Railway Touring Company - Check Terms & Condition before you book!

[GeoffLDN]

Im sharing my recent experience to warn potential travellers about The Railway Touring Company. Last October, my daughter and I excitedly planned a trip aboard the iconic Flying Scotsman. Unfortunately, our anticipation turned to disappointment when the train was involved in a collision shortly before our scheduled departure.

Due to the ongoing investigation into the crash, uncertainty loomed over whether the Flying Scotsman would run from the week commencing 2nd October. This uncertainty deeply affected my daughter, who suffers from PTSD. Recognising her distress, I promptly informed The Railway Touring Company of our need to cancel.

Despite our situation, The Railway Touring Company rigidly upheld their policy and refused any refund.

Appeals for understanding fell on deaf ears, leaving me, as pensioners, out of pocket by over £530. Even efforts by my Member of Parliament were unsuccessful.

Key Points to Note About The Railway Touring Company before you book.

1. They reserve the right to change the booked locomotive without providing refunds,
potentially depriving you of the experience you desired.
2. A switch to a diesel engine from a steam one may occur without any refund
offered.
3. Illness does not warrant a refund, regardless of the circumstances.

My advice:

Carefully review the terms and conditions before making any bookings.
If you're uncomfortable with the uncertainty and refund policy, consider visiting the National Railway Museum in York instead – a delightful alternative for train enthusiasts and it FREE. If your a train 'geek' its the place for you!

Don't overlook the risks associated with booking with The Railway Touring Company. Make an informed choice.

 

[WesternLancer]

Im sharing my recent experience to warn potential travellers about The Railway Touring Company. Last October, my daughter and I excitedly planned a trip aboard the iconic Flying Scotsman. Unfortunately, our anticipation turned to disappointment when the train was involved in a collision shortly before our scheduled departure.

Due to the ongoing investigation into the crash, uncertainty loomed over whether the Flying Scotsman would run from the week commencing 2nd October. This uncertainty deeply affected my daughter, who suffers from PTSD. Recognising her distress, I promptly informed The Railway Touring Company of our need to cancel.

Despite our situation, The Railway Touring Company rigidly upheld their policy and refused any refund.

Appeals for understanding fell on deaf ears, leaving me, as pensioners, out of pocket by over £530. Even efforts by my Member of Parliament were unsuccessful.

Key Points to Note About The Railway Touring Company before you book.

1. They reserve the right to change the booked locomotive without providing refunds,
potentially depriving you of the experience you desired.
2. A switch to a diesel engine from a steam one may occur without any refund
offered.
3. Illness does not warrant a refund, regardless of the circumstances.

My advice:

Carefully review the terms and conditions before making any bookings.
If you're uncomfortable with the uncertainty and refund policy, consider visiting the National Railway Museum in York instead – a delightful alternative for train enthusiasts and it FREE. If your a train 'geek' its the place for you!

Don't overlook the risks associated with booking with The Railway Touring Company. Make an informed choice.

Sorry to hear about the disappointment on this one. I can imagine how it feels.

I recall taking my parents on a similar steam hauled trip for a special birthday without telling them in advance so the element of surprise was there - you can imagine how I felt when standing on the platform waiting for the steam train to arrive (in this case an LNER A4) but instead it appeared with a really dirty diesel engine on the front due to a last minute fault with the scheduled LNER A4 steam loco. At least that operator managed to get a replacement steam loco for some of the route which helped 'save the day'.

I think the difficulty with the operators of these trains is that they run on really tight financial margins with lots of fixed costs. In the event of having to cancel the steam engine, the risk is so many people might want their money back that the operator would probably risk insolvency if their terms allowed such refunds. Even more likely if it involves Flying Scotsman I suspect.

I'm sure you have thought about this - but given the cost of your tickets and the situation with your daughter's condition, was there any fall back on travel insurance or house insurance that you might have? eg if you have an annual travel insurance policy that might possibly cover it.

If it helps think about a future trip - parts of the this forum (the Railway preservation thread probably) has lots of users who follow these tours, it would be a place to get an informed view on how likely a future tour might be to get disrupted - should you be thinking of booking again.

