ROG: One Last Task cancelled

[gazr]

It appears the clowns at NR have not gauged the route for loaded 442s with diesel haulage, and thus tour has been cancelled as there is now not enough time to sort it out.

Really sorry for everyone that gave their time to this project and the Mid Norfolk Railway who are going to miss out on a train loaded with punters. Scandalous!

 

[Muzer]

Source? Not that I doubt this, but it hasn't appeared on the website yet...

 

[gazr]

Source? Not that I doubt this, but it hasn't appeared on the website yet...

It's on another railtour forum...not sure if I can link. It's the site with 4 letter pool code for withdrawn.

 

[Trainfan344]

Here, the forum requires a free account to view and contribute. http://www.wnxxforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=323882#p323882

All. The tour from London isn't coming due to the massive incompetence of a small group of individuals at Network Rail 'forgetting' to carry out the required guaging. Some people need their P45s ready for them when they get back from leave.

 

[theblackwatch]

From the ROG/VT website:

It is with deep regret that we must inform you we are unable to operate and therefore must cancel the Rail Operations Group ‘One Last Task’ and ‘Last Orders’ railtours planned for 30th December.

Only in the last 24 hours have Network Rail informed us that the Class 442 units we had planned to operate as passenger vehicles on these railtours have failed gauging at multiple locations along the route. This is new and unexpected information to us. At this late stage and in part due to the holiday season, we are unable to source alternate passenger vehicles.

With regard to your booking on the railtours, we are refunding you in full as soon as possible via your original method of payment. If you have purchased advanced tickets to the Mid Norfolk Railway’s Diesel Gala and are unable to travel by alternate means, please contact the MNR directly before 30th December and they will be able to refund your gala tickets also.

If you have any further questions or enquiries, please direct them to tickets@vintagetrains.co.uk

As enthusiasts ourselves, we share in your deep disappointment and frustration this has caused, especially over the holiday season.

Please accept our sincere and heartfelt apologies.

 

[Muzer]

Ah, massive shame! Though I couldn't do the tour I feel sorry for those who could make it! Not every day you get 31s doing mainline passenger workings these days. I really hope they can come up with some other farewell tour for the ex-Network Rail ones.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Would it be the motor coaches that have caused the problem? iirc they're longer then the other 4 coaches of a unit

 

[winefarm]

So does this mean that 233 won't be working at the MNR on 30th now?

 

[Strat-tastic]

Shame, I was hoping to get out and see that

 

[paul1609]

I was on this tour. Very efficiently I got an email and call from Vintage Trains this morning. They couldn't refund me as the credit card id used had since expired. All sorted. Id looked in to attending the MNR gala anyway cos I felt sorry for the way they and ROG had been let down but the cost of anytime tickets was prohibitive. Ive spent the money on Easyjet and a hire car to go to the Boness gala on the thursday.

 

[Gbrf1996]

Was booked on the charter and was really looking forward to it, not everyday you get a mainline ride behind two class 31's or a ROG 47, I really do hope they manage to reschedule the tour. Do have to say I'm really impressed with Vintage Trains and ROG an email yesterday and a letter confirming cancellation through the door their morning very efficient.

 

[Bertie the bus]

It’s also a real shame one of the organisers has posted angry rants on the other referred to forum insulting just about everybody except his own mother. Especially when Vintage Trains have acted in such a professional way.

 

[83G/84D]

From the ROG/VT website:

The statement says that the 442's have failed gauging at several locations, not that Network Rail staff did not bother to check. The units may just not be able to traverse the lines concerned due to gauging issues.

Or am I missing something?

 

[NSEFAN]

The statement says that the 442's have failed gauging at several locations, not that Network Rail staff did not bother to check. The units may just not be able to traverse the lines concerned due to gauging issues.

Or am I missing something?

It would seem that paperwork has been checked, but for whatever reason only very recently. One would think that such a check would have happened much earlier, before timings were confirmed to the charter company.

