Charters under threat?

[87015]

A franchised TOCs service would never have its schedule flexed for a charter train.

We made a few changes to our WTT service to make a path for a charter recently - wouldn't have been able to fit if we hadn't...
#meddling trainspotters

Where do TOC operated charters stand on this? FGW among others now have a full charter license which is entirely seperate to the WTT service.

 

[DarloRich]

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.

Looking at the link set out above the wording is much less inflammatory than suggested by the Rail article:

1) The first stage in that a sensible payment regime be created seems entirely reasonable

2) The bone of contention will be how that is created. I suspect the A option will end up being selected. This will mean that the operator pays an access charge supplement.

It is not in anyone’s interest to remove charter trains form the network. Many of them are profitable and successful operations (Scarborough Spa Express/Jacobite etc)

I am merely playing devils advocate and suggesting that charter train operators need to shoulder more of the financial responsibility for their mistakes or errors.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Exactly - I think there is an understandable lack of understanding of both the existence of and the operation of the penalty payments regimes that govern delay attribution!

 

[yorksrob]

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 ---


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*

I have to say, in my limited experience, the train has usually been well looked after by signalmen. It's more the planning stages that have seen such issues.

 

[Phil6219]

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.

Was this the infamous one from October this year where to say DB dropped the ball whilst screwing the pooch would be an understatement?

If it is then sadly it did leave (very) late due to DB, since it was late it was then stuck behind the stopper which would have been running to time. Logic is unfortunately a victim of delay attribution, as pointed out if the special ended up delaying the ATW service it's the bobby that gets the grilling.

As I have said in the past NR do try their best to accommodate the charters however some times they can be a bit stubborn or anti-special.

A few years back we ended up sat in the loop at the bottom of Shap for nearly an hour while they let everything through, even bleeding intermodals. Needless to say that that along with knock on delays and an attempted wrong routing left us with barely 90 minutes in Edinburgh. Still a good trip though.

If the charter TOCs have to pay compensation for delays then do they themselves get compensation when tours are delayed, retimed, rerouted, curtailed or cancelled? I only ask since we have never gotten anything for various shenanigans which have affected our tours due to NR or another TOC causing major delays...

If they expect the charter companies to pay compensation then everyone else will have to pay the charter companies when they screw up. It's not fair to have one rule for one and one rule for everyone else, especially given how shaky the charter market is right now.

Phil

 

[scotsman]

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.

Llandudno Jn box seems to make a habit of this

 

[tbtc]

If the charter TOCs have to pay compensation for delays then do they themselves get compensation when tours are delayed, retimed, rerouted, curtailed or cancelled? I only ask since we have never gotten anything for various shenanigans which have affected our tours due to NR or another TOC causing major delays...

If they expect the charter companies to pay compensation then everyone else will have to pay the charter companies when they screw up. It's not fair to have one rule for one and one rule for everyone else, especially given how shaky the charter market is right now

I didn't know the situation, but the initial post in this thread suggests that Charter operators would get the full compensation for NR/ TOC delays that impact upon them, but the Charter firms would have to pay their share of any compensation too - seems fair as long as it's a level playing field.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Llandudno Jn box seems to make a habit of this

I once once on a tour at Tonbridge returning west via Redhill. We arrived a couple down, but reversed in time for our booked slot about 10 mins before the local stopper was due to leave. We were then held to allow the local to go first, despite us being non-stop and it having five calls before Redhill. I'm certain that had we gone when we were ready to quite some time before the local train, we'd have been long gone by the time it had even left Tonbridge, probably enough for it to have constant greens, just like it would have had with us going second (and significantly later). I seem to recall some boxes have developed quite a reputation for debatable decisions, and not just involving charters. Needless to say our driver didn't chase the reds and as such we were quite a few down at Redhill, which can really screw you up if you're heading into London from there...

 

[Phil6219]

I didn't know the situation, but the initial post in this thread suggests that Charter operators would get the full compensation for NR/ TOC delays that impact upon them, but the Charter firms would have to pay their share of any compensation too - seems fair as long as it's a level playing field.

Indeed but as someone else pointed out it is possible to read it another way which is that the charter companies don't get much if anything. Hence why I was saying if that is the case and charter firms end up having to pay uncapped amounts then the other companies should pay the charter firms on the same scale.

I seem to recall some boxes have developed quite a reputation for debatable decisions, and not just involving charters.