 

[DeverseSam]

I wonder whether the tickets are transferable?

 

[Dai Corner]

I wonder whether the tickets are transferable?

It doesn't appear to say they're not in the T&Cs.

I wonder if the RTC would offer a change of date rather than a refund?

 

[Trackman]

It doesn't appear to say they're not in the T&Cs.

I wonder if the RTC would offer a change of date rather than a refund?

Doubt it.
The issue is, let's say you pay £80,000 for a railtour and half the people cancel or defer to another tour, the rail tour company will be seriously out of pocket, As the old adage goes, the last carriage makes the rail tour profit - that's how tight it is.

I'm sure you have thought about this - but given the cost of your tickets and the situation with your daughter's condition, was there any fall back on travel insurance or house insurance that you might have? eg if you have an annual travel insurance policy that might possibly cover it.

Good call this, no harm in asking.

 

[12LDA28C]

I don't believe RTC are alone in having those types of terms and conditions as many factors such as locomotive availability and weather conditions can affect whether the advertised traction appears on the train on the day or not. It's really just a risk you have to accept when booking onto one of these types of tours, and the relevant Ts and Cs should be clearly stated on the website (as they are for RTC) and can be viewed prior to booking. I appreciate this is of little help to the OP at this stage however...

 

[Titfield]

I don't believe RTC are alone in having those types of terms and conditions as many factors such as locomotive availability and weather conditions can affect whether the advertised traction appears on the train on the day or not. It's really just a risk you have to accept when booking onto one of these types of tours, and the relevant Ts and Cs should be clearly stated on the website (as they are for RTC) and can be viewed prior to booking. I appreciate this is of little help to the OP at this stage however...

Whilst many are not of the same magnitude, this type of policy (no refund) exists for many forms of leisure and entertainment including theatres where the understudy replaces the "name actor" or heritage railways where the steam loco has to be replaced for example by a diesel either due to mechanical issue or even if there is a steam ban due to a prolonged period of dry weather. Some organisations though will offer a change of date to a new departure but self evidently there is a risk of a similar occurrence.

It is very very galling indeed though and the OP has my sympathy.

 

[LittleRedTrain]

Although I appreciate your distress and disappointment, unfortunately this issue is a regular one with railtours, and as others have said, more favourable T&Cs may well leave them unable to afford to run at all (or having to jack the price up even further to cover the risk).

Having travelled with RTC many times, and occasionally suffered diesel substitution or severe disruption, I've found that they do often offer some recompense after the event if a steam loco is substituted with a diesel, or there is major disruption.
Often this is in the form of a discount on a future tour rather than cold hard cash back in the pocket, but it's better than nothing.

If it helps at all, Vintage Trains do have a policy of part-refunds if you cancel with more than 31 days notice. (see https://vintagetrains.co.uk/conditions/)

 

[Brissle Girl]

Despite our situation, The Railway Touring Company rigidly upheld their policy and refused any refund.

Appeals for understanding fell on deaf ears, leaving me, as pensioners, out of pocket by over £530

Don't overlook the risks associated with booking with The Railway Touring Company. Make an informed choice.

I’m not really sure what relevance you being a pensioner is - you can either afford this type of trip or you can’t. In fact, it’s the case these days that a large part of the pensioner population is more affluent that many of the younger generation who are in work.

And in terms of you wanting a refund because of illness. I think this is grossly unfair criticism of RTC. It would be exactly the same if you had paid for tickets to a sporting fixture, or theatre, or a hotel where the terms are that there is no refund.

The specific terms you highlight are common to all rail tour operators, for the reasons others have given. They could not run a business if they offered the sort of refunds you think they should do. But you are right of course, that you should always read the T&Cs before booking, given the sums involved - I’m guessing that you didn’t, which is not the fault of RTC.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

My thoughts on this are when the final report on the collision is complete, at that point you may find it possible to pursue a small claims action for a refund if it can be shown that the contract wasn't carried out with due care, so if there is a finding that negligence played a part in the collision there may be a possibility of a claim, again in my limited opinion

 

[12LDA28C]

My thoughts on this are when the final report on the collision is complete, at that point you may find it possible to pursue a small claims action for a refund if it can be shown that the contract wasn't carried out with due care, so if there is a finding that negligence played a part in the collision there may be a possibility of a claim, again in my limited opinion

If the Tour Operator lists the Ts & Cs clearly on their website as they do in this case, I'm not sure this course of action would meet with any success.

