Waterloo to be new Sleeper train hub?

[Tobbes]

Peter, good evening

I read your article with considerable interest, but I cannot believe that it is ever going to be cost competitive - even through life - with hauled stock. The issue is simply that you're designing and building a bespoke bimodal trainset - and an articulated one at that - that would be a completely new vehicle for Britain's railways. Surely the R&D cost will be huge?

Something that may be more feasible is a EDSMU based on the IEP architecture, but even then it will surely be far more expensive that refurbished Mark IIIs, converted Mark IVs or new build Nightstar-lite carriages?

Kind regards,

Tobbes

 

[Manchester77]

378s are articulated

Sleeper routes should have a bespoke design they're a unique service it's not like you can't take a standard train and shove in some cubicals I think peters design is well thought out catering for all audiences as well as being DDA complient

 

[Tobbes]

378s are articulated

I don't think that they are - they're standard electrostars modified for LOROL / London Overground. Are you thinking of 373 Eurostars? Eurostars are obviously a rather special case....! Interestingly, neither 395s or IEPs are articulated.

Sleeper routes should have a bespoke design they're a unique service it's not like you can't take a standard train and shove in some cubicles I think peters design is well thought out catering for all audiences as well as being DDA compliant

The point is not whether Peter's bimodal design isn't in principal attractive, but designing an entirely new vehicle for the job is going to be much more expensive than reusing an existing design (Mark 3, Mark 4, Nightstar, "Nightstar-lite", or IEP trailers as hauled stock) to develop, and the tiny number of units required means that the engineering development costs are amortised over probably less than 100 coaches.

Besides, Mark 3 Sleepers were developed from day hauled stock, itself developed from HST trailers - and I've always slept pretty well in them... including last week!

 

[Aictos]

Actually the quickest way from Waterloo to St Pancras is Northern to Leicester Square then Piccadilly to KXStP, but if you have luggage the easiest is Bakerloo to Oxford Circus then Victoria to KXStP (Oxford Circus is a same-level interchange and KXStP is fully step-free).

Actually there is a quicker route then the one you've given....

Waterloo to St Pancras is Northern to Leicester Square then Piccadilly to KXStP takes 17 minutes.

Jubilee to Baker Street then Metropolitan to KXStP takes 14 minutes.

Bakerloo to Oxford Circus then Victoria to KXStP takes 12 minutes.

 

[ainsworth74]

378s are articulated

No they're not. As far as I'm aware it's only Eurostar's that are.

 

[Nym]

378s are articulated

Sleeper routes should have a bespoke design they're a unique service it's not like you can't take a standard train and shove in some cubicals I think peters design is well thought out catering for all audiences as well as being DDA complient

No, they're not, only the Class 373s are articulated and in passenger use in the UK, excluding DLR and Tram systems.

 

[edwin_m]

Articulation means that a bogie is shared in some way between adjacent coaches. 378s have a non-articulated arrangement where each coach has two bogies not shared in any way. From the inside they look a bit like articulated trams and DLR units but this is simply because the gangway connection is much wider than on other non-articulated trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wasn't this requirement fully cracked, and embraced by the business world, several decades ago. It's called "airlines".

In principle a sleeper might allow someone to arrive for an early meeting having got a decent night's sleep on the train, instead of getting up at silly o'clock to get to the airport for an early flight including allowing enough time for security.

For this to work in practice it is absolutely essential that the sleeper can provide a decent measure of comfort, non-shared accommodation for privacy/security and something approaching a guarantee of a good night's sleep. The big question is whether the railway can deliver this at a price that won't make company accountants ban its use as not cost-effective!

For what it's worth I believe only Euston offers the right combination of easy rail access to the north, reasonable proximity to Eurostar, long platforms and platform demand low enough for the sleepers to occupy them approaching the high peak period (HS2 may change this though!). I can't see passengers with luggage wanting to brave the Tube at peak hour from Waterloo to catch a Eurostar, whereas Euston is a short tube/bus/taxi ride and this would be assisted if any of the travolator-type proposals come off.

 

[Tobbes]

For what it's worth I believe only Euston offers the right combination of easy rail access to the north, reasonable proximity to Eurostar, long platforms and platform demand low enough for the sleepers to occupy them approaching the high peak period (HS2 may change this though!). I can't see passengers with luggage wanting to brave the Tube at peak hour from Waterloo to catch a Eurostar, whereas Euston is a short tube/bus/taxi ride and this would be assisted if any of the travolator-type proposals come off.