Kings Cross box are apparently very anti-charter, last year we were on the final stages of a mainline run behind a Deltic, we were nearly an hour early quite far north of Potters Bar and we got switched onto the slows where we remained the whole way back to Kings Cross. That would be understandable if it wasn't for the fact that nothing overtook us, it was almost like they didn't want anyone to see the irony of an old diesel actually running early (that remark is more of a joke)

Phil

 

[Wath Yard]

Indeed but as someone else pointed out it is possible to read it another way which is that the charter companies don't get much if anything. Hence why I was saying if that is the case and charter firms end up having to pay uncapped amounts then the other companies should pay the charter firms on the same scale.

If you read the ORR consultation document instead of a sensationalist article in RAIL there is only one way to read it - charter operators get compensation which is currently capped. However in practice the cap isn't applied and they get the whole amount.

We made a few changes to our WTT service to make a path for a charter recently - wouldn't have been able to fit if we hadn't...
#meddling trainspotters

Where do TOC operated charters stand on this? FGW among others now have a full charter license which is entirely seperate to the WTT service.

For the C2C all track charter a couple of years back I believe there were numerous tweaks to WTT services, but that only affected C2C's own services and the C2C MD did travel on the charter!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

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?

Unfortunately that won't make any difference; I have recently twice been on on time inbound Eurostars which were held at their Ebbsfleet stop for a late running 395 to depart the high level for St Pancras... One was held in the platform for 5 minutes; the other was held just beyond the platform for 2 minutes.

 

[Great Central]

Was this the infamous one from October this year where to say DB dropped the ball whilst screwing the pooch would be an understatement?

If it is then sadly it did leave (very) late due to DB, since it was late it was then stuck behind the stopper which would have been running to time. Logic is unfortunately a victim of delay attribution, as pointed out if the special ended up delaying the ATW service it's the bobby that gets the grilling.

Yes it was but we were booked some 2 hours earlier!
It seems to happen regularly outside such circumstances though.WCML charters returning to Euston mostly via Northampton loop for example
In any case under normal conditions charters often want their homeward journey to be slower to allow plenty of time for their premium passengers to eat their meal ( and spend plenty of extra money on drinks!)

 

[DarloRich]

Was this the infamous one from October this year where to say DB dropped the ball whilst screwing the pooch would be an understatement?

If it is then sadly it did leave (very) late due to DB, since it was late it was then stuck behind the stopper which would have been running to time. Logic is unfortunately a victim of delay attribution, as pointed out if the special ended up delaying the ATW service it's the bobby that gets the grilling.

Yes it was but we were booked some 2 hours earlier!
It seems to happen regularly outside such circumstances though.WCML charters returning to Euston mostly via Northampton loop for example
In any case under normal conditions charters often want their homeward journey to be slower to allow plenty of time for their premium passengers to eat their meal ( and spend plenty of extra money on drinks!)

so you were two hours late and therefore out of path? I think that might answer your question.

I dont understand what you mean about the Northampton loop stuff

 

[heart-of-wessex]

Kings Cross box are apparently very anti-charter, last year we were on the final stages of a mainline run behind a Deltic, we were nearly an hour early quite far north of Potters Bar and we got switched onto the slows where we remained the whole way back to Kings Cross. That would be understandable if it wasn't for the fact that nothing overtook us, it was almost like they didn't want anyone to see the irony of an old diesel actually running early (that remark is more of a joke)

Phil

The out and back UKraitours KX - Berwick tour was hauled by a Class 90, being 100MPH stock and loco, I would have though it would be a speedy run, but we spent more time on the slows than the fast, and as you had slows on the way back, we did the same thing without anything overtaking us.

I think this was the same in 2008 on the Blythe and Tyne UKR tour with TnT 67s, but I can't remember.

 

[Phil6219]

If you read the ORR consultation document instead of a sensationalist article in RAIL there is only one way to read it - charter operators get compensation which is currently capped. However in practice the cap isn't applied and they get the whole amount.

Believe me the only thing I look at in that mag are the pictures, I read RM (where the info has already been on the internet for weeks already but I digress). I was just reiterating what someone else had previously posted where it could be read/misread that NR didn't pay much if anything, kind of the same level of reporting that a few newspapers and itv tend to churn out...

Phil

 

[Pumbaa]

I think this largely a good thing; hopefully the cowboys out there will be discouraged and if they do attempt it and get stung with a large bill then they cough up fairly.

The railway is for passengers not cranks. If we can be accomodated, fair enough, thanks to all parties involved. If not, don't throw a strop.

 

[yorksrob]

Would the insurance companies distinguish between cowboy operators and more organised ones, or would it just add to the drip drip drip of increasing costs for all charter operators ?

 

[theblackwatch]

It has to be remembered that only a small percentage of charters are actually 'crank' trips - the majority are aimed at the general public or are for special events (such as football matches), and I suspect the largest promoter is VSOE.