 

[83G/84D]

Fair enough but the original post implies that Network rail did not check the route however the ROG / VT statement suggests otherwise.

 

[NSEFAN]

Fair enough but the original post implies that Network rail did not check the route however the ROG / VT statement suggests otherwise.

There are several possible scenarios, it's not clear yet as to what exactly has gone wrong. It could be that the gauge clearance paperwork check was not done properly the first time or simply forgotten about until a couple of days ago. In any case, timings shouldn't have been finalised and given out if there are unresolved gauging issues (either real ones or just missing paperwork).

I do hope that this tour can run a similar route at a future date, and that the gauging issues are either physically non-existent or easily resolved.

 

[83G/84D]

There are several possible scenarios, it's not clear yet as to what exactly has gone wrong. It could be that the gauge clearance paperwork check was not done properly the first time or simply forgotten about until a couple of days ago. In any case, timings shouldn't have been finalised and given out if there are unresolved gauging issues (either real ones or just missing paperwork).

I do hope that this tour can run a similar route at a future date, and that the gauging issues are either physically non-existent or easily resolved.

I agree, whatever the circumstances it is unfortunate to say the least for people who had booked on the tour.

 

[The Planner]

In any case, timings shouldn't have been finalised and given out if there are unresolved gauging issues (either real ones or just missing paperwork).

I would be very surprised if the charter team would check that, they are there to time and validate the charter bid, which they did, not do the gauging checks.

 

[NSEFAN]

I would be very surprised if the charter team would check that, they are there to time and validate the charter bid, which they did, not do the gauging checks.

Even so, the customer shouldn't be told that they can have their train run, only to later to find out they actually can't. Checking the gauging paperwork must surely be part of the process (even if done by a different team) ?

 

[The Planner]

They would assume it is either done or in hand. It applies to freight bids too, there simply isn't enough time to process and upload bids in a lot of cases as well as checking line clearance, RT3973 heavy axle weight restrictions etc etc, you would expect the FOC to have sorted that before hand and bid appropriately.

 

[alastair]

They would assume it is either done or in hand. It applies to freight bids too, there simply isn't enough time to process and upload bids in a lot of cases as well as checking line clearance, RT3973 heavy axle weight restrictions etc etc, you would expect the FOC to have sorted that before hand and bid appropriately.

Its interesting to learn more of this process, but what exactly do you mean by "sorted that"? Are you saying that all the multiple guaging fiascos there have been on steam trips,culminating with the notorious Flying Scotsman incident(which of course was eventually sorted) are the fault of WCRC,DBC or whoever not doing something which they should have done,and that NR is not to blame for these issues?

 

[The Planner]

No I am not saying it isnt the fault of NR, I am saying that the fact that the bid was turned around by the NR charter team and times published does not mean they have done the wrong thing. Freight and charter are two different things.

 

[TBirdFrank]

For God's sake stop pussyfooting around.

The bid made by a TOC is to NR for consent to a movement - not to the timing team or the planning team, but business to business, customer to supplier, limited company to statutory undertaker.

If NR then turn round and say yes, then they have said it and any reversal is pure negligence on their part, as if the real or convenient, answer is no but they still say yes, then they deserve all the blame and opprobrium they get, and they should be made to pay for their incompetence - in spades.

NR is the business - not team A or team B or any other ad hoc group of staff.

At the moment I have given up railtouring in the UK - which is probably what NR really want - and they certainly won't care, because when I pay for something I expect to get it.

Good old RPSI - thank goodness someone and their railway can still deliver!

 

[hurricanemk1c]

For God's sake stop pussyfooting around.

The bid made by a TOC is to NR for consent to a movement - not to the timing team or the planning team, but business to business, customer to supplier, limited company to statutory undertaker.

If NR then turn round and say yes, then they have said it and any reversal is pure negligence on their part, as if the real or convenient, answer is no but they still say yes, then they deserve all the blame and opprobrium they get, and they should be made to pay for their incompetence - in spades.

