Could a Sleeper service run to Wick?

[najaB]

...or a space shuttle?

Funny you mention that: https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.u...a-boost-from-the-sutherland-spaceport-176425/

THE plan to build the UK's first vertical launch spaceport in the far north is "a fantastic confidence boost" for the area and could be a catalyst for other developments, local trade unionists have been told.

June Love, of Space Hub Sutherland, also suggested the project could benefit the tourism industry when she gave an update at a meeting of Thurso and Wick Trade Union Council.

She said the spaceport at Moine, between Tongue and Durness, is the only one to receive grant funding for a vertical launch site. It is expected to create 40 local jobs with a further 400 in the wider region.

The aim is to have small commercial and research satellites in sub-orbital flight by the early 2020s.

 

[Struner]

In all honesty, how often would you do this, and how many people doing that journey care about whether it's in a Mark 3, a 158, a bus, an Austin Allegro or a space shuttle?

Don't care what it's called, as long as it's comfortable. & yes, I would use it. I think three times in two years (both ways).
& I know of Orcadians who would use it. As in going home for the weekend.

 

[Chester1]

How many would it need to be viable? That number does not exist, as the current sleeper shows.

I meant viable in terms of requiring a similar level of subsidy to existing services.

If this is one of your concerns, and also you're worried that the Aberdeen section is in decline, a far better use of existing CS resources, and the enormous public subsidy currently received, would be to start the Aberdeen out from Inverness each night with a mid morning arrival back each day.

That way some serious populations could receive a sleeper and direct London service. For example, Inverurie has 0.5m entries and exits a year, or Elgin 0.3m. I'd speculate that this combined with Moray whisky tourism would generate more business than shoogling an extra 80 miles out west.

I admire your creativity though.

Has any organisation proposed that? If the journey to Aberdeen was sped up to arrive at 07:00 then 9:30 arrival in Inverness would achievable. Southbound departure at 19:30 and stopping at Aberdeen at 22:00 would be adequate. I suspect tourists would prefer a later arrival in Inverness. A 19:30 departure from Inverness would be a bit early for many people but better than nothing if the later service was fully booked. There would be a lot of issues with rolling stock depots and staffing. On day to day operating costs it might be better value for money than the existing service i.e. if the marginal cost of a 2 and a half hour extension is less than the extra revenue. Politically it would be a winner by adding several places to the sleeper network without requiring spending on rolling stock.

Could seasonal extensions of the Inverness service by viable? e.g. extension of selected weekend services returning to Inverness afterwards? Would either the Far North Line or Kyle of Lochalsh Line require significant spending to be able to cope with the sleeper? This is a speculative thread! I think a Wick-Central Belt sleeper using battered Mark II and III carriages is fanciful but greater use of the existing stock and / or a very small order of new carriages e.g. my suggestion of 4, could be viable and politically appealing.

 

[Bald Rick]

I meant viable in terms of requiring a similar level of subsidy to existing services.

1) that’s not viable!
2) the subsidy would be much higher.

 

[najaB]

Has any organisation proposed that? If the journey to Aberdeen was sped up to arrive at 07:00 then 9:30 arrival in Inverness would achievable.

It would mean all the current arrival times being shifted up by 45 minutes or so. Maybe not the end of the world, but might some current passengers to stations to Aberdeen be put off?

 

[haggishunter]

1) that’s not viable!
2) the subsidy would be much higher.

Which seems to be your standard response to the many of subjects that come up about transport in Scotland! If devolution hadn't happened I doubt many of the major transport projects that have been fulfilled in the past 20 years or are ongoing at this time would have come around. Had the UK had a far more enlightened outlook on their more rural / remote regions and their connectivity we'd not be having a discussion about a train to catch the ferry to Orkney. You'd get already be getting on the train in inverness and getting of in Kirkwall or continue driving beyond Scrabster Northbound as the A9 emerges from the tunnel and crosses the Churchill Barriers!

 

[Clansman]

Must admit that extending the Aberdeen through to Inverness could and would be a game changer for that portion - especially now more than ever.

>Existing Aberdeen London journey times largely unaffected
>Greater catchment of ever growing communities never before (to my knowledge) linked to London by rail
>Worst comes to worst it would shore up folk for Inverness when the original Inverness is fully booked
>More friendly timings for Inverness-Dyce passengers
>Potential boosts to declining patronage
>A political win-win

Just what CS, TS, and the SG need (and more subsidy of course!).

