could afford to travel on, through bookings from my local station and trains where the overwhelming majority were enthusiasts, none of this dining nonsense!

 

Quite so. I was a very hard up young enthusiast forty something years ago. Now I can afford to sit at a table with SWMBO and have booze and grub delivered regularly. Nothing nonsensical about that!

Cheers
Alan

 

I am sure that many tour operators will tell you it is now a fact that this 'dining nonsense' is a money spinner without which many trips would fail to get sufficient numbers to make them viable. Those of who choose to pay over £150 per head, do so because it is a way of getting wives and friends out for the day on a steam hauled trip when they would not otherwise contemplate it. I have seen several instances when Premier dining has been full and standard has had many empty seats.[/q]
I rang Vintage Trains last week to book on their trip to York to come back behind SNG.
When I said I wanted to book dining they said sorry sold out but there are still seats in standard. Note dining has sold out 2 months before the tour is due but you can still get seats in the "enthusiasts section".
If I was running this operation I would be considering extending the "dining nonsense" and cutting back on running standard class with empty seats.

 

Ok guys! You couldn't see where my tongue was?
The point was that, back in the early 80s, trains were full of enthusiasts and there was no need for 'this dining nonsense' that is now necessary to keep steam on the main line.
Trust me, I do know what the situation is these days and how the market has been forced to change in the intervening years. I still wish I could turn the clock back though. I had a great time in the 80s, out riding behind steam almost every Saturday - couldn't do it now.
Fortunately there are still a few trains that are popular with enthusiasts, that do Ok without needing the dining option, SSEs for example, and long may it continue.

 

Thanks for the comments Sir William. We would indeed extend the Vintage Trains dining nonsense if it were not for the fact that the 114 seats in our Mark 1 Pullmans are about all the seats our chef can cater for within the limits and constrained size of the pullman's Kitchen. if you consider that the Pullman car company had roughly twice the number of second class kitchen cars(30 seats) to parlour cars(42 seats) it is reasonable to assume that the PCC staff were only serving about 50 covers per kitchen. Frankly what Cliff Davenport achieves in there has to be seen to be believed - even Gordon Ramsey would be proud of the productivity. There is actually something of a shortage of kitchen cars generally and WCR have just put a new one into service, so it does show the popularity of the dining option. Far from being a nonsense it does actually contribute a great deal to the well-being of railtours in general and without the level of dining, and given the decline in passenger nuimbers in steerage, the standard fares would have to increase even further in order to make most operations viable. Incidentally as an advert, our dining fares are usually in the £130 to £135 region, somewhat below the £150 figure mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

Bob

 

Vintage Trains website now lists the following tours :

11th April - Welsh Marches 5043 & 5029

9th May - Scot over Shap 46115

20th June - Castle over Shap 5043

plus others see http://www.vintagetrains.co.uk/vt_trains.htm