 

[Brissle Girl]

My thoughts on this are when the final report on the collision is complete, at that point you may find it possible to pursue a small claims action for a refund if it can be shown that the contract wasn't carried out with due care, so if there is a finding that negligence played a part in the collision there may be a possibility of a claim, again in my limited opinion

I’m not at all convinced by this. Presumably the tour ran, (although maybe with a different loco), so I would imagine the RTC would just point to its T&Cs and say we delivered an acceptable product.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

If the Tour Operator lists the Ts & Cs clearly on their website as they do in this case, I'm not sure this course of action would meet with any success.

Consumer rights act would potentially overrule the T and Cs, T and Cs in a contract are not always the end of the matter, if the contract was not carried out with reasonable skill/care then there is a potential for a claim regardless of what the T and Cs are

I’m not at all convinced by this. Presumably the tour ran, (although maybe with a different loco), so I would imagine the RTC would just point to its T&Cs and say we delivered an acceptable product.

Also T and Cs could be classed as overly onerous or unfair by a court and can effectively annul them

 

[12LDA28C]

Consumer rights act would potentially overrule the T and Cs, T and Cs in a contract are not always the end of the matter, if the contract was not carried out with reasonable skill/care then there is a potential for a claim regardless of what the T and Cs are

And who would that claim be against exactly? Who has 'not carried out the contract with reasonable skill/care' as you put it? RTC? The driver of the loco involved in the collision? The Strathspey Railway?

 

[Brissle Girl]

Also T and Cs could be classed as overly onerous or unfair by a court and can effectively annul them

You suggested the small claims court, and I doubt it could annul them?

Besides, we didn’t get the full story as to whether the tour ran. I presume it did else there would have been a refund due. The point is that they cancelled due to illness, which was triggered because of the uncertainty that the tour might not run. I don’t think you can hold the operator liable for such uncertainty if the tour did run?

 

[glasgowniteowl]

And who would that claim be against exactly? Who has 'not carried out the contract with reasonable skill/care' as you put it? RTC? The driver of the loco involved in the collision? The Strathspey Railway?

As I said it all depends on the outcome of the investigation if there is found to be some form of negligence and who that is apportioned to at that point a small claim may be possible

You suggested the small claims court, and I doubt it could annul them?

Besides, we didn’t get the full story as to whether the tour ran. I presume it did else there would have been a refund due. The point is that they cancelled due to illness, which was triggered because of the uncertainty that the tour might not run. I don’t think you can hold the operator liable for such uncertainty if the tour did run?

I don't see why a small claims court couldn't annul unfair contract terms,

As for holding the operator liable for the uncertainty again that would depend on who if anyone is found to be negligent

 

[Iskra]

I do think the OP should probably have come on here to ask for advice at the time, rather than now to have a retrospective moan.

However, could the OP not just have simply gone with someone else?

I was once (temporarily) incapacitated and unable to go on a tour with a different operator who I am a good customer of. I was given a credit note for a future tour, but I did give them a weeks notice which was as much as I could under the circumstances, and it’s not a big loss for them for one person if they couldn’t subsequently re-sell my seat.

I can understand RTC’s decision, as clearly their business would not be viable if unforeseen circumstances could mean mass refunds and it is very difficult for them to make exceptions for one, when many others would also like a refund due to the circumstances.

