Could a Sleeper service run to Wick?

[47271]

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.

The very early Inverness-Edinburgh was introduced three years ago and was a rearwards extension of the Blair Atholl-Edinburgh (commuter) run, which was itself an extension of the 8am Perth-Edinburgh around ten years ago. So its history isn't that of a long distance service, but that its practical purpose now. It's a lot busier than it was when it started from Blair Atholl.

Not that any of the above is an argument for a Far North sleeper!

 

[47271]

I was slightly surprised to see this in the P&J at the weekend.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/f...ress-interest-in-far-north-line-sleeper-train

Good progress is being made with plans to introduce an overnight rail service between Caithness and the Central Belt.

Four potential operators have expressed interest and studies are being done whether to run it using a sleeper train or with upgraded seated carriages.

HiTrans believes there is enough demand in Caithness, Sutherland and Orkney to make the service viable.

Frank Roach, who manages the Highlands strategic transport partnership, yesterday said there is undoubtedly a need to be able to travel comfortably from one end of the country to the other in a day.


He said: “We’re very much looking at the introduction of an overnight service that will give so much better connectivity from Caithness to the Central belt.

“You currently can’t travel down, do some business and travel back on the same day.

“We’ve identified a gap in the market and we have had expressions of interest from four potential operators.

“We believe that if a service was provided, the uptake would be substantial.”

The current London/ Scotland sleeper service is operated by Serco Caledonian.

Mr Roach said he has been getting good feedback from potential users of a similar service running through the Scottish mainline.

He said: “A lot of people from Caithness, Sutherland and Orkney travel to the Central belt.

“I got very positive feedback from Caithness Highland councillors at a recent meeting of the Caithness Transport Forum.

“There’s also good enthusiasm and support from Orkney and it’s a case of translating that optimism into hard financial support which we need to get from the Scottish government to get it off the ground.”

Mr Roach said the ideal would be a sleeper service on the route.

But the partnership is also investigating overnight runs using enhanced, more comfortable seated carriages – a lower cost option.

It believes these could be introduced when the current Mark 5 carriages are replaced.

“That is due to happen soon and we believe it could be the perfect opportunity to provide upgraded, higher-quality seating accommodation, together with much more room for bicycles, surf boards and bulky items of luggage.”

The partnership believe the extra movement would give a much-needed boost to traffic on the far north line.

 

[Struner]

According to the P&J:

It believes these could be introduced when the current Mark 5 carriages are replaced.

(my boldening)

 

[47271]

According to the P&Jmy boldening)

Ha ha, I didn't notice that! Unintentional humour at its best.

 

[47271]

Deleted, duplicate post for some reason

 

[jagardner1984]

"In a new press release by Frank Roach, Frank Roach agrees with Frank Roach that idea by Frank Roach is one of Frank Roach's best yet"

Am I being too cynical ?

Has anyone read any serious thinking / discussion of this generated by anyone other than him ? The oft mooted "Interested operators" for example ....

 

[Highlandspring]

"In a new press release by Frank Roach, Frank Roach agrees with Frank Roach that idea by Frank Roach is one of Frank Roach's best yet"

Am I being too cynical ?

Not at all, I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head there.

 

[47271]

Ah well, at least we're getting a wee laugh out of it.

 

[najaB]

Four operators? I didn't think there were that many people with piles of money to burn...

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Four operators? I didn't think there were that many people with piles of money to burn...

The splendid term "when broke , order champagne" comes to mind......how much money is the present operation losing ? (read "Rail" magazine for an idea)

 

[haggishunter]

Since this particular section of the forum is described as being for 'Discussion of members ideas for changes to rail and transport provision' - I don't see why a rolling stock appraisal for a proposal that is on the table and is being worked on by one of the Scottish Government's statutory regional transport agencies needs to be discussed here and not in the main thread.

Anyway the link which includes potential format for a 12-18month trial of a domestic Scottish Sleeper using otherwise redundant Mk 3 and Mk 2 Caledonian Sleeper stock, proposes maintenance in the central belt and a stabling and sleeper servicing facility on an old motor-rail siding at Thurso, including shore power and toilet tanking facilities.

https://hitrans.org.uk/Documents/HITRANS_Rolling_Stock_Feasibility_Study.pdf/m=1

The potential operators of the service are listed as Abellio ScotRail, Serco Caledonian Sleeper, DRS, Rail Operations Group and First ScotRail Ltd.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do they really propose to use the knackered Mk2s? Surely acquiring a Mk3 buffet first open (for the lounge) and first open (for seats) and a DVT (for the van) would avoid the serious reliability issues of the Mk2s?

