Could a Sleeper service run to Wick?

[Clansman]

I'd add one more TFO for a seated car, one assumes the other one would be a lounge-buffet. You'd attract fewer people without a lounge car. (The loss of restaurant cars was in my view a key part of the death knell for CityNightLine - they do give an overnight journey a civilised edge)

The newly refurbished FOs (renamed TFC) will have Buffets in them anyway, as per the HST plans. With first class seating, they will hold a capacity of 32.

I would have thought starting off with just an integrated lounge/seating car would at least let Scotrail get an idea as to how demand might fair out before rolling out an extra FO. If at a push you were to make it 2+2 seating with the same first class layout, you'd potentially be able to get 40 seats in there (all bays), which in my opinion would be a sufficient start off figure. Given it would make sense to have the counter facing the seats, you could further more add some stools. The kitchen could potentially be smaller given that no passengers would be venturing beyond the end, which would free up more space in the seated area.
I'd love to see it happen though, and I think it would be a worthwhile punt for Scotrail and the Scottish Government.

4 more HST power cars and a bit of power supply conversion (motor-alternator set in the power car van area would do it) and make a Sleeper-HST? (Something I've always been surprised GWR didn't do).

It'd help the maintenance side of things I'll give you that. Although I think sleeping passengers would be in for a hell of a ride with that acceleration though! I'd imagine though that a DVT and a locomotive would be more efficient for the line, unless you were to disable one of the power car engines in sleeper operation? (Unless that's what you meant with your comment on the alternator?).

 

[najaB]

Although I think sleeping passengers would be in for a hell of a ride with that acceleration though!

With great power comes brake responsibility.

 

[DarloRich]

This must be an early April Fools day joke surely - I know it would be lovely but it would be a complete financial basket case. Perhaps the Royal Navy could re open Scapa Flow to help fill the trains..............

(although don't ferry services to the South Faroes leave from Scrabster which I am sure is closer to Thurso than Wick - would that not be a better destination)

What is the competition like? Excluding air what do you get for your ferry ticket, especially on the Aberdeen (?) run?

Rail travel north of the border is a devolved matter so I can't see how or why the 'English' taxpayer would be funding it.

because we in England pay for everything in Scotland

 

[cf111]

This must be an early April Fools day joke surely - I know it would be lovely but it would be a complete financial basket case. Perhaps the Royal Navy could re open Scapa Flow to help fill the trains..............

What is the competition like? Excluding air what do you get for your ferry ticket, especially on the Aberdeen (?) run?

Smyril Line's ferry hasn't called at Scrabster for a good 10 years now, they've even canned the Lerwick call which Shetland Islands Council paid handsomely for.

As for NorthLink, please feel free to read this shameless plug/trip report of mine on another site: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trip-reports/1776592-aberdeen-shetland-scenic-route.html

 

[najaB]

...because we in England pay for everything in Scotland

Yeah, using our oil money.

 

[JohnR]

To those saying that this proposal could never make money, I say this: Exactly the same argument could be made about any of the Ferry services or air services to the Northern or Western Isles. Those are subsidised because a political decision will be made to do so - because of the wider benefits of connecting those communities to the rest of the country.

The same considerations will apply here, and political lobbying will matter as much as hard economics. So dont write this off just yet.

 

[najaB]

The same considerations will apply here, and political lobbying will matter as much as hard economics. So dont write this off just yet.

Oh, it goes without saying that it would have to be subsidised - the question is if it's the best use of subsidy.

I think it's definitely worth serious study.

Thinking about the service pattern some more, I think starting it from Thurso with a bus from Wick is probably the simplest option.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh, it goes without saying that it would have to be subsidised - the question is if it's the best use of subsidy.

I think it's definitely worth serious study.

Thinking about the service pattern some more, I think starting it from Thurso with a bus from Wick is probably the simplest option.

Unless they build the Georgemas curve, starting it from Thurso will require a reversal, which you might as well do, as you have plenty of time slack in a Sleeper, by running it to Wick and back.

The current bizarre Inverness-Georgemas-reverse-Thurso-reverse-Wick-reverse-Thurso-reverse-Georgemas-reverse-Inverness faff is to shorten journey times to/from Thurso, which has the higher demand and is more time sensitive e.g. for the ferries. There is no need for a Sleeper to work that way as it has plenty of time.