 

[AlterEgo]

My thoughts on this are when the final report on the collision is complete, at that point you may find it possible to pursue a small claims action for a refund if it can be shown that the contract wasn't carried out with due care, so if there is a finding that negligence played a part in the collision there may be a possibility of a claim, again in my limited opinion

I’m afraid this is a non starter. The OP cancelled supposedly on the grounds of illness and nothing else. There is no refund and that is unfortunate but it is in no way an unfair term. This is one to chalk up to experience I’m afraid.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

I’m afraid this is a non starter. The OP cancelled supposedly on the grounds of illness and nothing else. There is no refund and that is unfortunate but it is in no way an unfair term. This is one to chalk up to experience I’m afraid.

Illness due to the uncertainty is what the op is advising, I am saying that the uncertainty may potentially have been caused by negligence, that may have resulted in the contract not being carried out with due care and that may entitle the op to claim, again all depending what the outcome of the investigation is, yes its a lot of maybes I'm just saying have a look after the outcome of the investigation as there may be a stronger case at that point

 

[Ianigsy]

Whilst many are not of the same magnitude, this type of policy (no refund) exists for many forms of leisure and entertainment including theatres where the understudy replaces the "name actor" or heritage railways where the steam loco has to be replaced for example by a diesel either due to mechanical issue or even if there is a steam ban due to a prolonged period of dry weather. Some organisations though will offer a change of date to a new departure but self evidently there is a risk of a similar occurrence.

It is very very galling indeed though and the OP has my sympathy.

Equally, I’ve been refunded a concert ticket for a solo artist when they were unable to perform due to illness. It’s an awkward area and probably not one it’s in anybody’s interests to resolve in black and white terms.

For the paying public, travelling behind Scotsman is part of the cachet of the tour. It’s part of the reason why they might be prepared to pay more than for, say, a straight out and back diesel tour or a Black Five, and a lot of people would probably see it on the same terms as booking a Sunday lunch tour and then finding out that there’s no food because the kitchen car isn’t working. You would expect to be recompensed for the loss of part of the experience.

RTC could have postponed the tour pending the outcome of the investigation into the shunt at Aviemore, but the loco still had to work back south and once it was confirmed as fit to run, there would have been costs which RTC wouldn’t have been able to recover had they chosen to do so. The one thing that West Coast seem to do well is to have a pool of named locos rated class 6 and above, any of which looks impressive at the head of a tour.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I’ve just checked and no FS tours were cancelled as a result of the collision.

So I find it a ludicrous suggestion that when the product someone had paid for was delivered, they could claim for a refund because a perceived uncertainty that it might not happen resulted in illness so great that when that uncertainty was removed they still didn’t want to attend.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

I’ve just checked and no FS tours were cancelled as a result of the collision.

So I find it a ludicrous suggestion that when the product someone had paid for was delivered, they could claim for a refund because a perceived uncertainty that it might not happen resulted in illness so great that when that uncertainty was removed they still didn’t want to attend.

Certainly were cancellations on the Saturday, I'd maybe check your sources, as for a "perceived uncertainty" I wouldn't say it was simply perceived, there was actual uncertainty, at the time, it was taken out of service while awaiting inspections that is a fact not just something perceived by someone. It's not that ludicrous a suggestion that someone may not want to undertake a large journey to partake in something that had just been involved in such a serious incident that cancellations had occurred and was not guaranteed to back running for their booked journey

Again I am simply saying that the OP should await the raib report and then consider his options as he may have recourse,

 

[Brissle Girl]

It's not that ludicrous a suggestion that someone may not want to undertake a large journey to partake in something that had just been involved in such a serious incident that cancellations had occurred and was not guaranteed to back running for their booked journey

Ah, so now you’ve converted illness to become disinclination to travel, even once the tour was confirmed as going ahead.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

Ah, so now you’ve converted illness to become disinclination to travel, even once the tour was confirmed as going ahead.

I've not converted anything, I am simply saying to wait and see what the raib report says

What about those cancellations that you said never happened? Have you checked those?

Also you don't even know when the tour the op was due to go on or when it was confirmed that it was to run, you seem to be making assumptions on the timeline without any actual facts, and completely just making up facts to suit you position, that is appalling in my opinion

 

[AlterEgo]

I've not converted anything, I am simply saying to wait and see what the raib report says

What about those cancellations that you said never happened? Have you checked those?

