An 'umbrella organisation' for mainline steam?

Some interesting points here, however it is disappointing that some have said that because there are so many differing and competing industries that that is the reason it could not work. Unfortunately, it is because the industry is so disjointed it is why we need such an organisation. We need some joined up thinking, while open access has provided steam with such great opportunites it has split the industry up way too far. No one is suggesting that Railtour companies should be told what they can and can't run, indeed they would be under no obligation to disclose anything they don't already now. I fear Frank's proposals would be too much of a dictatorship, what we need is someone to offer guidance and advice, not being told you can't do this or that. This would be an opportunity for parties to meet and discuss ideas that they would like to see happen and for TOC's and Network rail to directly say what is and isn't achievable, rather than the current roundabout route Frank describes above.
As for who should be the king pin? I suggested West Coast on a previous thread as they already hold so many of the cards and expertise, but obviously there are issues of vested interests. Should it be an organisation of or individual? If an individual then perhaps someone like Stephen Cornish who has vast expertise, knowledge and has faught steam's cause so hard. However, i'm sure he wants a quiet retirement and I think it would be too much for one person! He would still be my number one choice to chair any meetings between various parties which would perhaps only happen a couple of times a year.
What we don't want is potential members (especially volunteer loco organisations) to see this organisation as something that is going to be giving them extra hassle and telling them they are doing everything wrong, that would be sending out the wrong message. Membership of such an organisation should be mutually beneficial and is ultimately a forum for best practice and how to make lives easier, making the industry more successful and less incident prone as a result.

 

Excuse me - the accaptance of a proposal is 100% Network Rail's fiefdom right now, but the expenditure and risk in flying a tour flowing from such an acceptance, is 100% the promoter's in today's barmy world. NR is simply a creation of government - it isn't God and must be brought to behave properly one day. The TOC stands there - hands in pocket and whistling Dixie - between acceptance and tour date,simply waiting for the money raised by the promoter to pass into its hands when the train runs. Similarly the rolling stock owners, caterers, loco owners etc etc

That is what is inherently wrong in the current set up. Network Rail can currently say "yes" but right up to the actual date of the tour, turn round and say "no" with no commercial exposure. That cannot be right in any commercial or contractual world - but that is how it is in the tour industry.

John's fatal failure to grasp the essence of my synopsis is the subject of most of what he writes. Where- please - did I say that NR must accept every proposal, however crackpot that is put before them? I didn't - please do not put words in my mouth. Where did I ignore train weights, routes, gauging, resourcing, etc? - I didn't, because if you read what I wrote properly, you will see that I required that consideration of all operational and governing details be the essence of any approach from the outset.

It should today, and in the future, be incumbent on any promoter making a proposal to be realistic as to tour, haulage, etc before seeking any approval - or they risk it being thrown out - bag and baggage. It palpably isnt because we see the results of such nonsense time and again - and I have given examples. That must stop.

The current setup means that a promoter is tied to one TOC from the moment an application goes forward. Would it not be better if a promoter could approach NR - with operational input to assist the application, and then tender it to a choice of TOCs. That may even encourage other TOCs to come to the party.

Once NR - who "should" know their infrastructure and pathing, accept a properly founded proposal - then why should mutual liability not kick in? They have given a commercially sensitive answer to a commercially sensitive question. Can you tell me any other eight figure industry that flies on trust - there isn't one. If the industry can't comply with what is called due dliligence then it is heading for commercial disaster one day.

John - ATOC is the Association of Train Operating Companies -a body more hostile to the customer would be hard to find. The passenger's body is the emasculated Passenger Focus. The passenger deserves better.

Open Access has for ever put paid to item three - its dead - but - steam must play a responsible role - as Tornado did yesterday - on time, maintaining speeds, taking water promptly, not sitting down on the main line, or setting fire to the landscape. The only failure yesterday was NR again letting the public down by reneging on its approved route - involving the promoter in additional cost and complexity and the traveller a delayed return home.