What would be really useful is data on the destinations of sleeper passengers after arrival in London. I can't see that a significant proportion would travel from say Pitlochry or Fort William in order to take a Eurostar to Paris - it'd be much quicker (and probably rather cheaper) to fly from Edinburgh or Glasgow. I'd expect that business travellers would want to go to the City, Canary Wharf or the West End, politicians and civil servants to Westminster - all of whom would benefit from Waterloo over Euston. Does anyone have any data?

Tobbes

 

[swt_passenger]

No. By that time the pointwork in the throat of Waterloo will have been redone, allowing services to be distributed between all platforms 3 to 24 (using 22 platforms instead of 19), which reduces conflicts across the throat and increases platform availability.

Exactly, and as they've said somewhere recently, the additional platform capacity can be used to increase service frequencies on longer distance routes simply by leaving the arriving trains in some of the extra platforms until after the morning peak. Even if it's only 4 or 5 12 car trains it's quite a few thousand extra passenger capacity.

I'm firmly in the 'sleepers will never happen' camp, another reason being that on the fairly regular occasions on which they are late into London, how the heck would they be pathed down the WLL in the morning peak? It's all very well saying there's space for late evening departures, but what about morning arrivals?

 

[Ploughman]

No, they're not, only the Class 373s are articulated and in passenger use in the UK, excluding DLR and Tram systems.

Not quite correct
http://www.offshed.com/heritage/sho...Product=19&totalRows_rsShowProduct=20&catID=3

However they are not on the national network.

 

[Tobbes]

Exactly, and as they've said somewhere recently, the additional platform capacity can be used to increase service frequencies on longer distance routes simply by leaving the arriving trains in some of the extra platforms until after the morning peak. Even if it's only 4 or 5 12 car trains it's quite a few thousand extra passenger capacity.

I'm firmly in the 'sleepers will never happen' camp, another reason being that on the fairly regular occasions on which they are late into London, how the heck would they be pathed down the WLL in the morning peak? It's all very well saying there's space for late evening departures, but what about morning arrivals?

On the WLL, though I don't have a WTT, it seems that around 0645 the LO trains between Willesden Junction and Clapham Junction are running every 15 mins, so it should be possible to slot the two Caley sleepers between these services.

On the specific capacity point, extra platforms only mean extra capacity if there is the rolling stock to use them - does / will SWT have the additional capacity required?

Finally, I think the other point is that - as a Putney resident - we need to be clear that there are broader national priorities, too, and that if Waterloo can play a role in meeting these priorities - such as reducing demands on Euston so that it can be rebuilt for HS2, then it should do so. Parochialism isn't helpful.

Tobbes

 

[swt_passenger]

Have you read the latest SWT/NR press releases and ANY of the relevant RUSs over the last few years?

The stuff last week about another order for 135 vehicles being phase 1 of the next stage in capacity increases? That's 27 units of 5 car - so let's say 12 x 10 car trains running in the peak, and needing platforming.

Despite popular belief, they have been consistently proposing bringing the international platforms into full use for SWT services. Why are you trying to solve a sleeper problem that might not even exist? Is there any evidence in the HS2 documentation that they definitely need to move it from Euston during the building of HS2?

Perhaps the clever civil engineers dealing with HS2 have already got a plan?

 

[Taunton]

In principle a sleeper might allow someone to arrive for an early meeting having got a decent night's sleep on the train, instead of getting up at silly o'clock to get to the airport for an early flight including allowing enough time for security.

For this to work in practice it is absolutely essential that the sleeper can provide a decent measure of comfort, non-shared accommodation for privacy/security and something approaching a guarantee of a good night's sleep.

It's not necessary to get up at a silly time for the first flight if that's a problem for you - there are many who take the last flight the previous evening and get a hotel room. In fact this can absorb all the time between the office closing around 6 pm and the sleeper leaving at 11 pm. It also means you don't need to confront the late-night drunks at Euston, get woken up at intervals through the night banging over the pointwork at Crewe, Preston, Carlisle etc, or turn up at your business meeting unshowered and unprofessional.

Regarding those using the internal overnight sleeper from Scotland and then transferring to Eurostar onwards to Paris/Brussels, this traffic was long ago completely lost to the airlines, for whom it is less than a two hour trip, a fact which was belatedly recognised when both the North-of-London Eurostars and the Channel Tunnel sleepers were never actually introduced. There are a range of journeys for which rail is favourable - unfortunately these type of journeys are not among them.

