My idea for Caledonian sleepers: speed and extra services

[adamedwards]

Two questions:

Will the Class 92s lead to better hill climbing and therefore shorter journeys to Scotland?

Will the new Mark 5 coaches contain more seats than beds and therefore lend themseleves to use during the day as additional trains? The sort of idea I have is the Fort William portion running back to Edinburgh (1050 arrive 1610) as a day train with restaurant. The Lowlander Edinburgh portion would run the otherway (say 1250 arrive 1755) to form the overnight back to London. The service would be sold as a premium priced tourist train connecting the two key locations. Big seats and good views as key selling points.

Thoughts?

Cheers

Adam

 

[najaB]

Will the Class 92s lead to better hill climbing and therefore shorter journeys to Scotland?

I wasn't aware that a lack of hill climbing performance was causing extended journey times.

 

[Clansman]

Two questions:

Will the Class 92s lead to better hill climbing and therefore shorter journeys to Scotland?
Adam

The Class 92, being an electric locomotice, will not benefit Caledonian Sleeper north of Edinburgh as the lines are not electrified. Even if the Class 92 took the sleeper as far north as Dunblane when electrified next ear, it would still not be enough to take affect as the "hilly" areas with steep climbs are between Perth-Inverness and Helensburgh to Fort William - both non-electrified. I can't see shorter journey's doing any favours for Caledonian Sleeper as hill climbs don't really affect journey times, and there is no need for it. Hence the name: "sleeper". The purpose of the service is to provide an overnight commute to London which eliminates the need to balance journey time and day time, (thus combining journey time and commuting time to save day time) as well as providing connectivity and tourism opportunities.

Will the new Mark 5 coaches contain more seats than beds and therefore lend themselves to use during the day as additional trains?
Adam

No. There is only one seating car per portion. The minimum ratio for the seating coach for every sleeper coach on Inverness/Aberdeen sleeper is 1:3. The seating coach is there to provide a lower cost of travel overnight to London as well as providing seating for berth passengers during the daytime on longer routes like Fort William and in some cases Inverness.

The sort of idea I have is the Fort William portion running back to Edinburgh (1050 arrive 1610) as a day train with restaurant. The Lowlander Edinburgh portion would run the otherway (say 1250 arrive 1755) to form the overnight back to London. The service would be sold as a premium priced tourist train connecting the two key locations. Big seats and good views as key selling points.
Adam

The Fort William sleeper already runs as a day time service, and the Inverness sleeper coaches form a Kingussie to Inverness service. This was introduced by National Express Scotrail (who ran the sleeper after privatisation) to mainly utilize available stock to connect the Highland communities. On the idea of having a day service I think it simply would not work for a couple of reasons. Firstly, reliability. The seated sleeper would be on constant service more or less everyday apart from Saturday, so it would be a real strain first and foremost on the rolling stock to constantly use it for service. The Sleeper, being such a symbolic service, needs to be constantly up kept more than any other train on the UK network to be prepared for overnight service which means having to do a deep clean when it arrives at it's destination to ensure it's in top condition for the night ahead. You would need to consider the time you'd have between cleans as I noticed your time table only gives around 4 hours at both Fort William and Edinburgh. Another issue would be trying to maintain the timetable. Having the Mk5s taken off of the Sleeper to form a day service with the loco would be too risky to diagram, especially on the West Highland Line. As much as Serco would probably love it, a day time service like you've specified could easily be disrupted along the route, which would have severe affects on the night sleeper to the point of cancellation. One delay from a late XC service out of Edinburgh, to a Glasgow Low Level train held up at Dumbarton could mean that the stock would not reach it's destination in time to work the return the same night. The locomotives, Class 73, are 40 odd years old and since they are a new build, it's hard to get an understanding of it's reliability compared to the 67s so even a problem with the locomotives or lack of data surrounding reliability could signal danger for an upcoming overnight service. Also where would the services intersect,a s the WHL is single track throughout. Lastly, Serco do not have the staff to run during the day. It would mean recruiting around 20 odd staff to run the train which would cost money - money that Serco and the Scottish Government would want invested elsewhere. Not to mention the fact that there's no such plan in the franchise agreements as well as the space along the network to maintain. Although the train accommodation could be potentially a selling point, most tourists are content with a seat on a regular commuter service so I doubt there would be too much demand whether it was a stated service or not.

