Serco for Sleeper

[berneyarms]

I'd have thought that's one of the Mk3s Belmond have brought over for refurbishment in Scotland.

Chris

That's precisely what it would have been.

There are ten Mark 3 coaches being sent to Scotland for refurbishment to be used by Belmond in Ireland.

 

[Flying Snail]

Irish Mk3 generator car on back of lorry on way north on M74 on Thursday night. Anything to do with Serco?

No. A set of ex IE Mk3 coaches are being rebuilt in Scotland for Belmond for a new luxury railtour product, they are the same company that operate the Royal Scotsman.

Edit: posted already


Back on topic, the sleeper is still part of the national network so I assume provisions need to be made to accept full fare any permitted tickets.

What rate serco are allowed charge for seat reservations or sleeper berth supplements is another question. My guess is that they want to push their own products so are purposely hiding the availability of add-on reservations and berth supplements. I wouldn't be surprised to see them pushing up the prices, making them more difficult to obtain and applying restrictive quotas as well.

 

[6Z09]

Seems like Serco will have plenty faults to put right on the rolling stock!
Lounge Cars with no heating, seating coaches no lights, for more than one trip,over the past couple of weeks!
First not wanting to pay out for spares??

 

[thealexweb]

Seems like Serco will have plenty faults to put right on the rolling stock!
Lounge Cars with no heating, seating coaches no lights, for more than one trip,over the past couple of weeks!
First not wanting to pay out for spares??

If First doesn't return the rolling stock in the condition it was obtained in won't they be fined by the leasing company?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree it only seems to confuse most people I speak to regarding the sleeper, many of them being infrequent travellers or getting on in life.

With the teaming up with Inverlochy I wouldn't be surprised if it goes to something like "Standard" and "Executive" etc once the new rolling stock arrives.

Possibly "First Class" will be the en-suite berths then, when it will make a slight bit of sense - but again, since when did hotels have classes? You just choose your category of room, some of which give you access to extra services.

It's a hotel on wheels, it would be far easier to understand if it were priced like one.

Neil

 

[Chrism20]

Possibly "First Class" will be the en-suite berths then, when it will make a slight bit of sense - but again, since when did hotels have classes? You just choose your category of room, some of which give you access to extra services.

It's a hotel on wheels, it would be far easier to understand if it were priced like one.

Neil

Other than your Travelodge/Premier Inn/Holiday Inn Express most hotels have a number of different types/classes of room.

Quick example is Holiday Inn Glasgow which has standard, executive, feature and penthouse suites available.

Intercontinental Park Lane has at least eight different room types in their inventory ranging from classic all the way to specialist suites.

If they are moving towards making it look like a hotel and teaming up with a hotel it's likely this is the route they will take, especially for the ensuite ones

 

[reb0118]

If First doesn't return the rolling stock in the condition it was obtained in won't they be fined by the leasing company?

I believe it was pretty much in the same state when handed over to First by National Express. They have been threatening to upgrade the sleeper ever since I've been on the railway.........

Am I right in thinking that the standard class berths on the sleeper no longer include use of the lounge car (says counter service when I try to book) - or is it as before where you can use it if space is available - but with priority for first class.
Can't seem to see any clear guidance on the new website..
I don't want to have to take food back to a berth - particularly on the journey in the morning towards FW which is the highlight of the journey.

Technically there is no "counter" for the berth (1st or STD) passengers as the counter is beyond the door (aka passport control) that leads to the seated coach. If in theory STD berth passengers are not allowed to remain in the lounge car then they will have to queue up (NB in practice remaining in the lounge car whilst awaiting service!) at the service door, and generally making the place look untidy. It is much more practical, and relaxed, to allow STD passengers to take any seats left that are not required for 1st passengers and just serve them there.

When booking 1st it does state that priority is given re. the lounge car which would imply that STD pax are still allowed in. That said when booking STD the website is silent re. the lounge car - possibly implying, but not confirming, that access is not granted.

Confused? You should be.........

 

[Bletchleyite]

Other than your Travelodge/Premier Inn/Holiday Inn Express most hotels have a number of different types/classes of room.

Exactly. But what they don't have is "First Class stays" and "Standard Class stays" with one or more categories in each. They just have room categories.

Which is why I think the Sleeper should be Standard throughout, but with different supplements for different room categories. If looking at value from First Class tickets a better way to deal with those may well be a reduced supplement.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Technically there is no "counter" for the berth (1st or STD) passengers as the counter is beyond the door (aka passport control) that leads to the seated coach. If in theory STD berth passengers are not allowed to remain in the lounge car then they will have to queue up (NB in practice remaining in the lounge car whilst awaiting service!) at the service door, and generally making the place look untidy. It is much more practical, and relaxed, to allow STD passengers to take any seats left that are not required for 1st passengers and just serve them there.