 

[edwin_m]

It's not necessary to get up at a silly time for the first flight if that's a problem for you - there are many who take the last flight the previous evening and get a hotel room. In fact this can absorb all the time between the office closing around 6 pm and the sleeper leaving at 11 pm. It also means you don't need to confront the late-night drunks at Euston, get woken up at intervals through the night banging over the pointwork at Crewe, Preston, Carlisle etc, or turn up at your business meeting unshowered and unprofessional.

Regarding those using the internal overnight sleeper from Scotland and then transferring to Eurostar onwards to Paris/Brussels, this traffic was long ago completely lost to the airlines, for whom it is less than a two hour trip, a fact which was belatedly recognised when both the North-of-London Eurostars and the Channel Tunnel sleepers were never actually introduced. There are a range of journeys for which rail is favourable - unfortunately these type of journeys are not among them.

I largely agree. As I've just posted elsewhere my preference is to get an evening train, doing some work on the way, and a hotel room. The sleeper will have to offer a good level of quality and a good price to be more attractive than doing this or flying, and I think it will be difficult for it to do this.

The market for rail services from Scotland to the Continent is going to be small but there will be some people who aren't particularly time-critical and don't wish to fly. Not enough to justify a through train but maybe some would want to make a connection off the sleeper if it didn't involve changing at Oxford Circus in the middle of rush hour. Again the sleeper would have to offer the right product at the right price for these people - another diffcult balancing act.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Sleeper routes should have a bespoke design they're a unique service it's not like you can't take a standard train and shove in some cubicles I think peters design is well thought out catering for all audiences as well as being DDA complient

Thank you.

Peter, good evening

I read your article with considerable interest, but I cannot believe that it is ever going to be cost competitive - even through life - with hauled stock. The issue is simply that you're designing and building a bespoke bimodal trainset - and an articulated one at that - that would be a completely new vehicle for Britain's railways. Surely the R&D cost will be huge?

Something that may be more feasible is a EDSMU based on the IEP architecture, but even then it will surely be far more expensive that refurbished Mark IIIs, converted Mark IVs or new build Nightstar-lite carriages?

Kind regards,

Tobbes

Don't forget the elimination of a lot of the traction costs through being MU rather than relying on hired in locomotives plus the simplification of splitting and joining on multi portion trains.

What is in my article is, rembember, a suggestion.

The length of unit discussed in it is based on having a single version for all services; you could easily have a 12 car unit for the Glasgow / Edinburgh, for example, but that would mean running two sub-fleets with the attendant loss of flexibility for no change in staffing levels overall as you would still need x number of staff per y number of berths. So there are savings across the fleet by not needing so many spare units even taking into account the suggested moderate expansion of services.

It would be relatively easy to adapt the bodyshell of any production train for this purpose - most are based on modular designs these days so the different bodyshell lengths and window positions are the least of the problems.

What would be the most challenging part would probably be to adapt the structure for articulated bogies, but even this is not too technically difficult - the main structural difference is that the bogie mounts would need to be nearer the ends of the carriages and the suspension would require altering.

So the R&D should not be too high.

The number of vehicles required, even without the moderate expansion of routes suggested, is high enough to spread the cost.

 

[Essexman]

It's not necessary to get up at a silly time for the first flight if that's a problem for you - there are many who take the last flight the previous evening and get a hotel room. In fact this can absorb all the time between the office closing around 6 pm and the sleeper leaving at 11 pm. It also means you don't need to confront the late-night drunks at Euston, get woken up at intervals through the night banging over the pointwork at Crewe, Preston, Carlisle etc, or turn up at your business meeting unshowered and unprofessional.

Regarding those using the internal overnight sleeper from Scotland and then transferring to Eurostar onwards to Paris/Brussels, this traffic was long ago completely lost to the airlines, for whom it is less than a two hour trip, a fact which was belatedly recognised when both the North-of-London Eurostars and the Channel Tunnel sleepers were never actually introduced. There are a range of journeys for which rail is favourable - unfortunately these type of journeys are not among them.

I can leave home at 10pm, board sleeper at 11pm, arrive Glasgow 7.15, shower, breakfast and still have plenty of time for meetings from 9.00. Late afternoon train home or pleasant evening in Scotland and sleeper home. Far more pleasant than flying.

And some passengers still transfer to Eurostar. There were several on the sleeper from Inverness when I travelled back a couple of weeks ago. TRain was 2 hours late and guard was helping change their bookings.

