Suggestions for changing the calling points on the Caledonian SLeeper

[Whistler40145]

In the future when everything has returned to normal for a shake up of the Sleeper services

I'd split the Lowland sleeper with the Glasgow Central and Fort William portion running as one train and then the Fort William portion would detach and run via the Rutherglen chord.

The Inverness, Aberdeen and Edinburgh portion running as one train, with the necessary portions still splitting, I realise that Edinburgh passengers would have an earlier arrival, but surely provision could be made to use one of the lesser used platforms

 

[theironroad]

In the future when everything has returned to normal for a shake up of the Sleeper services

I'd split the Lowland sleeper with the Glasgow Central and Fort William portion running as one train and then the Fort William portion would detach and run via the Rutherglen chord.

The Inverness, Aberdeen and Edinburgh portion running as one train, with the necessary portions still splitting, I realise that Edinburgh passengers would have an earlier arrival, but surely provision could be made to use one of the lesser used platforms

If you want the glc/ftw but to run at the current highlander time out of eus you'd get a lot of opposition from people wanting to go to theatre in London etc and obviously form Kirsty Wark as well.....

 

[Whistler40145]

If you want the glc/ftw but to run at the current highlander time out of eus you'd get a lot of opposition from people wanting to go to theatre in London etc and obviously form Kirsty Wark as well.....

It was only a thought, not a definite idea

 

[Peter Sarf]

In the future when everything has returned to normal for a shake up of the Sleeper services

I'd split the Lowland sleeper with the Glasgow Central and Fort William portion running as one train and then the Fort William portion would detach and run via the Rutherglen chord.

The Inverness, Aberdeen and Edinburgh portion running as one train, with the necessary portions still splitting, I realise that Edinburgh passengers would have an earlier arrival, but surely provision could be made to use one of the lesser used platforms

Snag is that the FortWilliam and Aberdeen portions have the least demand. Putting them together makes for four equal sized sets up/down the West Coast Mainline. Remember each train is two sets totalling sixteen coaches and that is the limit on length at Euston amongst other places.

Not bad eh, two throbbing great 16 coach loco hauled trains !. Would be better without a leccy on the front - how about a er 1Co-Co1 diesel (or two) know what I mean @Whistler40145 .

Now the only way to get round the above limitation is to run more than two trains each night to & from Euston. That would allow the Fortwilliam seated coach to start from Euston. But the whole thing would then be even more uneconomical . Need growth (and a follow on order for more coaches and locos). There is more chance an open access operator would appear and cherry pick the lowlander passengers. Either that or road coaches - my view of the most likely. But all that is covered many posts up thread.

 

[Whistler40145]

Would a pickup on one sleeper at Birmingham New Street be a good business case?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would a pickup on one sleeper at Birmingham New Street be a good business case?

I think adding MKC would also make sense - I assume the new stock can do SDO, if not just use local door. It's not like it's in a rush.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Would a pickup on one sleeper at Birmingham New Street be a good business case?

It becomes a nightmare logistically as currently it can go west Mids or Trent valley without affecting public calls. Forcing it to go via the west Mids would massively reduce the engineering opportunities on the busy Coventry corridor

 

[Bletchleyite]

It becomes a nightmare logistically as currently it can go west Mids or Trent valley without affecting public calls. Forcing it to go via the west Mids would massively reduce the engineering opportunities on the busy Coventry corridor

Well, it'd mean CS might have to put a bus on to somewhere on the TV, but that's not dramatically hard.

 

[alistairlees]

I think adding MKC would also make sense - I assume the new stock can do SDO, if not just use local door. It's not like it's in a rush.

Two local doors are needed, but otherwise, it would be possible.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Would a pickup on one sleeper at Birmingham New Street be a good business case?

Have to be on Highlander timings as the Lowlander probably gets to Birmingham too late at night on an already short overnight sleeping opportunity. Also, as @HamworthyGoods says, would need the West Midlands corridor to stay open.

I think the snag with the sleeper is trying to fill a large train. One or more road coaches is easier to adjust to fit demand and cheaper. The sleeper services in this country have probably suffered from too many people finding the day trains quicker than they used to be and also air travel.

You have prompted my memory of using a Scotland via Birmingham to the South West sleeper, my travelling companion was not ready for the challenge of finding the connection at Birmingham New street so early in the morning. I coped as I (mis-)spent chunks of my youth at Birmingham New Street - "all change at Crewe" pah !. I expect the diesel fumes down there have done more to my lungs than COVID-19 will (fingers crossed). Hanging round there did mean I hardly appreciated the Whistlers until almost too late, the only EE nnCSVT action there was a spell of 37s working to/ from Anglia. I was, instead, hooked on MD655s and what they came in !.

 

[MrEd]

In the future when everything has returned to normal for a shake up of the Sleeper services

I'd split the Lowland sleeper with the Glasgow Central and Fort William portion running as one train and then the Fort William portion would detach and run via the Rutherglen chord.

The Inverness, Aberdeen and Edinburgh portion running as one train, with the necessary portions still splitting, I realise that Edinburgh passengers would have an earlier arrival, but surely provision could be made to use one of the lesser used platforms

Just out of interest, why would you want to fix something that isn’t (in my view) broken? The three Highland portions have the furthest distance and the longest journey times, so it makes sense combining them in one train in the 21.15 path out of Euston, and then similarly the Lowland portions in the 23.53 path. These are the only paths available to CS as far as I can see. If you tried to combine Lowland and Highland portions in the one train ordinarily, you would either have Lowland passengers arriving ridiculously early, or Highland passengers arriving ridiculously late- I can’t see an 11.30 arrival in Inverness or a 12 noon arrival in Fort William being particularly popular.