Also you don't even know when the tour the op was due to go on or when it was confirmed that it was to run, you seem to be making assumptions on the timeline without any actual facts, and completely just making up facts to suit you position, that is appalling in my opinion

You are posting unfounded speculation based on an incorrect reading of the Consumer Rights Act. The “reasonable care and skill” clause refers to when a service specifically hasn’t been provided - for example if the rail tour was actually cancelled because they couldn’t staff it, or the company forgot to file paths, or some other at-fault reason.

The service was provided in this case, it is just the OP’s daughter was distressed at the uncertainty and they cancelled their ticket on those sickness grounds. Their rail tour wasn’t cancelled; if it was, then there would be grounds for refund.

 

[Brissle Girl]

What about those cancellations that you said never happened? Have you checked those?

Also you don't even know when the tour the op was due to go on or when it was confirmed that it was to run, you seem to be making assumptions on the timeline without any actual facts, and completely just making up facts to suit you position, that is appalling in my opinion

The NRM put out a statement confirming that future main line excursions were unaffected, which was good enough confirmation for me that they ran.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Again I am simply saying that the OP should await the raib report and then consider his options as he may have recourse,

From whom? The collision involving Flying Scotsman was on the Strathspey Railway and the train involved was the Royal Scotsman. Neither of those were parties to the contract involving the OP and RTC were in no way involved in the collision. The only party who may have been involved in both is WCRC but the OP didn't have a contract with them, they had one with RTC.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

You are posting unfounded speculation based on an incorrect reading of the Consumer Rights Act. The “reasonable care and skill” clause refers to when a service specifically hasn’t been provided - for example if the rail tour was actually cancelled because they couldn’t staff it, or the company forgot to file paths, or some other at-fault reason.

The service was provided in this case, it is just the OP’s daughter was distressed at the uncertainty and they cancelled their ticket on those sickness grounds. Their rail tour wasn’t cancelled; if it was, then there would be grounds for refund.

Where do you see that the "reasonable care and skill" clause refers to when a service specifically hasn't been provided? I think you may infact may be misreading the act. This clause actually focuses on how the contract was carried out rather than the end result, their rail tour was in jeopardy of being cancelled which caused the illness, what caused that jeopardy could have been caused by negligence hence potentially a route to claim depending on the raib report

The NRM put out a statement confirming that future main line excursions were unaffected, which was good enough confirmation for me that they ran.

would that be a statement several days after the incident and after cancellations which had already happened? In fact the nrm statement on the 2nd of October said that checks would be done prior to confirming when it would be back in service, then they made at statement on the 6 October confirming that rtc tour would run on the 7th October

From whom? The collision involving Flying Scotsman was on the Strathspey Railway and the train involved was the Royal Scotsman. Neither of those were parties to the contract involving the OP and RTC were in no way involved in the collision. The only party who may have been involved in both is WCRC but the OP didn't have a contract with them, they had one with RTC.

The op had the contract with RTC that's who they would claim, even though RTC wouldn't be involved in any potential "negligence" they would still potentially be liable for negligence on the part of other companies who are acting on their behalf, RTC would then in turn have a claim against them

 

[island]

Where do you see that the "reasonable care and skill" clause refers to when a service specifically hasn't been provided? I think you may infact may be misreading the act. This clause actually focuses on how the contract was carried out rather than the end result, their rail tour was in jeopardy of being cancelled which caused the illness, what caused that jeopardy could have been caused by negligence hence potentially a route to claim depending on the raib report

The provision of the service had not commenced at the time the passenger chose to cancel their plans, so any claim that the service had, at that point, been provided without due skill and care is doomed to fail.

 

[AlterEgo]

Where do you see that the "reasonable care and skill" clause refers to when a service specifically hasn't been provided? I think you may infact may be misreading the act.

No, you have misread it - in fact I am doubtful you have read it at all if you come to this conclusion. You are giving unhelpful advice to someone in a difficult and unfortunate situation.

@island neatly summarises the situation.

It would be quite different had they been booked on the train which did have the collision, or if their own tour service was cancelled as a result of said collision. But it wasn't.