 

[najaB]

Unless they build the Georgemas curve, starting it from Thurso will require a reversal, which you might as well do, as you have plenty of time slack in a Sleeper, by running it to Wick and back.

Good point. Start at Thurso and run to Wick, it was exactly that faffing about that I was trying to avoid.

 

[DarloRich]

Smyril Line's ferry hasn't called at Scrabster for a good 10 years now, they've even canned the Lerwick call which Shetland Islands Council paid handsomely for.

As for NorthLink, please feel free to read this shameless plug/trip report of mine on another site: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trip-reports/1776592-aberdeen-shetland-scenic-route.html

thanks - I would love to go up that way - the gf has dived Scapa Flow a couple of times but i haven't been that far north.

 

[class26]

Yeah, using our oil money.

Ok, this is off topic but I cannot let this go. Scots always talk about THEIR oil but conveniently forget that for 300 years they have had free defense amongst many other things they simply would not afford on their own. It is the UK`s oil. end of the matter.

Sorry, back to railways

 

[najaB]

It is the UK`s oil. end of the matter.

I know. That's why the emoticon.

Edit: If you want get technical (who am I kidding, this is RUK) it's the Queen's oil, and since she's monarch of both England and Wales and Scotland her Government can do with the revenue as she pleases).

 

[Bald Rick]

To those saying that this proposal could never make money, I say this: Exactly the same argument could be made about any of the Ferry services or air services to the Northern or Western Isles. Those are subsidised because a political decision will be made to do so - because of the wider benefits of connecting those communities to the rest of the country.

Exactly. An air service would require much less subsidy, and be much quicker (and therefore have better economic benefits). Also, given the number of passengers involved, you could use a relatively small plane, which would be much more environmentally friendly than a couple of diesel locos clanging their way up the FNL.

 

[deltic]

To those saying that this proposal could never make money, I say this: Exactly the same argument could be made about any of the Ferry services or air services to the Northern or Western Isles. Those are subsidised because a political decision will be made to do so - because of the wider benefits of connecting those communities to the rest of the country.

The same considerations will apply here, and political lobbying will matter as much as hard economics. So dont write this off just yet.

Given the subsidy for the Caledonian Sleeper is £110 a passenger I hope it is killed off rapidly.

 

[najaB]

Given the subsidy for the Caledonian Sleeper is £110 a passenger I hope it is killed off rapidly.

The Caledonian Sleeper has just had a lot of money put into in an effort to make it more up-market (read: generate more revenue) - why would you want it killed off before they've had a chance to generate a return on that investment?

 

[deltic]

The Caledonian Sleeper has just had a lot of money put into in an effort to make it more up-market (read: generate more revenue) - why would you want it killed off before they've had a chance to generate a return on that investment?

I'm saying if that is the amount of subsidy required for the Caledonian sleeper then what would be the requirement for a service to Wick.

 

[najaB]

I'm saying if that is the amount of subsidy required for the Caledonian sleeper then what would be the requirement for a service to Wick.

Ah, okay. Gotcha.

 

[PeterC]

The word "sleeper" is rather emotive. Sleeping compartments aren't a very efficent way to fill a carriage and require all the servicing overhead of a hotel room.

If (I know too little about the route to judge) there is a need for an overnight service on this route then why not coaches with some decent reclining seats? Fewer bodies per coach than current first class but considerably more than a sleeper.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Just a thought: Are all these financial calculations assuming the carriages are leased when they might in fact be purchased outright off the leasing company at little more than scrap value...?

That would make a considerable difference to the figures.

 

[Clansman]

I'm saying if that is the amount of subsidy required for the Caledonian sleeper then what would be the requirement for a service to Wick.

The demand for at least a service?