 

[Struner]

& there is no talk of platform length or route availability for locos. Also part of the equation. I think the FNL is RA 5, at least beyond Invergordon?

 

[diffident]

Do they really propose to use the knackered Mk2s? Surely acquiring a Mk3 buffet first open (for the lounge) and first open (for seats) and a DVT (for the van) would avoid the serious reliability issues of the Mk2s?

There's surely enough serviceable stock lying around in secure sidings at the moment, including a wealth of Mk3 stock to easily cater for this?

 

[Indigo Soup]

Four operators? I didn't think there were that many people with piles of money to burn...

Anyone made unexpected profits looking for a tax write-off?

 

[Esker-pades]

Looking beyond the general feasibility for a moment, how much would the North Highland timetables have to be revised? When (roughly) would the sleeper arrive at Inverness from the south, and have to depart from Inverness going south?

 

[Journeyman]

"In a new press release by Frank Roach, Frank Roach agrees with Frank Roach that idea by Frank Roach is one of Frank Roach's best yet"

Am I being too cynical ?

Has anyone read any serious thinking / discussion of this generated by anyone other than him ? The oft mooted "Interested operators" for example ....

My thoughts exactly, he really is the only person pushing this.

Do they really propose to use the knackered Mk2s? Surely acquiring a Mk3 buffet first open (for the lounge) and first open (for seats) and a DVT (for the van) would avoid the serious reliability issues of the Mk2s?

CS had to keep the Mark 2s due to platform length restrictions at Euston. Efforts were made a few years ago to see if there were suitable Mark 3s knocking about for the lounge and seated vehicles used between Edinburgh and Fort William, but GWR nabbed all the Mark 3 BFOs for their own sleeper services (I think there's only three of them anyway), and RFMs seem to be in short supply as well.

But yes, the Mark 2s are in a dreadful state. The motor alternators are the worst parts for failure, and it's not helped by there being several different designs in use.

 

[Bletchleyite]

CS had to keep the Mark 2s due to platform length restrictions at Euston. Efforts were made a few years ago to see if there were suitable Mark 3s knocking about for the lounge and seated vehicles used between Edinburgh and Fort William, but GWR nabbed all the Mark 3 BFOs for their own sleeper services (I think there's only three of them anyway), and RFMs seem to be in short supply as well.

True, though there are going to be a load more Mk3s released from Greater Anglia pretty soon including DVTs and buffets, and the advantage of a DVT is that you can effectively put together a "Sleeper DMU", making the operation at least a little less costly. The DVT option wouldn't work for FW but would potentially work for this service.

 

[haggishunter]

Looking beyond the general feasibility for a moment, how much would the North Highland timetables have to be revised? When (roughly) would the sleeper arrive at Inverness from the south, and have to depart from Inverness going south?

From the HiTrans document it would depend on whether it was a single fixed train or a longer service where the service split with a portion staying in Inverness. With the splitting train, it would arrive in Inverness and Thurso hours earlier than with a fixed rake. The split allowing the sleeper to connect with the morning ferry from Scrabster and allowing people travelling to Inverness to wake at a reasonable time by stabling that portion of the train as a static hotel on arrival in Inverness.

Split Rake Northbound: Dep Glasgow Central 21:19 . Dep Edinburgh 22:30 . Arr Inverness 02:14 Dep Inverness 02:54 . Arr Thurso 07:42 .
Fixed Rake Northbound: Dep Edinburgh 23:23. Dep Glasgow QS LL 00:31. Arr Inverness 05:35 Dep Inverness 06:42. Arr Thurso 11.33.

The fixed rake timing connects with the second sailing to Orkney from Scrabster during the summer timetable only. The Split Rake departures would give the fixed rake arrivals if the the service went via Aberdeen instead of the Highland Mainline.

Split Rake Southbound: Dep Thurso 19:30. Arr Inverness 00:18 [boarding earlier prior to attaching] Dep Inverness 00:53. Dep Edinburgh 07:07. Arr Glasgow 08:11.
Fixed Rake Southbound: Dep Thurso 19:30. Arr Inverness 00:22. Dep Inverness 00:32. Arr/Dep Glasgow QS LL 06:32. Arr Edinburgh 07:48.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not convinced there is a viable overnight market for Edinburgh-Inverness any more than there is for London-Manchester - it's just too short a journey.