I am not promoting any sort of a dictatorship - more a talking shop right across the tour industry - NR/TOC/Promoter/Loco Owners/even customer - essentially a body that could foster and ceate a code of best practice that could be a clearing house. If we can plant the acorn ......................

Anything is better than what we have at present, where trains sitting down, trains that do not run, trains that need last minute strategic planning to even join, - everything that I described above - is happening - and could be prevented.

Personalities to head up such a body - of course they are out there - Bunker / Shooter, and many more come to mind.

 

Ahh, the public servant's eternal response. "This system doesn't work properly, it's too complex". "Let's add another layer of management on to it then".

 

I've been banging this sort of drum for a long time here now. Concentrate steam infrastructure, resources etc into a very few locations. Couple that with the Kingmaker then you may have the basis of something that could take us well into the 21st Century. I just don't believe the current "system" will do that. It may wander forward for a few more years. Before stalling and providing enough reasons for a virtual ban on main line steam to become needed. Enforced by statute or any other legal means.

But do I think that a concentrated steam infrastructure etc system will develop? No. I don't. Too many different interests involved. Too much resistance to change from within the steam loco "industry", (well, that is what I perceive anyway).

 

Steve - should I have expected anything else? Problems need management - not ostrich tendencies

Brian - couldn't agree more

 

Both are regular operations, with people and organisations well known to each other, and regularly used sets of stock and locos, albeit that one is a repeat itinerary and one is to varied destinations.

The analogy holds good though - repeat exposure to, and working with each other, each other's systems and each other's kit.

In reality that's how it used to be, and how it could be again, with sound working relationships overseen and underpinned by a supervising group of people, all possessing and exercising the will to "make it happen"

The will today is too often to find - "What's in it for me" the answer to which, all too often, is nothing for anybody.

 

I think we all Agree repeat itinieries work.
Its the "1st times" and the one offs that cause all the problems.
The key to this for railways has always been the long term (sometimes years) of planning.

In Europe most countries mainline steam is organised 12 months ahead, and you can set your diary annually around some repeat events. The customer can safely plan their year from January 1st for next December.
This level of preparedness has a price... The limited availabilty of it, the routinesd if it and the lack of "something special" at short notice.

Even in the UK the timetables used to be adjusted biannually, I'm sure mainline steam would be much more efficient if planned like this here.

I do have my doubts that an "ebay" style reverse auction of who will run my preapproved NR tour the cheapest will encourage many more toc's to the charter Market. Again if I were a toc bidding somewhat blind on a preapproved itiniery that if I win I become liable would be my cup of tea.

What may be better is for NR to publish guaranteed steam paths on selected lines, and let promoters bid on which days they want to run on them ? The several lines / paths available can chain to make a tour, this approach on at least the busiest routes would guarantee the slot, but obviously if a freight operator needed it etc it may be taken by them as well.

I suspect (much as in real life) network rail does it's job best on the day, as the full picture is not known until very close to the time when it comes to one offs.

Coming back to the SLOA2 idea, maybe one standard that may suit everybody, would be to agree a minimum equipment list needed for a support coach (and minimum crew size), then if rolling stock operators provided it in the BSKs of their stock, and the loco crew have access to it, the role of the support coach can be removed from the train, and left on shed for the day, thus providing an extra revenue vehicle on the train.

 

Having been involved in this industry in the past, The way in which some people on here think it all works beggars belief!!!
If only it was as easy as some say, peraphs they should have a go at starting up something and see how far they get, thats if they ever get started before they're laughed off the stage.
Sorry, but tbirdfranks synopsis has numerous factual errors in it, very little of any worth, and in trying to rubbish everybody shows a complete lack of understanding of it all. eg If only network rail did only require 6 weeks notice...... Try 13!
The network has moved on significantly since the days of BR and SLOA, and had this regime carried on i doubt very much mainline steam would have done....
Owing to the massive costs involved in safety cases and insurance for operators, i doubt we will ever see many more steam tocs appearing, and not only that but where are all the expertise going to come from?
People really should give the people in the movement some credit, they have got a just a bit of an idea what they are doing and most are doing there damndest to keep mainline steam alive against a lot of opposition from some mainstream tocs who have far more right to be running out there than steam. Just remember the modern railway is not in anyway shape or form built to accomodate steam trains, why would it be?
Yes there might be competition amongst tour operators, but unfortunately thats the way the whole of todays rail network is, different tocs competing for business. So its not just railtour operators.
Welcome to the real world! The privatised railway..........

