Charters under threat?

[philjo]

Front cover headline in the latest issue of RAIL.

The article explains the ORR plans to remove the cap limiting the compensation charter operators would have to pay Network Rail if their trains delay other services. To cover this ticket prices for charters may have to rise significantly potentially making them uneconomic to run after April 2014.

http://www.natrailawards.co.uk/news/default.asp?storyID=25

CHARTER TRAINS UNDER THREAT

Charter trains could become extinct, under plans by rail regulators to remove the cap limiting the compensation charter operators would have to pay Network Rail if their trains delay other services.

Currently there is a cap of £5,000 per incident, but the Office of Rail Regulation estimates that this has reduced the bill on charter operators by £600,000 since April 2009. ORR notes that the £5,000 cap also applies to NR in paying compensation to charter operators, but that this is not applied in practice.

Britain’s two biggest operators running charters are DB Schenker and West Coast Railway Company. DB told RAIL it was considering the proposals and would respond in due course. WCRC Manager James Shuttleworth said the plan had “the potential to have profound effects, and needs sensible discussions”.

In private, RAIL understands that both operators are very unhappy with the plans, with one source saying it would force charters out of the market if the change resulted in unlimited costs.
The Railway Touring Company is a charter promoter run by Nigel Dobbing. He spoke to RAIL about ORR’s plans and said: “I don’t think there will be any charters. We wouldn’t be able to afford them.”

He said that the charter companies would increase their charges to promoters to cover the risk of delay fines, even if the promoter wasn’t directly paying the delay bill.

ORR is consulting on its plan, but claims that charter operators are currently being protected from the risks relating to their own performance. It suggests that charter operators should, in principle, arrange for protection through insurers.

Dobbing dismissed ORR’s idea that charter operators should take out insurance, saying the risks were too high. He added that he thought that NR was probably the driving force behind ORR’s plan.
One anonymous operator questioned the whole rationale of ORR’s performance regime, asking how much it cost to run, who benefited, and whether the travelling public received anything from it.

... read more in RAIL 711, on sale 12/12/2012

 

[DarloRich]

Quote taken form above link (my italics)

"ORR is consulting on its plan, but claims that charter operators are currently being protected from the risks relating to their own performance. It suggests that charter operators should, in principle, arrange for protection through insurers."

And there is the crux of the argument.

 

[GB]

The idea seems fair enough to me.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Would the scheme also work the other way round, eg the charter operators receive masses of compensation if they are given timings that cannot possibly be met or the route and timings in the final confirmation are considerably different from the original plan?

 

[yorksrob]

Would the scheme also work the other way round, eg the charter operators receive masses of compensation if they are given timings that cannot possibly be met or the route and timings in the final confirmation are considerably different from the original plan?

Indeed. I've been on a few charter trains where NR have made a right old sows ear of the timings. Would the charter companies get compensation in kind ?

Could be the thin end of the wedge if they're expected to make loads of onerous updates such as fitting toilet tanks etc as well.

 

[scotsman]

I'd ask how often the charter operator is at fault. In my experience of Stewarding railtours, very little indeed.

It was NR who held the on time West Coast loco with two of our coaches in Llandudno Jn sidings to allow an ATW service to pass. It was NR who held us again en route to Chester to allow yet another ATW service to pass. It was West Coast's decision to water the loco at Carlisle. Nope, can't see where the charter operator (not the train operator) was at fault.

Again, when we couldn't get a token at Kyle of Lochalsh, thanks to poor radio signal - not the charter operator's fault.

Last week, a scheduled crew change was not in the WTT for the return journey. This resulted in us losing our path north, yet, to the TOC's credit, we still arrived in Drem, Edinburgh and Linlithgow on time. Again, not our fault.

 

[DarloRich]

But the reverse is also true. Why should a charter operator get preference over a franchised service?

Many charter operators seem to think they are the most important service on the railway. They are not.

 

[scotsman]

But the reverse is also true. Why should a charter operator get preference over a franchised service?

Many charter operators seem to think they are the most important service on the railway. They are not.

Really? I get the impression that charter operators owe half their existence to contacts and goodwill within the industry

 

[DarloRich]

Really? I get the impression that charter operators owe half their existence to contacts and goodwill within the industry

Not sure that quite answers the point.

I simply mean they have to understand there is a finite resource available to plan, timetable and execute the proposed charter train. Where are those resources going to best deployed? On a charter or a franchised operator?

 

[yorksrob]

I simply mean they have to understand there is a finite resource available to plan, timetable and execute the proposed charter train. Where are those resources going to best deployed? On a charter or a franchised operator?

Isn't the point rather that charter trains (which are filled with fare paying passengers lest we forget) tend to get a lower priority than other trains, therefore it seems fitting to cut them some slack as they get a poorer service from the railway.

 

[GB]

Isn't the point rather that charter trains (which are filled with fare paying passengers lest we forget) tend to get a lower priority than other trains, therefore it seems fitting to cut them some slack as they get a poorer service from the railway.

As far as I am aware they get the same priorities as normal services. There are of course always going to be pathing restrictions, particulary if they clash with WTT services.