FWIW on one of the Fort William sets the buffet is backwards (I'm guessing they won't have had chance to turn it round) as a result of which the counter is at the wrong end and closed, and seated passengers are served from the access door to the kitchen.

Neil

 

[Fishplate84]

If you start booking on a per cabin basis, thats only 12 or 13 sales per coach. Each sale will have to be £150+ or around what they're charging for the first / solo option. No scope for cheaper tickets really. To do anything else and it would haemorrhage more money than it does now.

There must be a lot of single travellers especially in the business market who tolerate sharing and are paying effectively half the cost of a cabin now. Wouldn't you loose many of those by going to a simplified cabin cost basis?

Agree, it would be much simpler but I don't see it working if you ended up with a lot of empty cabins or have to flog them for half whats being generated by selling each berth individually on a shared arrangement.

 

[Chrism20]

Exactly. But what they don't have is "First Class stays" and "Standard Class stays" with one or more categories in each. They just have room categories.

Which is why I think the Sleeper should be Standard throughout, but with different supplements for different room categories. If looking at value from First Class tickets a better way to deal with those may well be a reduced supplement.

Neil

By doing this it would be commercial suicide as fishplate pointed out. As you say it's a hotel on wheels and its clear from what information Serco and Holyrood have given so far this ain't going to be a rolling Travelodge. They are going for affluent leisure and business.

They have teamed up with Inverlochy Castle Hotel and its award winning hotel management team to develop the service for the future - this is not going to be stack em high one size fits all premier inn. If you've never been to the hotel I recommend a visit. Perhaps you could stay in one of their single, double, large double, superior double, junior suite, gate lodge (personally recommended) or a suite. These different classes of rooms are there for a reason they provide added (perceived to the customer) and generate more revenue. First and standard in the sleeper ir any other service is no different to this.

The different categories (or classes) of rooms are there for a reason - people want them, they increase revenue and this is key.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The different categories (or classes) of rooms are there for a reason - people want them, they increase revenue and this is key.

I don't believe you're understanding what I'm saying.

I don't object at all to there being categories of room on board:-
- Seat
- Shared berth (debatable, and this has been removed from fGW's Sleeper)
- Private twin room
- Private single room
- Private premium single room (or whatever, though the latter is IMO taking the mick at present as they are identical and all you get is a basic bit of extra service).

What I do think is that overlaying First Class and Standard Class on those categories is unnecessarily confusing[1], and thus it would be better if the Sleeper was entirely Standard Class, but instead when paying your supplement you pay a supplement (or indeed a global fare as they're selling on their website) for the relevant room category on top of a Standard, not First Class, ticket.

[1] And, absent single-fare pricing on IC services, expensive. Most business travellers these days are not allowed First Class, but are likely to be able to convince their boss to pay for a single room provided it doesn't say First Class on it.

Neil

 

[Chrism20]

I understand what you are saying and to an extent I agree it would definitely simplify things.

However whilst the rest of the travel industry moves away from adding supplements to things you want to see it added.

Airlines have started doing combined fares which include seat allocation, bag in hold, first to board, snack inflight etc as one banner cost. It's only a few years since they were lambasted for all the addons.

Hotel chains have removed supplements and simplified their charging so customers know what the price they see is the price they will pay.

Customers want to see the price they are going to pay straight away, they want simplified pricing structures, easy booking channels and no add-on costs.

To go to supplements is a step back in time, whilst easier for people in the know would probably put people off as the headline fare is way off what they end up paying. At the moment the difference is differentiated by first and standard class.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To go to supplements is a step back in time, whilst easier for people in the know would probably put people off as the headline fare is way off what they end up paying. At the moment the difference is differentiated by first and standard class.

No, you still don't understand. I'm quite happy for the packaged fares they are selling on their website to exist. Indeed, I'd be quite happy for those to be the *only* fares if VT and EC moved to all singles being half the relevant return fare - i.e. remove the Sleeper from ORCATS entirely.

What I'm saying is that if a traveller is using a supplement to a normal return ticket, all supplements should be applicable to a Standard ticket. And that on the dedicated fares, the term "First Class" should not be used.

Neil

 

[LateThanNever]

No, you still don't understand. I'm quite happy for the packaged fares they are selling on their website to exist. Indeed, I'd be quite happy for those to be the *only* fares if VT and EC moved to all singles being half the relevant return fare - i.e. remove the Sleeper from ORCATS entirely.

What I'm saying is that if a traveller is using a supplement to a normal return ticket, all supplements should be applicable to a Standard ticket. And that on the dedicated fares, the term "First Class" should not be used.

Neil

Hear, hear!