 

[Norther Monkey]

I've made the point before - but why is everyone talking about London? For travel between the Midlands or Northern England and North Scotland the sleeper is the only cost effective way to do a full day's work and be at the other end the next morning. Why isn't this marketed or commented on more?

I know the market isn't as big, but then currently the sleeper ain't that big!

 

[Yew]

Its a shame the sleeper carriages couldnt stay in EDB until a bit later though, for leisure users to get some more sleep. If you go for a drink or two in the lounge, and are woken up early you might struggle to get more than 6 hours.

That being said, last time I went straight to bed after leaving edinburgh, and didnt wake up till a knock on the door at euston

 

[The Ham]

Of course using the international platforms for sleeper services doesn't have to be any time soon. In that when crossrail 2 is opertational as a regional service (if it is built) then there will be a lot more spare space at Waterloo, which would then (re)-free up the platforms for the sleepers.

 

[Eagle]

But there will also be a lot more free space at Liverpool Street (both Crossrail and Crossrail 2 will take services away from it). Why is Waterloo special?

 

[Bald Rick]

Of course using the international platforms for sleeper services doesn't have to be any time soon. In that when crossrail 2 is opertational as a regional service (if it is built) then there will be a lot more spare space at Waterloo, which would then (re)-free up the platforms for the sleepers.

And HS2 will make sleepers irrelevant by then...

 

[NotATrainspott]

And HS2 will make sleepers irrelevant by then...

After both stages of HS2 the journey time from Scotland will only be one hour less because the technology doesn't exist to run a UIC-gauge Pendolino faster than 250km/h, let alone trying to fit one into the UK gauge.

The only way the Central belt sleepers will truly become obsolete would be to continue HS2 all the way since all the truly twisty turny hilly bits are north of Preston but then you're left with a very expensive HS route on which you would only be able to run a few trains per hour due to capacity constraints on the phase one section. There is effectively no settlement between the Greater Glasgow conurbation and the border so there would be no need to run passenger services along the existing one at all. You might as well close the existing route entirely and waste all those unused HS paths on the existing freight services. The Highland services would still be needed even then because of the long, slow journey they have between the central belt and their destination.

 

[The Ham]

And HS2 will make sleepers irrelevant by then...

Like flying has...

 

[crewmeal]

And this old chestnut has reappeared abeit the Dail Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396557/How-sky-high-railway-fares-mean-times-expensive-train-fly-Britain.html

 

[brianthegiant]

A single dedicated sleeper terminal at Waterloo sounds like an excellent idea. With a single sleeper franchise, economies of scale would allow better facilities to be provided for both the SW and Scotland.
Could also be used for Orient Express services.

Furthermore a combined sleeper franchise would have much more marketing impact, cost of ads in mainstream media would be easier to justify.

 

[swt_passenger]

A single dedicated sleeper terminal at Waterloo sounds like an excellent idea.

It sounds more like a ridiculous idea to solve a non-existent problem, and there is ample evidence that the platforms will be fully used by SWT services within a few years time.

 

[Robert Taggart]

Sleeper trains, while they may be of use to the few - they be beyond the wallets, nay, wishes, of the many.
Should they continue to be loss makers - they should become lost sleepers !
These trains are in no way essential to the national economic good - time to put them 'to rest' !

As for Waterloo 'International' - a fine piece of modern architecture / engineering, but, no longer fit for purpose. Time to pull it down.
Perhaps Waterloo could take its cue from London Bridge ? - in a few years time - if that rebuilding proves to be a success.

 

[tbtc]

But there will also be a lot more free space at Liverpool Street (both Crossrail and Crossrail 2 will take services away from it). Why is Waterloo special?

I think that it's the (usual) "come up with a problem to try to justify a solution" argument.

Waste of time - the Waterloo capacity would be much better focussed on SWT.

 

[ainsworth74]

Sleeper trains, while they may be of use to the few - they be beyond the wallets, nay, wishes, of the many.

And yet they continue to be full with often no berths available upon departure.

As for Waterloo 'International' - a fine piece of modern architecture / engineering, but, no longer fit for purpose. Time to pull it down.

Apart from the fact that it will be opening in the coming years for use of domestic passengers?

 

[jon0844]

It sounds more like a ridiculous idea to solve a non-existent problem, and there is ample evidence that the platforms will be fully used by SWT services within a few years time.

I agree the platforms will probably just be used for ordinary services, but I have to say that I like the idea of a single location for sleeper services. Given the times that trains will arrive and depart, it wouldn't really cause any issues with the rest of the station.

But, I can't see it happening.