NR is the business - not team A or team B or any other ad hoc group of staff.

At the moment I have given up railtouring in the UK - which is probably what NR really want - and they certainly won't care, because when I pay for something I expect to get it.

Good old RPSI - thank goodness someone and their railway can still deliver!

It helps that they use stock that was already cleared for the whole network (in the South Cravens, in the North Mark 2s). Unlike this case (and similar, from my reading) is in effect new stock/new line

 

[87015]

Tours in Ireland (and elsewhere) remain more than capable of being a shambles because of paperwork and other spurious reasons. The 141 farewell tour that wasn't a 141 for political reasons comes to mind.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

It helps that they use stock that was already cleared for the whole network (in the South Cravens, in the North Mark 2s). Unlike this case (and similar, from my reading) is in effect new stock/new line

Does the motor car of a 442 stop it from being allowed to use the same clearances as an HST or loco-hauled MK3 (assuming that the shoes and shoe mountings have been removed)?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

For God's sake stop pussyfooting around.

The bid made by a TOC is to NR for consent to a movement - not to the timing team or the planning team, but business to business, customer to supplier, limited company to statutory undertaker.

If NR then turn round and say yes, then they have said it and any reversal is pure negligence on their part, as if the real or convenient, answer is no but they still say yes, then they deserve all the blame and opprobrium they get, and they should be made to pay for their incompetence - in spades.

NR is the business - not team A or team B or any other ad hoc group of staff.

At the moment I have given up railtouring in the UK - which is probably what NR really want - and they certainly won't care, because when I pay for something I expect to get it.

If the contractual relationships are as you believe them to be then presumably Vintage Trains and/or ROG are free to sue Network Rail for breach of contract with some of that compensation being passed on to disappointed prospective passengers. In future they can then do business with an alternative supplier... oh wait...

Rail enthusiasts would do well to remember that the national network is not maintained at great expense just to provide them with a railway operating playground. For those sorts of activities there are plenty of heritage lines more than willing to take their money. In future make plans to use vehicles with a known clearance availability rather than attempting to use something exotic in a location never previously visited by it. There are still plenty of Mark I's in the charter company fleets. At the very least ensure clearances have been certified before advertising anything. [/shakes head]

 

[TBirdFrank]

Railway Enthusiasts would do well!..... Who the hell do you think you are?

Requests for paths are not made by enthusiasts. They are made by TOC's accepted by the DfT to have the necessary credentials and ability to run on the National Network.

As such when requests are made they should be properly addressed and resourced.

NR is responsible to Government - and the public - to manage the network in accordance with their enabling acts, and that means in a proper manner compliant with all aspects of their legal obligations under the Railway Acts since 1993.

Network Rail would do well to look over those obligations and remember what they say and how they should be respected before coming out with inappropriate and misguided comments that indicate how they believe they can ride roughshod over them.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Who do I think I am? Another enthusiast, believe it or believe it not, but one with rather more realistic expectations of what I can expect from the national network by way of entertainment. Honestly, 442s to Norfolk? A clear case of playing trains. If you feel so upset about it please feel free to contact your MP or perhaps even the minister himself and see how concerned they are about Network Rail's failure to provide the entertainment you seem to want. But I rather think you'll find they have somewhat bigger fish to fry when it comes to oversight of the national network to be too concerned about the interests of such a tiny minority group as railway enthusiasts. And frankly I don't have a problem with that.

 

[hurricanemk1c]

Does the motor car of a 442 stop it from being allowed to use the same clearances as an HST or loco-hauled MK3 (assuming that the shoes and shoe mountings have been removed)?

Were Mark 3s already cleared for the proposed route?

As has been said above, Network Rail's small Short Term Planning department are there for more than just railtours, and that they would potential get back / not have to pay themselves all the delay minutes of a heritage charter [although not sure whether that applies here]