 

[tranzitjim]

Serco have put on the market, their subsidiary GSR (Great Southern Railway)

GSR is based in Australia, and operates three iconic long distance passenger trains.

GSR was put on the market in last November, and I understand the brokers are in talks with a possible buyer.

 

[cf111]

No, you still don't understand. I'm quite happy for the packaged fares they are selling on their website to exist. Indeed, I'd be quite happy for those to be the *only* fares if VT and EC moved to all singles being half the relevant return fare - i.e. remove the Sleeper from ORCATS entirely.

What I'm saying is that if a traveller is using a supplement to a normal return ticket, all supplements should be applicable to a Standard ticket. And that on the dedicated fares, the term "First Class" should not be used.

Neil

How would taking the Sleeper out of ORCATS affect their takings? I know the system is a bit of the "dark arts" but I wonder if it would cause real problems with cash flow if they weren't getting their cut of the any permitted tickets.

The ITT mentions this if it makes any difference:

The Scottish Ministers will protect the Franchisee’s position in the event of either a successful challenge to the ORCATS allocation or an ORCATS profile change where the Franchisee has robustly defended the challenge in the interests of the Scottish Ministers. The Scottish Ministers’ financial protection shall not apply where the Franchisee has failed to use reasonable endeavours to secure commercial agreements of the nature referred to above or, having do so, fails to honour its obligations or enforce the other party’s obligations under any such agreement. Please refer to Paragraph 10 of Schedule 9.3 (Runs of the Financial Model) of the Franchise Agreement for further details.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How would taking the Sleeper out of ORCATS affect their takings? I know the system is a bit of the "dark arts" but I wonder if it would cause real problems with cash flow if they weren't getting their cut of the any permitted tickets.

Doesn't that mean they are receiving a hidden subsidy from Any Permitted tickets that *aren't* actually being used on their services? Sly.

As they operate compulsory reservations, I see no reason their allocation should not be based on the *actual* tickets/supplements they sell.

Neil

 

[marks87]

Doesn't that mean they are receiving a hidden subsidy from Any Permitted tickets that *aren't* actually being used on their services? Sly.

You mean like any other operator?

Virgin and East Coast will receive "hidden subsidies" in exactly the same way, because a journey from many stations in Scotland to London is valid via either coast.

As they operate compulsory reservations, I see no reason their allocation should not be based on the *actual* tickets/supplements they sell.

Reservations aren't compulsory, though. If space allows, you can join the sleeper as a walk-up passenger on payment of the appropriate supplement.

 

[Flying Snail]

Doesn't that mean they are receiving a hidden subsidy from Any Permitted tickets that *aren't* actually being used on their services? Sly.

As they operate compulsory reservations, I see no reason their allocation should not be based on the *actual* tickets/supplements they sell.

Neil

How do you know they aren't being used? Your argument seems to be based on any permitted tickets + supplements not being useful to you therefore they should be removed.

I can assure you that they are used and removing them will make the sleeper much more expensive to the point of being un-economical for lots of current and future passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Reservations aren't compulsory, though. If space allows, you can join the sleeper as a walk-up passenger on payment of the appropriate supplement.

Making that transaction, of course, creates an audit trail for someone having used a Sleeper on an Any Permitted ticket, which could be used for reimbursement.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How do you know they aren't being used? Your argument seems to be based on any permitted tickets + supplements not being useful to you therefore they should be removed.

People do like jumping to conclusions on here, don't they?

What I'm saying is that their ORCATS allocation should be based on actual usage, not a guess, because unlike a walk-up operation where a ticket may not be checked it is guaranteed that it will, either at the time of purchase of the supplement or on board.

Neil

 

[marks87]

It is also possible, in theory, to "walk-up" in the seated portion, although you do need to speak to the guard to ensure availability.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is also possible, in theory, to "walk-up" in the seated portion, although you do need to speak to the guard to ensure availability.

IME the staff are quite rude about people doing this.

Neil

 

[Flying Snail]

People do like jumping to conclusions on here, don't they?

No, you still don't understand. I'm quite happy for the packaged fares they are selling on their website to exist. Indeed, I'd be quite happy for those to be the *only* fares

Such a huge jump, can't imagine how I came to that conclusion. :roll:

Your arguments are ridiculous.

Changing the entire ORCATS system for 2 daily services, introducing a further audit trail requiring more data collection and accounting, for what?

Never mind that the franchise was let based on the current system, arbitrarily changing the revenue profile could easily provide a justification for serco to break the current contract.

The First/Standard class products are there because someone on a first class ticket has a reasonable expectation of getting an enhanced product for the extra money, admittedly there is little difference at present on the sleeper but a 1st supplement is cheaper than a standard solo.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Such a huge jump, can't imagine how I came to that conclusion. :roll:

You missed the "if Returns were 2*singles" which would make that not a problem. Buy a single out, and a Sleeper single back.