 

[47271]

Must admit that extending the Aberdeen through to Inverness could and would be a game changer for that portion - especially now more than ever.

>Existing Aberdeen London journey times largely unaffected
>Greater catchment of ever growing communities never before (to my knowledge) linked to London by rail
>Worst comes to worst it would shore up folk for Inverness when the original Inverness is fully booked
>More friendly timings for Inverness-Dyce passengers
>Potential boosts to declining patronage
>A political win-win

Just what CS, TS, and the SG need (and more subsidy of course!).

There might be savings by centralising servicing away from Aberdeen but, yes, I can't see that it could be done without yet more subsidy. However, this thread covers a range of suggestions for sleeper services that would eat large amounts of public money and carry very few passengers. This one probably would have the best chance of making that money go further than any other, and provide something useful to the maximum possible population using existing assets.

To my knowledge the suggestion has been bandied around amongst Highlander passengers with an interest in the Moray area and put forward to a CS manager or two, but I don't know if it's got the interest of any public body. A joint project for Hitrans and Nestrans maybe, but Midnight Train to Elgin just doesn't have that same ring to it, does it?

 

[Indigo Soup]

Has any organisation proposed that? If the journey to Aberdeen was sped up to arrive at 07:00 then 9:30 arrival in Inverness would achievable. Southbound departure at 19:30 and stopping at Aberdeen at 22:00 would be adequate. I suspect tourists would prefer a later arrival in Inverness. A 19:30 departure from Inverness would be a bit early for many people but better than nothing if the later service was fully booked. There would be a lot of issues with rolling stock depots and staffing. On day to day operating costs it might be better value for money than the existing service i.e. if the marginal cost of a 2 and a half hour extension is less than the extra revenue. Politically it would be a winner by adding several places to the sleeper network without requiring spending on rolling stock.

The idea isn't so much to provide a second service from Inverness, although it has that effect - it's giving the stations between Inverness and Aberdeen a direct connection (by sleeper) to London. Inverness is just a convenient place to terminate the train. Would have to be limited to four sleepers, the lounge and the seated car to fit on the platforms, but that's the maximum length of the Aberdeen portion anyway.

Quite apart from the cost of doing either option, does Inverness actually have the sidings to stable a six-car and an eight-car sleeper rake, with their associated locomotives?

 

[Journeyman]

Could seasonal extensions of the Inverness service by viable? e.g. extension of selected weekend services returning to Inverness afterwards? Would either the Far North Line or Kyle of Lochalsh Line require significant spending to be able to cope with the sleeper? This is a speculative thread! I think a Wick-Central Belt sleeper using battered Mark II and III carriages is fanciful but greater use of the existing stock and / or a very small order of new carriages e.g. my suggestion of 4, could be viable and politically appealing.

No, because bedmaking and servicing the stock needs a few hours to do, and both Fort William and Inverness turnarounds are quite tight, i.e. become seriously problematic if the arrival is delayed for any reason. Fitting in a return trip to Kyle or Wick would be impossible without complete extra sets of stock.

 

[Bald Rick]

Which seems to be your standard response to the many of subjects that come up about transport in Scotland!

Not so. I rather like Scotland, visit regularly, sometimes by train, sometimes by car, sometimes by air.

It is, however, my standard response to suggestions that have no basis of socio-economic reality. Of which this is one.

 

[Bald Rick]

Must admit that extending the Aberdeen through to Inverness could and would be a game changer for that portion - especially now more than ever.

>Existing Aberdeen London journey times largely unaffected
>Greater catchment of ever growing communities never before (to my knowledge) linked to London by rail
>Worst comes to worst it would shore up folk for Inverness when the original Inverness is fully booked
>More friendly timings for Inverness-Dyce passengers
>Potential boosts to declining patronage
>A political win-win

Just what CS, TS, and the SG need (and more subsidy of course!).

I think of all potential sleeper proposals, this is the one that has most chance of succeeding.

If (and it’s a big if) there is space in the timetable for it, and space at Inverness for the stock, and time at Inverness for the servicing, and most importantly, a market that is likely to generate sufficient revenue over and above that already captured from the connections off the sleeper at Aberdeen, then there may be a case for it. I’d be surprised if someone in TS hadn’t already had a look at he numbers.

 

[Esker-pades]

If (and it’s a big if) there is space in the timetable for it, and space at Inverness for the stock, and time at Inverness for the servicing, and most importantly, a market that is likely to generate sufficient revenue over and above that already captured from the connections off the sleeper at Aberdeen, then there may be a case for it. I’d be surprised if someone in TS hadn’t already had a look at he numbers.