Also there are only really two operators of tours - DB Schenker and WCRC, although GBRf also run a few. I'm unsure how franchise TOCs which operate charters (such as FGW and EMT) fit in with the current payment regime.

 

[Pumbaa]

Would the insurance companies distinguish between cowboy operators and more organised ones, or would it just add to the drip drip drip of increasing costs for all charter operators ?

No I think cowboy operators wouldn't be able to face the prospective high costs and as such will leave the market.

It has to be remembered that only a small percentage of charters are actually 'crank' trips - the majority are aimed at the general public or are for special events (such as football matches), and I suspect the largest promoter is VSOE.

Also there are only really two operators of tours - DB Schenker and WCRC, although GBRf also run a few. I'm unsure how franchise TOCs which operate charters (such as FGW and EMT) fit in with the current payment regime.

I see your point - but I wasn't really worried about them. One of the TOCs you mention runs it under their existing safety case tagged onto their operations; everything is the same other than the name of the responsible company on the order sheet. So same liabilities and payments etc if they muck up. I'd be highly surprised if the other one ran under a different arrangement.

 

[junglejames]

I think this largely a good thing; hopefully the cowboys out there will be discouraged and if they do attempt it and get stung with a large bill then they cough up fairly.

The railway is for passengers not cranks. If we can be accomodated, fair enough, thanks to all parties involved. If not, don't throw a strop.

The majority of charters are for normal passengers. Not so called cranks.

 

[scotsman]

The majority of charters are for normal passengers. Not so called cranks.

This misses the point: the purpose of the railway is to move people and freight from A to B. These charters are essentially joy rides, if they never ran, people would not be inconvenienced.

 

[yorksrob]

This misses the point: the purpose of the railway is to move people and freight from A to B. These charters are essentially joy rides, if they never ran, people would not be inconvenienced.

I don't think it does really. I'm sure a lot of leisure travellers on the railway are on a "joyride" but that doesn't mean they're not a paying market that to be exploited (I seem to recall reading about BR's land cruise services, so charters aren't just a modern frivolity).

 

[tbtc]

I don't think it does really. I'm sure a lot of leisure travellers on the railway are on a "joyride" but that doesn't mean they're not a paying market that to be exploited (I seem to recall reading about BR's land cruise services, so charters aren't just a modern frivolity).

Those "leisure travellers" are on regular scheduled services using regular stock, so less likely to cause disruption.

 

[yorksrob]

Those "leisure travellers" are on regular scheduled services using regular stock, so less likely to cause disruption.

Well, there might be an element of truth to that (although even scheduled services on "regular" stock aren't immune to reliability issues), however, I was disputing the implication that just because a train contained only leisure travelers, it wouldn't cause inconvenience were it not to run.

I suspect that a lot of normal's rely on charter trains for a day out because of their direct nature.

 

[Tiny Tim]

I think that perhaps we're missing the point here, the reason charters aren't presently expected to pay unlimited compensation is because they don't run enough services to pay for it. A TOC running scheduled services will quickly recoup any losses whereas charter companies simply don't have a big enough turnover to fund large amounts of compensation.

Charters have as much right as anyone to use the rail network. Isn't that the point of privatised railways?

 

[Goatboy]

Those "leisure travellers" are on regular scheduled services using regular stock, so less likely to cause disruption.

To be honest most excursions for regular passengers are also using regular stock (It's not all steam) so why would a 67+stock be any more likely to cause disruption than it would if it was on a Birmingham to London service with Chiltern Mainline on the side?

 

[Dasher]

Quote:
This misses the point: the purpose of the railway is to move people and freight from A to B. These charters are essentially joy rides, if they never ran, people would not be inconvenienced.

There is no such an integrated body as ' The Railway' there is a collection of businesses whose purpose is to make money, any way they can, it may be moving people or freight or blaming each other for anything that will result in compensation.

 

[tbtc]

To be honest most excursions for regular passengers are also using regular stock (It's not all steam) so why would a 67+stock be any more likely to cause disruption than it would if it was on a Birmingham to London service with Chiltern Mainline on the side?

In which case presumably they should both face the same penalties/ compensation regime if they cause any delays/ suffer any delays caused by another party?

Level playing field.

 

[Goatboy]

The entire penalties regime is an artificial construct the industry would arguably be better off without.

 

[yorksrob]

In which case presumably they should both face the same penalties/ compensation regime if they cause any delays/ suffer any delays caused by another party?

Level playing field.

Yes, but if it were a level playing field, shouldn't they be treated like any other train, rather than looped, having their paths disrupted at the last minute etc.

Level playing fields work both ways.

 

[The Planner]

If it were a level playing field they would have a track access contract with associated rights and costs like a TOC, which would immediately blow their business case out the water.