Interesting idea but it simply wouldn't work under as part of the sleeper. Apologies for scrutinising

 

[Harbornite]

The Class 92, being an EMU,

Your post is interesting but I had to be pedantic and question this particular statement...

 

[leomartin125]

Your post is interesting but I had to be pedantic and question this particular statement...

Yeah me too. Since when is a locomotive, itself an entire unit? The Class 92 is an Electric Locomotive you mean, not EMU.

 

[Clansman]

Your post is interesting but I had to be pedantic and question this particular statement...

I stand corrected

 

[sprinterguy]

The locomotives, Class 73, are 40 odd years old and aren't as reliable as the 67s so even a problem with the locomotives could signal danger for the coming service.

Given that the 73s only fully replaced the 67s on July 1st (although have been operating various portions for a longer period), can anyone really say with any certainty how reliable they are? I wouldn't have thought that sufficient data would be available to allow for a reasoned judgement. The locos have been thoroughly rebuilt after all; other than the bodyshells, they're virtually new locos.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Will the new Mark 5 coaches contain more seats than beds and therefore lend themseleves to use during the day as additional trains?

There have been some changes to the specification of the carriages in the interim, but the following formations for the new trains are set out in the franchise agreement:

The basic service pattern to be operated by the Franchisee requires the following configurations to be operated in each direction

Highland Sleeper
Euston – Fort William 1 x Sleeper + 1 x Hybrid + (1 x Club Car + 1 x Seating Edinburgh – Fort William only)
Euston – Inverness 4 x Sleeper + 1 x Club Car + 1 x Seating + 1 x Pod + 1 x Hybrid
Euston – Aberdeen 2 x Sleeper + 1 x Club Car + 1 x Seating + 1 x Pod + 1 x Hybrid

Lowland Sleeper
Euston – Edinburgh 4 x Sleeper + 1 x Club Car + 1 x Seating + 1 x Pod + 1 x Hybrid
Euston – Glasgow 4 x Sleeper + 1 x Club Car + 1 x Seating + 1 x Pod + 1 x Hybrid

Where the different carriage types have the following capacities:
Seated coach: 30 seats plus 1 wheelchair space
Club car: 26 seats
Pod coach: 24 x Pod flatbeds
Hybrid coach: 1 x PRM berth, 5 x berths, 8 x Pod flatbeds
Sleeper coach: 4 x ensuite berths, 7 x berths

So, no real increase in seating. Since these details were published, the reclining flatbed idea has been abandoned due to problems meeting safety regulations, so I'm not sure what will replace those, but I would assume additional berths.

 

[fgwrich]

Given that the 73s only fully replaced the 67s on July 1st (although have been operating various portions for a longer period), can anyone really say with any certainty how reliable they are? I wouldn't have thought that sufficient data would be available to allow for a reasoned judgement. The locos have been thoroughly rebuilt after all; other than the bodyshells, they're virtually new locos.

Indeed I dont think it's fair to just label the as 40 year old locos as if it's still the original EE powered loco. This article explains the amount of work that's gone on with these to repower them. As a result, their more Akin to the HSTs. Besides, as a rebuilt engine they're only really now bedding in, and the standard GBRF ones seem to be doing well.

http://www.railmagazine.com/trains/current-trains/built-in-the-1960s-rebuilt-for-the-21st-century

 

[Bletchleyite]

The spec has changed - there will be no pods. However, I'm not clear whether the space will contain beds, seats or half and half.

 

[Clansman]

The spec has changed - there will be no pods. However, I'm not clear whether the space will contain beds, seats or half and half.

It was stated somewhere that Caledonian Sleeper intended to use reclining seats instead

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Will the new Mark 5 coaches contain more seats than beds and therefore lend themseleves to use during the day as additional trains? The sort of idea I have is the Fort William portion running back to Edinburgh (1050 arrive 1610) as a day train with restaurant. The Lowlander Edinburgh portion would run the otherway (say 1250 arrive 1755) to form the overnight back to London. The service would be sold as a premium priced tourist train connecting the two key locations. Big seats and good views as key selling points.