 

[yorkie]

They get really awful paths at times, being timed for slower acceleration and top speeds than are actually achievable and having to give way to everything.

It really is totally disproportionate for further attacks on the charter market. The fares are expensive enough (and the paths bad enough) that I don't think the market can bear any further increases.

Franchised TOCs cannot easily cater for the spikes in demand for special events. The railway is great at transporting a large number of people over long distances. If we take that ability away then we are getting worse value out of the huge taxes we pay towards the astronomical running costs of Network Rail.

What will replace them? Who will deal with the choas that will ensue at certain special events when regular services get swamped by the demand? This proposal must be opposed.

The compensation schemes are bonkers and other modes of transport are not hindered with such ludicrous systems. It's not a level playing field as it is, but some people with an agenda want to put the final nail in the coffin. Shame on them.

 

[yorksrob]

They get really awful paths at times, being timed for slower acceleration and top speeds than are actually achievable and having to give way to everything.

It really is totally disproportionate for further attacks on the charter market. The fares are expensive enough (and the paths bad enough) that I don't think the market can bear any further increases.

Franchised TOCs cannot easily cater for the spikes in demand for special events. The railway is great at transporting a large number of people over long distances. If we take that ability away then we are getting worse value out of the huge taxes we pay towards the astronomical running costs of Network Rail.

What will replace them? Who will deal with the choas that will ensue at certain special events when regular services get swamped by the demand? This proposal must be opposed.

The compensation schemes are bonkers and other modes of transport are not hindered with such ludicrous systems. It's not a level playing field as it is, but some people with an agenda want to put the final nail in the coffin. Shame on them.

Indeed.

And then there's the chopping and changing of schedules right up until the last minute so charters end up with no time at the advertised destination/wildly differing start and finishing times/a completely different destination etc.

I can see why they have to take a back seat in this respect, however, why shouldn't they have some of the costs waived in return.

 

[DarloRich]

Quoting again from the above article (my bold and italics again)

Currently there is a cap of £5,000 per incident, but the Office of Rail Regulation estimates that this has reduced the bill on charter operators by £600,000 since April 2009. ORR notes that the £5,000 cap also applies to NR in paying compensation to charter operators, but that this is not applied in practice.

This seems to suggest that while the penalties on the charter operators are limited to £5k they are the recipients of more than that from NR. Perhaps they already get a decent bit of slack.

However I use charter trains and understand the frustrations that come with late notice changes. However, if it is a conflict between a charter train or a "normal " train, for me the normal train wins every time. Surely that is right?

Everything told i wouldn't want to see the end to charter services. However should they not pay their way the same as everyone else?

 

[yorksrob]

However I use charter trains and understand the frustrations that come with late notice changes. However, if it is a conflict between a charter train or a "normal " train, for me the normal train wins every time. Surely that is right?

Everything told i wouldn't want to see the end to charter services. However should they not pay their way the same as everyone else?

Well, yeah, but quid pro quo. If a Charter had to pay exactly the same costs as a normal service train, why shouldn't it get the same service as a normal train ?

Afterall, how is a paying customer on a charter to the seaside any different from one on a service train ?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Currently there is a cap of £5,000 per incident, but the Office of Rail Regulation estimates that this has reduced the bill on charter operators by £600,000 since April 2009. ORR notes that the £5,000 cap also applies to NR in paying compensation to charter operators, but that this is not applied in practice.

This seems to suggest that while the penalties on the charter operators are limited to £5k they are the recipients of more than that from NR. Perhaps they already get a decent bit of slack.

I read that as meaning the precise opposite, namely that NR don't pay up as much as they should when they mess a charter's operation up...
.
.
.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed. I've been on a few charter trains where NR have made a right old sows ear of the timings.

I've been on one which was booked for class 60 haulage and then given a timing that called for a performance of better than even time, though to be fair that was in BR days...

As was an instance where a charter departed Euston about three hours late because BR literally forgot where they had stabled the rake overnight ( it turned out it was in Downside shed just ½ a mile away... ). *rolleyes*

 

[yorkie]

However, if it is a conflict between a charter train or a "normal " train, for me the normal train wins every time. Surely that is right?

It should be the train that causes the less overall delay to the network.
Ideally it would also be the train carrying the greater number of passengers and/or travelling the greatest distance but it would not always be the case.

Everything told i wouldn't want to see the end to charter services. However should they not pay their way the same as everyone else?

I think they do, and more so, after all they are not subsidised. But there's no way all trains can "pay their way" as if so most trains would not exist. They certainly can't be "the same" otherwise some rural branch lines would have to have ludicrous fares (fares almost as astronomical as railtours!)

 

[tbtc]

I'd ask how often the charter operator is at fault. In my experience of Stewarding railtours, very little indeed.

It was NR who held the on time West Coast loco with two of our coaches in Llandudno Jn sidings to allow an ATW service to pass. It was NR who held us again en route to Chester to allow yet another ATW service to pass. It was West Coast's decision to water the loco at Carlisle. Nope, can't see where the charter operator (not the train operator) was at fault.

Again, when we couldn't get a token at Kyle of Lochalsh, thanks to poor radio signal - not the charter operator's fault.