 

OK Jim - you tell us how the current set up works, how it can be improved and why if it shouldn't be, that the status quo is so good.

I am well aware of the conflicts within the privatised industry, and those who try to make it work nevertheless.

Your point about costs arising from the privatised railway is well made - but if you want to set out what you see as the realities for discussion - then the floor is yours.

 

Scary stuff, but I find myself agreeing with Bongo Jim!

Perhaps all and sundry need reminding that SLOA was basically a mangement work aid for David Ward, you appointed a placeman as the Chairman and laid down the edicts for him to impose. Now that is not meant to be derogatory in any way because the system actually worked and love him or hate him David did an absolutely magnificent job of keeping the business street legal and in existence. The problems started when he retired and privatisation loomed, with a new crew, who in my view were heading towards getting steam banned for all sorts of reasons (Anybody remember the Deltic SPAD on the ECML and its root causes?) Luckily the business got privatised before it got screwed up and the responsibility passed to the brave new world of licenced operators. When you look back it was simple - BR prescribed dictat and SLOA imposed it. There was no real autonomy on what SLOA could do, it followed dictat from on high.

There was therefore little hope that it was in any way set up to become on autonomous self regulating organisation, and the way that the reailway was privatised gave it no rights to be so, the responsibility lay solely with the licenced operator. A long time ago now, Michael Whitehouse and I set out a suggestion at a MSLOA AGM for the organisation to become a trade association, which would include everyone in the business, the TOC's, the loco owners, the stock owners, the tour operators and even Railtrack (so you can tell how long ago that was!). We had lots of the people who were currently outside MSLOA who were prepared to give it a go, including Railtrack, and a somewhat cautious and rather sceptical Bernard Staite, who in reality felt that it would never work as he fully understood how SLOA had been regulated!

The committe of the day undertook to discuss the matter and to report to back to the membership after six months. As far as I am aware we are still waiting for the report-back ten years later, the notion just got kicked into the long grass and Bernard was right. He understood exactly how SLOA had worked and knew that it was never going to be able to regulate itself.

Sorry chaps but anyone who thinks that SLOA 2 has got a chance of working is living in cloud cuckoo land. It has to be left with the Railway Undertaking (as TOC's are now known) to firmly lay down the actions of the organisations who supply traction and rolling stock to it (ie T&RS suppliers), and just about all of this is governed by Railway Group Standards, together with Network Rail rules and procedures. There is no place for SLOA2 in my view, and we at Vintage Trains are most certainly not in any need of it.

Regards
Bob

 

Thanks for that Bob, but it does not address the root cause of what started this topic. The current set up may comply with industry practice amongst the providers on the privatised railway, but it doesn't suit the needs of the end customer, and it certainly doesn't help promoters run their businesses within the spirit of overriding consumer legislation. I say yet again - the epithet SLOA 21 was merely a handle on which to hang this topic - not a specification for any group - to again try to get away from this fixation.

Vintage trains are in somewhat of a privileged position as loco owner and rolling stock owner, they have two less organisations to deal with, but you still have NR and a TOC - (a monopoly TOC - and I'm not criticising WCRC - but they are a monopoly in the vac braked market) to deal with.

That does not, however, change the fact that until Network Rail know their infrastructure properly and can offer routes and timings that are real at the outset, then Vintage Trains, in common with all other promoters, and their customers - the final paymasters - are prejudiced.

In fact, I would say that any customer who, in the final event, finds themselves sufficiently distanced from the end product when times, routes, etc finally prove to be beyond acceptable variance from the originally advertised specification is perfectly within their rights to cancel under 1892 Act, and directly in the face of the usual exclusion clauses, and claim a 100% refund, as the product cannot possibly be called "planned and delivered with a due level of skill, attention and timing" in such a scenario.