The franchise agreements in place preclude ScotRail from running a sleeper and Serco from running daytime passenger services.

And yes, a Glacier Express style service from Glasgow to Fort William and onto Mallaig would be absolutely brilliant - nice big panoramic windows extending into the roof space, a proper restaurant car of the sort the Caledonian Sleeper is to introduce and plenty of luggage space for cyclists, hillwalkers and winter sports enthusiasts.

 

[47271]

And yes, a Glacier Express style service from Glasgow to Fort William and onto Mallaig would be absolutely brilliant - nice big panoramic windows extending into the roof space, a proper restaurant car of the sort the Caledonian Sleeper is to introduce and plenty of luggage space for cyclists, hillwalkers and winter sports enthusiasts.

Ach, a 158 with a bit of new carpet on the floor and antimacassars on the seats will do us fine for scenic stock. What's wrong with the Scotrail trolley for a cup of tea and a wee bit of shortbread? Tourists love shortbread. If people want to take luggage, bikes and - heaven forbid - skis or snowboards, then they're better off driving.

Joking apart, it would be a bold move, but Fort William probably is getting close to generating a year round tourist demand that could justify this type of public investment.

Maybe let's get the new sleepers running first!

 

[Fishplate84]

Given that the 73s only fully replaced the 67s on July 1st (although have been operating various portions for a longer period), can anyone really say with any certainty how reliable they are? I wouldn't have thought that sufficient data would be available to allow for a reasoned judgement. The locos have been thoroughly rebuilt after all; other than the bodyshells, they're virtually new locos.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There have been some changes to the specification of the carriages in the interim, but the following formations for the new trains are set out in the franchise agreement:


Where the different carriage types have the following capacities:
Seated coach: 30 seats plus 1 wheelchair space
Club car: 26 seats
Pod coach: 24 x Pod flatbeds
Hybrid coach: 1 x PRM berth, 5 x berths, 8 x Pod flatbeds
Sleeper coach: 4 x ensuite berths, 7 x berths

So, no real increase in seating. Since these details were published, the reclining flatbed idea has been abandoned due to problems meeting safety regulations, so I'm not sure what will replace those, but I would assume additional berths.

Have the reclining flatbed's been abandoned? That's about the only bit I was looking forward to. Finally it was a product that looked an awful lot more comfortable than a seat and totally suited to a single traveller who's only other option I assume is to book a solo berth or share as they do now? One uncomfortable, One expensive, one very very undesirable to the modern traveller.

I despair of the railway industry's complete inability to innovate. How can they be any less safe than laying on a bed, never mind an upper bunk?
I suspect its more a case of not been done before and too much effort to try, so lets just keep making what we always have done.

So is it new rolling stock, just like the old rolling stock?

Really, really disappointed.

 

[reddragon]

Perhaps a better idea is to look at services that used to run successfully & profitably that could return using the old Mk3 stock to see if there is a worthwhile market?

These were services out of Kings Cross to Scotland, plus Scotland to the South West services

 

[gordonthemoron]

instead of pods, couldn't they have couchettes like the old DB Talgos had (i.e along the sides of an open coach rather than compartments of 4/6)?

 

[47271]

Perhaps a better idea is to look at services that used to run successfully & profitably that could return using the old Mk3 stock to see if there is a worthwhile market?

These were services out of Kings Cross to Scotland, plus Scotland to the South West services

That one was done to death here

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2594930

the other day.

 

[Class 170101]

The franchise agreements in place preclude ScotRail from running a sleeper and Serco from running daytime passenger services.

Nothing to stop Scotrail using the stock for a daytime service if Serco were to lend it to them.

 

[sprinterguy]

Have the reclining flatbed's been abandoned?