It goes way beyond the same old Conservative attitude that everything has to generate a profit or it's not worth doing. If it needs a bit of investment to keep it going, but it's providing a vital service to the Far North, Orkney and Shetland economies as well as increasing growth development both socially and financially in certain areas as a result... then why cancel it on the basis that the service itself isn't generating a profit?
This is where privatisation can be a good thing in the sense that the continuous funding can be injected out with the Scottish Government, why the rules and conditions are still being made from Holyrood - a bit like the current sleeper.
But even then nationalisation might allow further capital into such a service based on the money that would've gone straight into the operator's bank anyway, so a service could sustain itself both on a nationalised or privatised Scotrail as long as there are external benefits other than simply "the service has to be profitable"

 

[Bald Rick]

Just a thought: Are all these financial calculations assuming the carriages are leased when they might in fact be purchased outright off the leasing company at little more than scrap value...?

That would make a considerable difference to the figures.

I'm afraid it wouldn't. Leasing old coaching stock is a rather small percentage of the total costs for a sleeper operation.

 

[Bald Rick]

The demand for at least a service?

It goes way beyond the same old Conservative attitude that everything has to generate a profit or it's not worth doing. If it needs a bit of investment to keep it going, but it's providing a vital service to the Far North, Orkney and Shetland economies as well as increasing growth development both socially and financially in certain areas as a result... then why cancel it on the basis that the service itself isn't generating a profit?
This is where privatisation can be a good thing in the sense that the continuous funding can be injected out with the Scottish Government, why the rules and conditions are still being made from Holyrood - a bit like the current sleeper.
But even then nationalisation might allow further capital into such a service based on the money that would've gone straight into the operator's bank anyway, so a service could sustain itself both on a nationalised or privatised Scotrail as long as there are external benefits other than simply "the service has to be profitable"

I really don't follow this. If what you are saying is that a service doesn't have to make a profit to have wider economic benefits, then fair enough.

But the point here is that the wider economic benefits of an overnight service to the far north could be achieved far more efficiently (and effectively) by potential alternatives, such as a subsidised air service or overnight coach.

 

[Clansman]

I really don't follow this. If what you are saying is that a service doesn't have to make a profit to have wider economic benefits, then fair enough.

But the point here is that the wider economic benefits of an overnight service to the far north could be achieved far more efficiently (and effectively) by potential alternatives, such as a subsidised air service or overnight coach.

Pretty much the main principle that I was highlighting is that the wider economic impact could be a better argument rather than basing the service entirely on profitability. I think if you're basing a service purely on profitability, then rural areas the potential growth and connectivity are doomed.

I agree with you on the efficiency side of things that using alternative modes of transport could easily counter a sleeper service as an alternative, but the thread is titled 'Wick Sleeper'. So that's why I'm solely talking about the pro's and cons of such a service and comparing it with like-wise services such as the Caledonians Sleeper, to try and reach a conclusion as to how it could/would fair on a number of fronts - including profitability, wider economic impact, patronage etc

 

[Greenback]

The economics of a traditional sleeper operation weigh heavily against the idea. I think that an ovenright seated service might be worth exploring, though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The economics of a traditional sleeper operation weigh heavily against the idea. I think that an ovenright seated service might be worth exploring, though.

That'd be easier to operate as they could just use the 158s.

It's a pity the pod flatbed concept failed. Or you could convert a couple of Mk3s to longitudinal couchettes (a bit like the Megabus Gold)?

 

[najaB]

That'd be easier to operate as they could just use the 158s.

I would use a overnight seated service, but not if it was a standard 158. First because they're DMUs (and so relatively noisy), and second the seat is comfortable but not comfortable enough to get anything approaching a decent kip.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Actually thinking of Megabus Gold...could you run a coach like that as a "permanent bustitution"?

 

[najaB]

Actually thinking of Megabus Gold...could you run a coach like that as a "permanent bustitution"?

No reason the railway can't run a dedicated bus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No reason the railway can't run a dedicated bus.

I half recall that when Express Motors started running the Conwy Valley X1 the "railway" had to withdraw their dedicated bus that left Llandudno around 1730 for commuters. But that may be because it was actually a local authority tender and was in competition.

Of course there's been permanent bustitution on a Saturday evening from Euston on the WCML for years.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Why not go for a Galloway Port sleeper , and even an Oban one as there is such a richness of soon to be displaced MK3's ?

Even the suggested Holyhead - Fishguard sleeper - mooted by a bidder pre 2004 could be resurrected ....

All great value sleeper opportunities.