Different scenario.

Neil

 

[Flying Snail]

IME the staff are quite rude about people doing this.

In my experience too many of the sleeper staff are rude and unhelpful with everyone. Some are lovely but others are a disgrace for the sort of customer service that should be expected on that kind of operation.

Hopefully this is one thing that serco can deal with seeing as they want to market it as a luxury experience. Not having someone bark at you on boarding or acting as if using the lounge car is an unwelcome intrusion to their personal fiefdom would be a start.

You missed the "if Returns were 2*singles" which would make that not a problem. Buy a single out, and a Sleeper single back.

Different scenario.

Fantasy scenario that isn't happening, besides there are more than just single and return tickets valid for use on the sleeper so it would still be detrimental to many who use these services currently.

It is supposed to be a railway network, more integration of fares and services is needed not less.

Let's not forget that the Fort William portion is also well used for local/regional traffic as one of only four daily services on that branch, to remove it or restrict it to serco only pre-reserved tickets would be a significant reduction in the provision on that line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fantasy scenario that isn't happening

Actually, it isn't a fantasy scenario. I understand DfT were on a hunt for a TOC to try walk-up single-ticket pricing. We might even find that TOC is Virgin Trains East Coast.

Let's not forget that the Fort William portion is also well used for local/regional traffic as one of only four daily services on that branch, to remove it or restrict it to serco only pre-reserved tickets would be a significant reduction in the provision on that line.

A solution to that would be to add a Mk3 TSO to the Fort William portion as far as Edinburgh. This would be the only place on the train accepting normal fares, and would not be reserved.

Neil

 

[cf111]

What would they do when the new trains are introduced?

 

[marks87]

Am I correct in thinking the method of distributing fares has never been publicly revealed, but it's assumed to be based on number of seats (or beds, I suppose) and "standard" journeys (e.g. Edinburgh-London is far more likely via EC to Kings Cross than VT to Euston etc.).

If so, I'd imagine the amount of ORCATS revenue to the sleeper is tiny. Four trains a day, six days a week and a relatively small number of people who actually "upgrade" their walk-up ticket.

 

[cf111]

Am I correct in thinking the method of distributing fares has never been publicly revealed, but it's assumed to be based on number of seats (or beds, I suppose) and "standard" journeys (e.g. Edinburgh-London is far more likely via EC to Kings Cross than VT to Euston etc.).

If so, I'd imagine the amount of ORCATS revenue to the sleeper is tiny. Four trains a day, six days a week and a relatively small number of people who actually "upgrade" their walk-up ticket.

The Sleeper Business Case (click here) has this in it:

[redacted text] Analysis suggests that the Caledonian Sleeper still receives a favourable proportion of the
inter-available rail revenues through the ORCATS allocation and that the allocation mechanics are sensitive
to train timetable profile changes. These put a proportion of the inter-available rail revenues at risk to
challenge or reallocation. The risk surrounding ORCATS is however irrespective of the decision to procure
the Caledonian Sleeper as a separate franchise, but Transport Scotland will need to work closely with the
new franchisee to limit the exposure to, or outcome from, ORCATS challenge.

and

For several years it has been acknowledged that the rail industry’s revenue allocation system - ‘ORCATS’ -
over-rewards Caledonian Sleeper services when dividing ‘inter-available’ Anglo-Scottish fare-box income.
Settlement payments are currently made to compensate for the over-allocation of revenue through the
ORCATS system. [redacted text]. However, this is irrespective of the decision to procure the Caledonian
Sleeper as a separate franchise.
[redacted text] However, this risk is irrespective of the decision to procure the Caledonian Sleeper as a
separate franchise.
With relation to the risk around the ORCATS allocation throughout the franchise period the Scottish Ministers
will protect the Franchisee’s position in the event of either a successful challenge to the ORCATS allocation
or an ORCATS profile change where the Franchisee has robustly defended the challenge in the interests of
the Scottish Ministers. Compensation is fixed in all years where the settlement applies at a value fixed in
absolute terms at the first year of the franchise value of the commercial settlement or is equal to the value of
the commercial settlement in subsequent years if this is lower

Apologies for the awful formatting but it's better on the document linked on pages 7 and 26.

I am no expert on ORCATS so I can't offer any comment, but maybe someone will be able to!

 

[Bletchleyite]

What would they do when the new trains are introduced?

I don't know. Possibly have a separate seated coach. Depends on what is being ordered.

I can see them wanting to withdraw from the Fort William seats, but we shall see. Depends if ScotRail could resource a non-Sleeper alternative.

Neil