There's a quote within a Scotsman article on the new stock that seems to suggest so, although it's not entirely clear to me whether it refers to the proposed cradle seats or the flatbed pods, but it's been assumed the latter:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transp...eeper-berths-to-feature-double-beds-1-4165526

However, the new seats won’t recline any further than the current ones, and plans to enable them to convert into airline-style lie-flat beds have been abandoned because of problems meeting safety regulations.

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

So is it new rolling stock, just like the old rolling stock?

It does seem like the specification for the new rolling stock is converging on the layout of the old, which is, as you say, disappointing when there was essentially a once-in-a-generation opportunity to try something new or innovative at this time.

 

[CosherB]

Nothing to stop Scotrail using the stock for a daytime service if Serco were to lend it to them.

(a) Why would Serco lend their stock?
(b) For use on what services?

 

[Fishplate84]

There's a quote within a Scotsman article on the new stock that seems to suggest so, although it's not entirely clear to me whether it refers to the proposed cradle seats or the flatbed pods, but it's been assumed the latter:

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

It does seem like the specification for the new rolling stock is converging on the layout of the old, which is, as you say, disappointing when there was essentially a once-in-a-generation opportunity to try something new or innovative at this time.

Exactly, once in a generation. Nobody is likely to ever build sleeper coaches again.
Airlines manage it, coach companies manage it, automotive companies manage it for the posh luxury cars and touring minibus market. Even Serco managed it on their ferries, so it's not a lack of intent. Probably the 'industry' closing in around them because it's easier to churn out the same old same old but in an every growing number of primary colours and thin seat padding.

Rail industry? Nope, too difficult, not been done before, not invented here, too dangerous. I simply cannot comprehend how a lay flat seat is more dangerous than a shower, wet floor, soap, shaking train, standing up wet and naked while shaking around the creaking infrastructure of north London.

At least it looks like they're ok with a double bed.

 

[philthetube]

(a) Why would Serco lend their stock?
(b) For use on what services?

(a) money.

 

[CosherB]

(a) money.

I think that's rather simplistic. Clansman has described the situation far more eloquently than I could in post #3.

 

[DMU180]

(a) money.

I can't imagine it would be very viable for them since the more mileage they do the more they pay in leasing costs and fuel. The price they would charge Scotrail to take that into account would be very expensive.

 

[FQTV]

There's a quote within a Scotsman article on the new stock that seems to suggest so, although it's not entirely clear to me whether it refers to the proposed cradle seats or the flatbed pods, but it's been assumed the latter:

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

It does seem like the specification for the new rolling stock is converging on the layout of the old, which is, as you say, disappointing when there was essentially a once-in-a-generation opportunity to try something new or innovative at this time.

I may be a lone voice here, but I never thought that the flat bed seat pod would ever work well in practice.

The airline industry has struggled with this for years; on the one hand, the product has to be space-efficient enough to be affordable, but at the same time not so comfortable that it cannibalises the true 'First Class' (airline) market.

To get the seating density and therefore the pricing that you'd need to make a bed 'pod' demonstrably better than a traditional recliner - albeit a more recumbent one than is currently on UK rails - you'd need to 'herringbone' the seats. Otherwise, you'd still be climbing over aisle sitters from window seats, or having to make the seat pitch enormous.

Many of the airlines that have gone down the route of up-speccing their business class bed pods have, in recent years, removed First Class either almost completely, or mostly. There are exceptions where costs bases and demand allows, but that's the general trend.

Caledonian Sleeper's business model is arguably the other way; to get more revenue out of lower densities, and the lower the densities, the fewer staff are needed.

The other problem with pods is disturbance and darkness. If there's any truth in the 'safety' excuse it's the latter. Unlike couchettes, the pods would not be curtained, so they'd be subject to the ambient light level, and they'd be uninsulated from passing aisle-traffic and general noise. If the light level has to, for safety reasons, be high enough to allow that traffic to pass without undue problem, then the quality of sleep will likely be very poor.

In which case, why invest in all the design, certification, production and maintenance of a pod, when a traditional recliner gives similar comfort at much higher density and yield? Of course, if they're not even going to use cradle-like recliners then some of the above may be less on-the-mark, but I still believe that pods would have been an expensive and ultimately not terribly popular concept.