1941 (arr 2321) is the last one at present. Maybe if you added a 2041 (arr 0021) or even 2141 (arr 0121) that would be a more useful offering.

 

[haggishunter]

I'm not convinced there is a viable overnight market for Edinburgh-Inverness any more than there is for London-Manchester - it's just too short a journey.

1941 (arr 2321) is the last one at present. Maybe if you added a 2041 (arr 0021) or even 2141 (arr 0121) that would be a more useful offering.

The splitting train though would do both, provide a bed for those who want one and somewhere to stay for the rest of the night on arrival in Inverness, plus the seats would provide a much later last 'day' train than the current timetable (arr Inverness 02:15).

There is an argument that the level of subsidy and investment in rolling stock to deliver this service long term would be a vastly more affordable and viable solution to overcoming the journey time issues on the Far North Line and the lack of a Inverness to Central Belt direct morning train that gets in before 9am, thus allowing a full working day at the destination for a fraction of the infrastructure and rolling stock investment required to achieve the same with day trains with a reasonable departure time!

In that regard I think it's quite a novel idea for overcoming the downsides to long journey times on the Far North Line.

 

[Esker-pades]

From the HiTrans document it would depend on whether it was a single fixed train or a longer service where the service split with a portion staying in Inverness. With the splitting train, it would arrive in Inverness and Thurso hours earlier than with a fixed rake. The split allowing the sleeper to connect with the morning ferry from Scrabster and allowing people travelling to Inverness to wake at a reasonable time by stabling that portion of the train as a static hotel on arrival in Inverness.

Split Rake Northbound: Dep Glasgow Central 21:19 . Dep Edinburgh 22:30 . Arr Inverness 02:14 Dep Inverness 02:54 . Arr Thurso 07:42 .
Fixed Rake Northbound: Dep Edinburgh 23:23. Dep Glasgow QS LL 00:31. Arr Inverness 05:35 Dep Inverness 06:42. Arr Thurso 11.33.

The fixed rake timing connects with the second sailing to Orkney from Scrabster during the summer timetable only. The Split Rake departures would give the fixed rake arrivals if the the service went via Aberdeen instead of the Highland Mainline.

Split Rake Southbound: Dep Thurso 19:30. Arr Inverness 00:18 [boarding earlier prior to attaching] Dep Inverness 00:53. Dep Edinburgh 07:07. Arr Glasgow 08:11.
Fixed Rake Southbound: Dep Thurso 19:30. Arr Inverness 00:22. Dep Inverness 00:32. Arr/Dep Glasgow QS LL 06:32. Arr Edinburgh 07:48.

Thanks for that.

That means the existing timetable would have to change quite a bit, or the sleeper would have a number of long dwells waiting for other services.

Split Rake Northbound: Will have to pass the current 06:18 Wick to Inverness at Forsinard. That means it leaves there at 07:28, so it won't get into Thurso by 07:42. It'll have fun trying to get there before the 08:02 Wick to Inverness does.

Fixed Rake Northbound: That will clearly mess up the 07:00 Inverness to Wick for a start. ScotRail will have to work out what they do with crew changes because crews currently swap from the 06:18 ex Wick and 07:00 ex Inverness at Lairg. There will also have to be a re-jigging of the number of southbound services which pass the sleeper: Muir of Ord, Dingwall, Helmsdale.

Southbound: Departure from Thurso would have to be 10-15 minutes earlier than 19:30 in order to pass the 18:31 Inverness to Wick at Helmsdale. It would also arrive in Inverness later because of a longer dwell at Muir of Ord to pass the 23:33 Inverness to Tain (Fri/Sat Only).

 

[BRX]

With suitable timings (ie an early enough arrival in edinburgh, and late enough departure from edinburgh) I wonder if it could become a useful 'budget' alternative to the increasingly expensive Caledonian Sleeper, when used in conjunction with Edinburgh-London day trains. For example, if you could leave London 7 or 8 pm, change at edinburgh and arrive in Inverness the next morning. Perhaps it could satisfy the market that CS seem to ignore - those who don't want to sit in a seat all night but don't require a rolling hotel, and might be willing to share a compartment with a stranger.