Last week, a scheduled crew change was not in the WTT for the return journey. This resulted in us losing our path north, yet, to the TOC's credit, we still arrived in Drem, Edinburgh and Linlithgow on time. Again, not our fault.

If the Charter companies never delay "normal" trains then surely there's nothing to worry about if the artificial £5k "cap" on insurance is lifted then?

Nothing to worry about in that case (unless Charter companies are regularly delaying TOCs?)

 

[Robert Taggart]

Regarding charters - could this not be the solution ? - for sorting out the 'wheat from the chaff' !

 

[Harbon 1]

Surely if it is a class 1, then it should have a higher priority over local services, and maybe less over WTT trains. And they run on Saturdays, when it is mostly tourists and day trippers on the network. With engineering works already closing lines, surely something planned well in advanced could get a priority over one train if it is a complete one off?

Maybe charter companies should ask for class 9?

 

[Ian M]

Hi,

My first post here.

On the face of it this is an awful story for a puffer nutter like me.
However while the figure of £600,000 is scarey it's not that much if averaged out. There are around 600 steam specials each year. I don't know how many diesel operations there are but, if it's around the same, since the April 2009 date discussed there would be around 4000 charters. This averages out at around £150 each train.

It shouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibilities to get insurance for this sort of level of risk.

 

[Masbroughlad]

It is such a shame how things have ended up......

Charters and excursions used to be a good thing - using stock from the week that stood idle at weekends....

We now have overcrowded trains in the week - not enough coaching stock -and trouble running charters.

It all seems a bit silly to me. Surely better to meet demand in the week and utilise spare at weekends than to upset people with overcrowding midweek?

Meet demand in the week and sell spare capacity at weekends seems a good way forwards to me.......

 

[ainsworth74]

I doubt you could sell enough tour tickets to fill the extra midweek capacity you're talking about. Also not sure many people would want to travel on charters operated by commuter MUs which is what this extra stock would be.

 

[scotsman]

In practice this means that you'll see diesel locos tucked inside all steam specials, and some charters just won't run. Given the potential for carnage with some older locos, the bills could easily run into hundreds of thousands

 

[The Planner]

Simple fact is charter operators have no contractural rights to services . They get given the paths that are available and will very rarely get priority over a franchised TOCs service on the day unless a signalman makes the call. A franchised TOCs service would never have its schedule flexed for a charter train.

 

[theblackwatch]

The full document relating to this can be found at http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/pr13/PDF/sch-4-8-consultation-2012.pdf - page 82 onwards. It's probably worth pointing out (as there seems to be a bit of confusion earlier in the thread) that a Charter Operator is a TOC, not a promoter who would have no contractual agreements with Network Rail.

 

[tbtc]

It is such a shame how things have ended up......

Charters and excursions used to be a good thing - using stock from the week that stood idle at weekends....

We now have overcrowded trains in the week - not enough coaching stock -and trouble running charters.

It all seems a bit silly to me. Surely better to meet demand in the week and utilise spare at weekends than to upset people with overcrowding midweek?

Meet demand in the week and sell spare capacity at weekends seems a good way forwards to me.......

Your post suggests that there's stock lying idle at weekends nowadays - on longer distance TOCs Sunday can be one of the busiest days of the week (short distance TOCs may have more stock spare, but who wants to do a railtour on 75mph trains?).

 

[heart-of-wessex]

I remember seeing the times for the DC Tours series, started at a rather sociable time from Waterloo, and even I could get from Trowbridge to Waterloo the same morning and easily join a tour at that time without an overnighter in London.

Timings seemed to be rather strong and capable too, rather than giving 15 mins to do Waterloo to International Junction or something!

Some NR timings are impossible, which are probably guessed. The PF Cleethorpes tour (last year I think) went via the Immingham Tramway, needless to say we were good for time until we did the freight line, at the slow linespeed, it was impossible to keep to the times.

Other ones in my notes, one tour from Bristol Parkway was given a whopper 10 minutes to do Parkway to Westerleigh Junction, which we flew past early, and then charging up to Cheltenham, we were late by Charfield due to some silly tight timing that not even a Voyager would be able to do!!!

 

[Great Central]

I'd ask how often the charter operator is at fault. In my experience of Stewarding railtours, very little indeed.

It was NR who held the on time West Coast loco with two of our coaches in Llandudno Jn sidings to allow an ATW service to pass. It was NR who held us again en route to Chester to allow yet another ATW service to pass. It was West Coast's decision to water the loco at Carlisle. Nope, can't see where the charter operator (not the train operator) was at fault.

The thing is charters are operated as class 1 trains. Why then on a UK Rail tours charter was our 67 hauled train also held at Llandudno Junction to allow an all stations ATW train to pass and cause us to run block to block to Chester at 30mph. We were hardly likely to delay it booked non stop.
Hardly service is it? I can see this being a big problem.

 

[The Planner]

Were you booked before the ATW or after it ? if after it then the signaller will hold it regardless, purely due to the fact that if they ran you infront and then for whatever reason it caused a delay then the signaller would get the minutes for their regulation decision. Hold it as booked then any minutes go elsewhere, it is partly the delay attribution merry go round that causes that.