Could a Sleeper service run to Wick?

[Highlandspring]

All feels like someone playing trains rather than a serious suggestion.

Frank Roach of HiTrans. He has form on this sort of thing, his hallmark is to come up with a stupid name first (“Midnight Train to Georgemas”) then fit the rest of the outlandish scheme round it.

 

[najaB]

Suggested southbound, would depart 1930 and arrive Glasgow via Carstairs 0815.

Why via Carstairs? Surely Queen Street makes more sense - routing Wick/Inverness/Aberdeen/Dundee/Perth.

 

[jagardner1984]

My first thought (not knowing a huge amount about that part of the world) was that surely for the same subsidy there could be some proper investment and speed improvements in the Highland Mainline and Far North Line.

Improvements are clearly needed to even come close to journey times on the A9, its one of the few routes in Scotland where there is no significant time saving to use the train (compared to say Glasgow to Edinburgh in the peak, which is at least a 50%, probably 75% time saving).

 

[jagardner1984]

Why via Carstairs? Surely Queen Street makes more sense - routing Wick/Inverness/Aberdeen/Dundee/Perth.

I think I’ve understood it right they plan to run Wick-Inverness-Aberdeen-Dundee-Edinburgh-Glasgow.

I assume there is more capacity arriving in the peak via carstairs than into Queen Street.

 

[najaB]

I think I’ve understood it right they plan to run Wick-Inverness-Aberdeen-Dundee-Edinburgh-Glasgow.

It's already an idea with little merit, and throwing middle of the night shunting into the mix just makes the economics even worse.

 

[Bald Rick]

More subsidy than the existing sleeper shouldn’t be a surprise. The question is how much.

Even with cheap-as-chips leasing on the rolling stock, I can’t see how such an operation would cost less than £10m a year.

Of those 30,000 passengers, it’s reasonable to assume that many of them would have travelled by day train, but find the night service more convenient. So that isn’t new revenue (except for the premium of a berth). For the sake of making the maths simple, let’s say that 20,000 people are new to rail.

That would be £500 cost per passenger. Given that an anytime single from Wick to Glasgow is £71, and Inverness to Glasgow is £45, with many cheaper advance options, it’s going to be difficult to price a one way trip lower than an average of £100.

That means subsidy of £400+ per passenger. It would be cheaper to get each one a chauffeur driven limo.

 

[najaB]

Even with cheap-as-chips leasing on the rolling stock, I can’t see how such an operation would cost less than £10m a year.

As a standalone TOC I could see that, but as an add-on to the ScotRail franchise I doubt it would cost that much to run 520 additional trains a year. North of £19K to run a train from Wick to Glasgow?

 

[Bald Rick]

As a standalone TOC I could see that, but as an add-on to the ScotRail franchise I doubt it would cost that much to run 520 additional trains a year. North of £19K to run a train from Wick to Glasgow?

I was basing it on 6 nights a week, but it could easily be that sort of cash (pro rata). Sleepers are very, very expensive to resource.

Besides, I would expect it to be part of CS, not Scotrail. To be honest I can’t understand why CS was split from Scotrail anyway.

 

[jagardner1984]

I’m no defender of the project. I’d have thought even 1 million a year would be much better spent on infrastructure improvements to the speed and frequency of day services in the region. I suspect Scotrail and CS’ response to Hitrans is more about keeping an influential public body on side, rather than dismissing it out of hand, as opposed to any real interest/belief in the service.

The amount of subsidy for sleeper passengers now is pretty eye watering. If there were to be any development I’d wonder about there being a coach or two ditched in Edinburgh from the Highlander so people could leave Inverness / wake up in Edinburgh, and vice versa. Since Hitrans claim is that is what 20000 per year want to do, maybe that would be worth some experimentation. Would obviously require extra Mk5 stock though.

Is there shore power somewhere at Waverley that could keep this warm over night ?

To be frank, there are many ways I’d spend that money on the Scottish rail network first.

 

[takno]

I was basing it on 6 nights a week, but it could easily be that sort of cash (pro rata). Sleepers are very, very expensive to resource.

Besides, I would expect it to be part of CS, not Scotrail. To be honest I can’t understand why CS was split from Scotrail anyway.

I think there's a slight lack of imagination here. The service is likely to be a waste of money to some degree, but if you take it 5 nights instead of six and remove all the shunting and messing around associated with the current service it doesn't have to be too much. if youcan get it running as a reasonably timed seated service on the north end then you could probably have something worthwhile and socially useful, which it's increasingly difficult to say about the London sleepers.

 

[Indigo Soup]

4. Estimating 30000 pax a year. The majority from Inverness.

And that, to me, highlights the insanity of this idea. It's not a Thurso service, it's a Central Belt to Inverness service that goes the long way around to arrive at a sensible time and then runs on for several more hours to make it look like it has a point.

Run a fast morning from Inverness to/from Edinburgh (most likely) or Glasgow (less likely) timed to arrive around 9am, and you'd get most of this custom. As indeed was proposed in the 2006 Highland Rail: Room for Growth study done by Scott Wilson for HIE, which everyone proposing rail improvements in the Highlands ought to read.