The principle would work for non-London destinations too... allowing quasi-overnight journeys to places that don't really work using the CS.

 

[mikey9]

I'm not convinced there is a viable overnight market for Edinburgh-Inverness any more than there is for London-Manchester - it's just too short a journey.
1941 (arr 2321) is the last one at present. Maybe if you added a 2041 (arr 0021) or even 2141 (arr 0121) that would be a more useful offering.

There are quite a number who travel Inverness to Central Belt meetings (me included) and any start time before 10am in Glasgow or Edinburgh is a real pain to get to - needing 4am starts to get to the 5:36 service (2 car 158 with no catering.....).
Personally - I would prefer to get on something around midnight and arrive early enough for breakfast in Edin or Glasgow....

 

[alistairlees]

I’m afraid this whole sleepers to the far north is just fantasy speculation. The ones between major cities require a fair amount of subsidy / are loss making. I can’t imagine financially what this would be like, but it would be horrendous. It would be lovely to have, but it really isn’t realistic. If there is any money it could and should be better spent on other things (which might still include some far north improvements).

 

[najaB]

The ones between major cities require a fair amount of subsidy / are loss making. I can’t imagine financially what this would be like, but it would be horrendous. It would be lovely to have, but it really isn’t realistic.

Oh, it definitely doesn't make sense on a purely financial basis. Does it make sense on a 'connecting communities' basis? I guess, though I don't know if it's the best use of the money.

 

[Bald Rick]

There's surely enough serviceable stock lying around in secure sidings at the moment, including a wealth of Mk3 stock to easily cater for this?

None of which are compliant with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Requirements, which need to be complied with in under 6 months. Which is one of the reasons why CS bought the new sleepers.

I'm not convinced there is a viable overnight market for Edinburgh-Inverness any more than there is for London-Manchester - it's just too short a journey.

There’s not a viable market for any of it!

With suitable timings (ie an early enough arrival in edinburgh, and late enough departure from edinburgh) I wonder if it could become a useful 'budget' alternative to the increasingly expensive Caledonian Sleeper, when used in conjunction with Edinburgh-London day trains

But why would any rail funder do this? Pay a big subsidy to one organisation to undercut another organisation that it is already paying a big subsidy to - and thus require an even bigger subsidy?

Oh, it definitely doesn't make sense on a purely financial basis. Does it make sense on a 'connecting communities' basis? I guess, though I don't know if it's the best use of the money.

. It makes no sense on any basis, at all. It would be cheaper, quicker, more comfortable, and better for the environment to provide a chauffeur driven executive limousine for every prospective passenger.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Oh, it definitely doesn't make sense on a purely financial basis. Does it make sense on a 'connecting communities' basis? I guess, though I don't know if it's the best use of the money.

It makes sense purely on a political basis of demonstrating that Caithness is valued by the rest of Scotland. When this scheme inevitably falls by the wayside, there will be dozens, nay scores, of angry residents of the Far North claiming that it shows that Edinburgh doesn't care about them.

If there was the political will to do something about rail connections to the Far North, taking the line across the Dornoch Firth and increasing speeds as far as practicable would make more sense. Since part of the fuss about the sleeper is connecting into the morning ferry to Orkney - retime the blasted ferry!

 

[haggishunter]

The cost of this sleeper service would be a tiny fraction of the required capital expenditure to achieve a shorter and substantially faster FNL.

Perhaps more importantly, it is because of circumstances deliverable in the short term. Even if a huge financial commitment was made this year to modernise and shorten the FNL, it would take many years to deliver it.

I’m not sold on a Dornoch Firth rail crossing - if you cut out the Lairg Loop you cut off the railhead for NW Sutherland. It would only be politically acceptable if at least the Southern section of the loop was retained, with commuter services to Inverness running to/from a Lairg terminus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are quite a number who travel Inverness to Central Belt meetings (me included) and any start time before 10am in Glasgow or Edinburgh is a real pain to get to - needing 4am starts to get to the 5:36 service (2 car 158 with no catering.....)

But who's having these mythical 9am meetings for people they know are travelling from afar? 10am is a more sensible time - as I've said before, they can then get in at 9, have a coffee, read emails, prepare the room and be ready to welcome guests at 10.

If anyone is doing that they are an inconsiderate fool and need a good (metaphorical) kicking.

FWIW it'd be an awful lot cheaper to double the length of that train and put a trolley on!