I don't think there is space in the timetable. The sleeper currently arrives at Aberdeen at 07:41. There's an 07:49 departure to Inverurie (which the sleeper could theoretically take as long as ScotRail could do some rolling stock shuffling), but there's an 08:22 to Inverness. Running two trains to Inverness within 30 minutes of each other will simply not work. The sleeper will run into southbound trains so have to be held at loops (I got as far as Kennethmont where it would be held until it was only 13 minutes ahead of the 08:22 to Inverness).

The Up sleeper looks like it might be slightly more manageable, but I've only glanced at the timetables so don't quote me on that.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't think there is space in the timetable. The sleeper currently arrives at Aberdeen at 07:41. There's an 07:49 departure to Inverurie (which the sleeper could theoretically take as long as ScotRail could do some rolling stock shuffling), but there's an 08:22 to Inverness. Running two trains to Inverness within 30 minutes of each other will simply not work. The sleeper will run into southbound trains so have to be held at loops (I got as far as Kennethmont where it would be held until it was only 13 minutes ahead of the 08:22 to Inverness).

The Up sleeper looks like it might be slightly more manageable, but I've only glanced at the timetables so don't quote me on that.

Oh it would need a complete recast.

 

[haggishunter]

Oh it would need a complete recast.

Isn't there a complete recast in the pipeline ?

 

[Chester1]

I think of all potential sleeper proposals, this is the one that has most chance of succeeding.

If (and it’s a big if) there is space in the timetable for it, and space at Inverness for the stock, and time at Inverness for the servicing, and most importantly, a market that is likely to generate sufficient revenue over and above that already captured from the connections off the sleeper at Aberdeen, then there may be a case for it. I’d be surprised if someone in TS hadn’t already had a look at he numbers.

A small increase in the subsidy could be possible if it is considered to be worth the political or wider economic benefits. I think its an idea that TS should file under wait and keep checking the numbers.

 

[Bald Rick]

Isn't there a complete recast in the pipeline ?

Probably, but not including the sleeper north of Aberdeen.

 

[BRX]

Not so. I rather like Scotland, visit regularly, sometimes by train, sometimes by car, sometimes by air.

It is, however, my standard response to suggestions that have no basis of socio-economic reality. Of which this is one.

What do you take 'socio-economic reality' to mean, exactly, in this context?

 

[Northhighland]

You make a very good point. A tunnel connecting Orkney with the mainland is very doable. Should have been done. Would open up many opportunities for the North in so many ways.

Travel links to the central belt could be easily and quickly improved with better air connections. As someone who lives in the far North and regularly commute for business to the central belt improved air connections would be much more beneficial than a sleeper train.

 

[Altnabreac]

You make a very good point. A tunnel connecting Orkney with the mainland is very doable. Should have been done. Would open up many opportunities for the North in so many ways.

Travel links to the central belt could be easily and quickly improved with better air connections. As someone who lives in the far North and regularly commute for business to the central belt improved air connections would be much more beneficial than a sleeper train.

A tunnel to Orkney would probably work reasonably well financially over a 60 year appraisal but my suspicion is that it would not be welcomed in Orkney. Sub sea tunnels and/or other fixed links within Orkney and Shetland are much more likely to happen compared to a link to Caithness.

 

[haggishunter]

A tunnel to Orkney would probably work reasonably well financially over a 60 year appraisal but my suspicion is that it would not be welcomed in Orkney. Sub sea tunnels and/or other fixed links within Orkney and Shetland are much more likely to happen compared to a link to Caithness.

Would that apply equally if the fixed link was rail based rather than road or combined - the benefit of a fixed weatherproof link with higher capacity, but without the potential traffic impacts extending the A9 could bring?

 

[Bald Rick]

Would that apply equally if the fixed link was rail based rather than road or combined - the benefit of a fixed weatherproof link with higher capacity, but without the potential traffic impacts extending the A9 could bring?

I really don’t think capacity is going to be the problem!

 

[Struner]

A road tunnel would bring in more campers & the like. Not sure every Orcadian driver likes them...

 

[Altnabreac]

Would that apply equally if the fixed link was rail based rather than road or combined - the benefit of a fixed weatherproof link with higher capacity, but without the potential traffic impacts extending the A9 could bring?