 

[BRX]

I wonder if an overnight service from kyle to the central belt could capture any custom. Would need to be timed at a useful departure time from kyle rather than inverness though. Spend the money on that instead of the runway at broadford.
(i know, it'll never happen)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Run a fast morning from Inverness to/from Edinburgh (most likely) or Glasgow (less likely) timed to arrive around 9am, and you'd get most of this custom.

Like this one you mean? http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G89109/2019/05/13/advanced

OK, it's just after 9, but I'd imagine easy enough to shift it half an hour earlier. But realistically will most businesses care? It's not a commuter service.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Like this one you mean? http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G89109/2019/05/13/advanced

The Scott Wilson proposal had various improvements in stock and in line speeds, as well as running non-stop north of Perth, to allow an arrival around that time with a departure about half an hour later, but basically yes.

OK, it's just after 9, but I'd imagine easy enough to shift it half an hour earlier. But realistically will most businesses care? It's not a commuter service.

The idea isn't so much commuting using it, as enabling people to travel from an office in Inverness to the Central Belt for customer/supplier meetings, similar in concept to the otherwise rather silly 04:28 from Glasgow to London. That's why it doesn't matter too much if it arrives just after 9 - the point is being able to reliably get to a morning meeting, and back again the same day after the close of business; the latter isn't such a problem, of course.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The idea isn't so much commuting using it, as enabling people to travel from an office in Inverness to the Central Belt for customer/supplier meetings, similar in concept to the otherwise rather silly 04:28 from Glasgow to London. That's why it doesn't matter too much if it arrives just after 9 - the point is being able to reliably get to a morning meeting, and back again the same day after the close of business; the latter isn't such a problem, of course.

And you can, using the train I noted. These 9am long haul meetings people talk of are in my experience a myth - if you're visiting somewhere (as opposed to working there daily) 10am is a more usual time, giving the hosts time to get in, do emails, get a coffee and prepare the meeting room before receiving a visitor. For central Edinburgh that train is therefore timed perfectly, and I suspect that is no accident.

 

[Indigo Soup]

And you can, using the train I noted. These 9am long haul meetings people talk of are in my experience a myth - if you're visiting somewhere (as opposed to working there daily) 10am is a more usual time, giving the hosts time to get in, do emails, get a coffee and prepare the meeting room before receiving a visitor. For central Edinburgh that train is therefore timed perfectly, and I suspect that is no accident.

I have a suspicion we're in agreement here - service improvements to allow a later departure might be worthwhile, but there isn't actually any need to get in any earlier. Hence my comment of arriving around 0900, rather than before - if the path happened to get in at 08:56, you probably wouldn't make a special effort to shift it a bit later in the day. You certainly don't get any benefit from arriving two hours earlier, which is what a notional Inverness to Glasgow sleeper would achieve, despite imaginative routing to delay arrival!

I brought this up as an 'additional' service largely because I hadn't checked the timetables to see if it actually existed. It didn't in 2006, and I'm not sure when it was introduced. If the 'Thurso' sleeper was suggested before it came in, then I suspect that 30,000 Inverness passengers/year figure has fallen off considerably.

Realistically, Inverness to Central Scotland passengers are better served by day trains, yet account for 75% of the proposed traffic of this 'Thurso' sleeper, which as a result either needs an absurdly circuitious routing or spends a significant amount of time stationary. Without the Inverness traffic, a sleeper to Thurso would be so empty as to amount to carting empty coaching stock around for no reason.

 

[Highlandspring]

The amount of subsidy for sleeper passengers now is pretty eye watering. If there were to be any development I’d wonder about there being a coach or two ditched in Edinburgh from the Highlander so people could leave Inverness / wake up in Edinburgh, and vice versa. Since Hitrans claim is that is what 20000 per year want to do, maybe that would be worth some experimentation. Would obviously require extra Mk5 stock though.

Is there shore power somewhere at Waverley that could keep this warm over night ?

There isn’t, no. Also there’s not really anywhere to dump sleeper stock at a through platform for an extended time overnight either, the shunting required to get them into a dock would be prohibitively complicated and there’s nowhere suitable to leave them in the station or nearby to allow them to be safely and efficiently serviced during the day. That’s without considering the impact on shunting the Up and Down Highlander portions (including the weekly coach swaps required for the Fort William day coach maintenance) or the impact on possessions/isolations in the station.

I wonder if an overnight service from kyle to the central belt could capture any custom.

That’s even crazier than running a Wick train.

 

[mullac30]

This is the link to the current update(dated 26th April), but it doesn't mention many of the things listed above.
It mainly mentions that they are consulting with SNC-Lavalin (who I believe also manage LNER on behalf of the government) on rolling stock feasibility and availability, and Systra on patronage.
The document also mentions that there are also multiple operators interested in operating the service (presumably if they can get a similar subsidy as the Cal Sleeper).

Once they have received the SNC report, they will combine it with Sytra's and present it to Transport Scotland.