The suppliers of the railtour product at all levels, by repeated tardy delivery of vital information at such a late date, have proved themselves incompetent time and again by not knowing or demanding the detail in sufficient time to inform the final customer's original purchase and that is a fatal flaw.

That's the main reason why a working body is being suggested. If the industry rejects such a proposal out of hand it says more about the industry than it does about its market. Its no use a promoter passing the buck to NR as they have a direct responsbility to their customers to do the utmost to obtain important information relating to any excurion, especially timings and final route. In fact,in every case, NR will eventually prove to have had the information all along - they have just provided it "at their convenience" and not with due despatch. The parties are all caught.

It is, accordingly, utterly unsatisfactory that times and routes are guesswork until merely days before a tour. How can businesses work within the ambit of the misrepresentation acts and goods and services acts when they are selling an imprecise and flawed product that cannot in fact be described accurately until the actual week of its presentation? Its just crazy, and completely non compliant with acceptable legal practice. The relationship of TOCs, rolling stock providers,and other contracting partners is all subsidiary to this over arching criteria, and appears to work as well as it can, subject to contracts being with owners of currently serviceable locos, FTRs etc.

Let's be honest, only this week I found myself playing ducks and drakes with where, and how to board an excursion, thanks to NR moving the goalposts at the last minute - looks like I'll be doing the same on Sunday! Can you imagine Cunard or P & O suddenly changing departure port and time for no good reason - or clients madly looking for accommodation at little or no notice, or driving through the night to join their chosen activity - why do we have to endure it?

If your expert view is that an industry group is a non starter - then that is how it will have to be - but I for one will become even more circumspect in how, what, and when, I book, as I'm not going to risk travel and non refundable hotel bills for something that may well not happen.

That may not suit promoters, but I have a responsibility to protect myself from buying a product that I don't want, or can't join, and fully intend to conduct myself accordingly

 

If I could sum up the above in 1 line, If I understand correctly.
Your looking for someone to complain to when the tour on the goes wrong on the day.
There's not going to be too many takers for that.

the only way I see out of this is the same way as the rest of the travel industry works... You buys your ticket and you buy travel insurance too.

If my train breaks down on the way to the airport... TI pays. If my flight gets canceled, diverted or delayed... TI kicks in.
Even travel agents do the same thing.

The issue is one of risk... For very thousand flights.. How many get delayed... But for every steam tour that fails how many pay outs will there be.
In short.. Steam travel is high risk.
Now in the US a mainline steam tour might set you back $500 a day.. But at least it comes with guarantees.. We should be fortunate steam rail tours are so cheap, as sooner or later the costs will double, triple or quadruple... Reliability may increase but at a loss to us all

 

Oh - silly me, John! - How mistaken I must be, expecting that when I pay for something that I actually get it. I really must get out of that habit if I want to be taken seriously as a steam enthusiast - what am I thinking??? :wacko:

Well actually, I know exactly what I am thinking, and its not very complimentary about your powers of perception for a start - yet again.

You see, I don't want to have to be in a situation where I need to complain to anyone - I don't want there to be anything to complain about. I want customers to be supplied by a properly and professionally administered business with a chance of survival, rather than one which treats its clients like mushrooms and rejects all comment no matter how constructive in tone, as unworkable and unwelcome. That is a sure way to perdition for any business.

There are ways of operating this business that could be described as best practice - or the current make it up as you go along set up, which is unsuitable for promoters and public alike, but which some posters seem happy to accept. I know which business model I prefer, and it isn't a roulette wheel.

 

Yet there must be more mainline steam than at any point since 1968. If the market was truly failing its customer then tours would be going unsold, engines would be taken off the mainline to earn hire-fees in the preserved railway market, railtour companies would be going bankrupt, WCRC, Tyseley and Ian Riley would be laying off staff and rolling stock would be getting sold off.

I find your view rather dramatic and apocalyptic.

 

Are we not in agreement then...

?

 

Deleted, new resolution to behave myself

 

That'll be the day!