Given sea depths in the Pentland Firth the additional costs for a rail tunnel gradient wise would be prohibitive even if it were to be anything other than an extremely marginal business case.

Rail tunnels are only ever going to make sense where they connect networks on each side of the tunnel. Sanday Light Railway isn't really going to cut it here even if it hadn't closed years ago.

 

[deltic]

A tunnel to Orkney would probably work reasonably well financially over a 60 year appraisal but my suspicion is that it would not be welcomed in Orkney. Sub sea tunnels and/or other fixed links within Orkney and Shetland are much more likely to happen compared to a link to Caithness.

How much traffic would there be? Having worked on a one mile tunnel that cost a billion that was heavily used that only just washed its face I will be intrigued how the economics of this one would work

 

[Bald Rick]

How much traffic would there be? Having worked on a one mile tunnel that cost a billion that was heavily used that only just washed its face I will be intrigued how the economics of this one would work

They wouldn’t! Not by a long, long way. Regardless of whether there was a sleeper to Wick or not.

 

[najaB]

Rail tunnels are only ever going to make sense where they connect networks on each side of the tunnel.

If North Atlantic deep sea oil becomes a thing (not looking as likely now as it did a few years ago), plus the potential for developing Orkney as a deep sea port then tthose sums may not be *quite* as terrible as they appear on first glance.

 

[Struner]

A few orders of magnitude more of speculation compared to the Thurso sleeper
Just like a bridge to Ireland. But you'll always find idiots to support that kind of idea:
https://www.irishpost.com/news/boris-johnson-backs-northern-ireland-scotland-bridge-168622

 

[Chester1]

A few orders of magnitude more of speculation compared to the Thurso sleeper
Just like a bridge to Ireland. But you'll always find idiots to support that kind of idea:
https://www.irishpost.com/news/boris-johnson-backs-northern-ireland-scotland-bridge-168622

I disagree that it is more speculative. Thurso sleeper is a complete non starter. A road tunnel between Northern Ireland and Scotland would be a huge political statement, costing about £20bn and there is a market, although not sufficiently large for tolls to recoup cost. The biggest block would be the politics of England and Wales footing the bill if Scotland and / or Northern Ireland leave the UK.

 

[Bald Rick]

What do you take 'socio-economic reality' to mean, exactly, in this context?

What I mean is:

1) The marginal cost of running a sleeper train to the far north from the central belt would be significant. At least £4m a year, probably more.

2) the number of people who want to travel from Inverness and south thereof to the far north is, frankly, small. Rather less than 200,000 single rail trips pa north of Dingwall, and only around half of those are north of Tain. This includes all trips ‘internal’ to the FNL.

3) Kirkwall airport handles around 150,000 people a year to and from the central belt, Inverness and Aberdeen, of which well over a third are to/from Aberdeen.

4) The Scrabster ferry carries about 150,000 passengers a year, which includes all those in cars and coaches. It’s reasonable to assume that a significant majority are in cars or coaches, and a good proportion of them are to and from Caithness rather than further south.

5) even if we pretend that all of the ferry passengers, and all of the rail passengers, are in the same market as the potential sleeper, it’s a total of around 400,000 single trips a year. Let’s be honest, it’s going to be rather less than half that that are travelling to Inverness and south thereof. But let’s say 200,000, being very optimistic.

6) the London to Scotland market has around 11 million passengers a year travelling by air and rail alone. Caledonian Sleeper has a little less than 2 % of the market.

7) continuing with the optimistic mood, with a following wind, and rose tinted spectacles, let’s assume that a Far North Sleeper could capture more than double this share, ie 4% of the market. That would be 8,000 a year (about 12 each way per train). A cost of £500 each, at best.

8) even if every passenger was willing to pay double the standard single price of the full distance from Glasgow to Wick (£71), regardless of their journey, it would need a subsidy of £350+ per single trip.

9) this compares to a single trip bus cost of £21.60 from Wick to Inverness, and typical air fares of around £120 from Kirkwall to Inverness, or £200 from Kirkwall or Wick to the central Belt. These are operated on commercial terms.

So, on a whole set of (very) optimistic assumptions, we can see that such a service would require a very significant subsidy, with alternatives that are far cheaper, and generally quicker.

If the assumptions were set more realistically (smaller market, similar 2% share for sleeper) it is likely that the subsidy per passenger would be well north of £1000. And then we are in the territory of offering chauffeur driven Range Rovers as a more cost effective alternative. Hell, even private helicopters.

That is socio-economic reality.