 

[Bald Rick]

This is the link to the current update(dated 26th April), but it doesn't mention many of the things listed above.
It mainly mentions that they are consulting with SNC-Lavalin (who I believe also manage LNER on behalf of the government) on rolling stock feasibility and availability, and Systra on patronage.
The document also mentions that there are also multiple operators interested in operating the service (presumably if they can get a similar subsidy as the Cal Sleeper).

Once they have received the SNC report, they will combine it with Sytra's and present it to Transport Scotland.

Well it’s no surprise that multiple operators will be interested in operating the service. With next to no passenger revenue, the income of the ‘franchise’ will be almost entirely subsidy which makes it a (nearly) risk free operation. Nice way to make a few quid without much chance of losing any.

 

[BRX]

Well it’s no surprise that multiple operators will be interested in operating the service. With next to no passenger revenue, the income of the ‘franchise’ will be almost entirely subsidy which makes it a (nearly) risk free operation. Nice way to make a few quid without much chance of losing any.

The report reckons about 50:50 passenger revenue to subsidy.

 

[Bald Rick]

The report reckons about 50:50 passenger revenue to subsidy.

Ha ha! Haven’t had such a good laugh in ages!

 

[jagardner1984]

Are there any public figures which break down the economics of scotrail services by route ?

I know Scotrail received £183million from the Scottish Government in 18-19, so I’d imagine it would not be pretty reading.

I’d imagine your average commuter probably has other priorities than dragging 4 sleeper carriages on 2 x 13 hour journeys around Scotland every night.

 

[adrock1976]

Has anybody investigated what the loadings are projected to be between May - October, July and August, and October - May?

 

[jagardner1984]

Based on the passenger numbers quoted and a 6 per week service, on a complete average basis they are looking at about 40-50 passengers each service. Presumably this would have a significant disparity between peak and off peak parts of the week / year.

 

[BRX]

Ha ha! Haven’t had such a good laugh in ages!

Presumably these, though, are the numbers that have been presented to the 'interested' operators.

 

[Bald Rick]

Are there any public figures which break down the economics of scotrail services by route ?

I know Scotrail received £183million from the Scottish Government in 18-19, so I’d imagine it would not be pretty reading.

And it was £321m in 2017/18.

 

[takno]

Are there any public figures which break down the economics of scotrail services by route ?

I know Scotrail received £183million from the Scottish Government in 18-19, so I’d imagine it would not be pretty reading.

I’d imagine your average commuter probably has other priorities than dragging 4 sleeper carriages on 2 x 13 hour journeys around Scotland every night.

Respectfully the priorities of the average commuter are not paramount when deciding how to spend government money. It has been wisely decided by our government to spend a good chunk of money on supporting commuter services as it improves the lives of a lot of people. If the same government decides to also spend a bunch of money on services which will only be used by a select bunch of otherwise disadvantaged people then that's their business, and if commuters don't like it then they can complain to their MSP, and if necessary vote against the government at the next election.

Personally I don't see this as a good idea, but I'm not convinced it's any more of a waste than the London sleepers, and it certainly better meets the government's strategic objectives.

 

[Bald Rick]

The reason that it is a (much) worse idea than the London sleepers is that the latter are connecting the U.K. capital (which is responsible for 22% of U.K. economic output) to the 7 largest cities in Scotland, directly. A Wick sleeper would connect these 7 cities to each other (when day travel between them is relatively straightforward) and from the 7 to nowhere in particular.

 

[takno]

The reason that it is a (much) worse idea than the London sleepers is that the latter are connecting the U.K. capital (which is responsible for 22% of U.K. economic output) to the 7 largest cities in Scotland, directly. A Wick sleeper would connect these 7 cities to each other (when day travel between them is relatively straightforward) and from the 7 to nowhere in particular.

Day travel is perfectly doable to London as well for the most part, pricing means that only the wealthy can afford it and they aren't great targets for subsidy, the subsidy is larger, and you are doing nothing to promote economically depressed areas.

If we hadn't just spent a fortune on new stock I'd be all for killing all the sleepers, but as we have bought the new stock and have some old stuff to play with we might as well investigate options. For my convenience I'd prefer a return of the NESW sleepers which would certainly provide a service that it's a chore to do in a day, but sadly there isn't a government body likely to make the case for that one

 

[Bald Rick]

Day travel is perfectly doable to London as well for the most part, pricing means that only the wealthy can afford it and they aren't great targets for subsidy, the subsidy is larger, and you are doing nothing to promote economically depressed areas.

If we hadn't just spent a fortune on new stock I'd be all for killing all the sleepers, but as we have bought the new stock and have some old stuff to play with we might as well investigate options. For my convenience I'd prefer a return of the NESW sleepers which would certainly provide a service that it's a chore to do in a day, but sadly there isn't a government body likely to make the case for that one

For the central belt day travel is easily doable to London, and post HS2 very doable. And whilst it is possible for the cities further north, the journey time does get quite taxing (all well over 5 hours, most around 6 or more) with few direct trains. in contrast the 7 cities are all reasonably well connected direct with hourly services (except for Inverness) and with only Inverness to Glasgow / Edinburgh being more than about 2h40.

Also we don’t have old stuff to play with. It is not compliant with regulations from 31 December this year. Someone would need to spend a lot of cash to make them compliant.