You wouldn’t be able to combine Inverness, Edinburgh and Aberdeen portions as one train, as (although there is lesser demand for Aberdeen) both Inverness and Edinburgh ordinarily need a full six sleeping cars, and 16 coaches is the maximum that the platforms at Euston will accommodate. You could perhaps have Edinburgh and Aberdeen passengers sharing one portion of the train, but this would mean either a ridiculously early arrival in Edinburgh or the Aberdeen train waiting until a sociable time for the Edinburgh passengers to disembark- meaning an unattractively late final arrival in Aberdeen. In any case, I doubt anyone would be happy with a sleeper train taking up vital platform space in Waverley for hours on end at the start of the morning peak.

Also, combining the Fort William and Glasgow portions in one train is, in my view, a waste of a path (and where would you split them, and how do you ensure sociable arrival times at both destinations?) as even at the height of summer, the Fort William portion has only four sleeping cars (the train can only be six coaches long, including the seated coach and lounge, due to platform and passing loop lengths on the West Highland Line), while the Glasgow portion has six sleeping cars, although it does not always load well.

The current system of Highlander (INV/FTW/ABD) in the 21.15 path and Lowlander (GLC/EDB) in the 23.53 path makes perfect sense.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Just out of interest, why would you want to fix something that isn’t (in my view) broken? The three Highland portions have the furthest distance and the longest journey times, so it makes sense combining them in one train in the 21.15 path out of Euston, and then similarly the Lowland portions in the 23.53 path. These are the only paths available to CS as far as I can see. If you tried to combine Lowland and Highland portions in the one train ordinarily, you would either have Lowland passengers arriving ridiculously early, or Highland passengers arriving ridiculously late- I can’t see an 11.30 arrival in Inverness or a 12 noon arrival in Fort William being particularly popular.

You wouldn’t be able to combine Inverness, Edinburgh and Aberdeen portions as one train, as (although there is lesser demand for Aberdeen) both Inverness and Edinburgh ordinarily need a full six sleeping cars, and 16 coaches is the maximum that the platforms at Euston will accommodate. You could perhaps have Edinburgh and Aberdeen passengers sharing one portion of the train, but this would mean either a ridiculously early arrival in Edinburgh or the Aberdeen train waiting until a sociable time for the Edinburgh passengers to disembark- meaning an unattractively late final arrival in Aberdeen. In any case, I doubt anyone would be happy with a sleeper train taking up vital platform space in Waverley for hours on end at the start of the morning peak.

Also, combining the Fort William and Glasgow portions in one train is, in my view, a waste of a path (and where would you split them, and how do you ensure sociable arrival times at both destinations?) as even at the height of summer, the Fort William portion has only four sleeping cars (the train can only be six coaches long, including the seated coach and lounge, due to platform and passing loop lengths on the West Highland Line), while the Glasgow portion has six sleeping cars, although it does not always load well.

The current system of Highlander (INV/FTW/ABD) in the 21.15 path and Lowlander (GLC/EDB) in the 23.53 path makes perfect sense.

Better put than I did. It follows that the only way the FortWilliam or Aberdeen portions would get removed from the Highlander would be if they got dropped altogether. Apart from any franchise commitment to serve all three, if the Inverness and/or one of FortWilliam or Aberdeen grew in patronage I am sure that CS would drop the least used destination just to achieve operating simplicity. If Aberdeen and FortWilliam were not so far away from each other that would be even more likely to happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Two local doors are needed, but otherwise, it would be possible.

Why is that, out of interest?

 

[alistairlees]

Why is that, out of interest?

You don’t want guests walking down the train through the seated coach, if people are trying to sleep in there. It’s not a thoroughfare. Or through one of the Club Cars when people are dining.

 

[TimboM]

<< DELETED >>

 

[greatkingrat]

You could just as easily say that Watford passengers could get to Euston in 20 minutes? Maybe the sleeper should stop at MKC instead of Watford?

 

[TimboM]

<< DELETED >>

 

[Peter Sarf]

You could just as easily say that Watford passengers could get to Euston in 20 minutes? Maybe the sleeper should stop at MKC instead of Watford?

That might spread the stops out more fairly ?.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You could just as easily say that Watford passengers could get to Euston in 20 minutes? Maybe the sleeper should stop at MKC instead of Watford?

I'd stop it at both. It's not like it's in a hurry.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I'd stop it at both. It's not like it's in a hurry.

I think, because it is a sleeper, more stops at the ends of the route and none in the middle makes sense. But subject to pathing of course as I imagine the South end of the UP WCML in the morning is a busy place as mentioned above.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think, because it is a sleeper, more stops at the ends of the route and none in the middle makes sense. But subject to pathing of course as I imagine the South end of the UP WCML in the morning is a busy place as mentioned above.

Might Platform 5 at MKC help, allowing it to be overtaken, or would that leave the back end trailing over the points?

 

[alistairlees]

The Highlander could omit the Milton Keynes Central stop southbound, much as the Lowlander omits the Watford Junction stop southbound. I don't think there's any hope of fitting the Lowlander in at Milton Keynes Central southbound, but I might be wrong.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Might Platform 5 at MKC help, allowing it to be overtaken, or would that leave the back end trailing over the points?

How about loops/sidings at Bletchley ?. Surely they are long enough - maybe ?. Obviously not a stop but a chance to get out of the way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How about loops/sidings at Bletchley ?. Surely they are long enough - maybe ?. Obviously not a stop but a chance to get out of the way.

It normally runs on the fasts (which is curious with it being limited to under 90mph) so it'd be awkward to get it over.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It normally runs on the fasts (which is curious with it being limited to under 90mph) so it'd be awkward to get it over.

I suppose it has come South not via Northampton ?.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suppose it has come South not via Northampton ?.

Indeed, it doesn't go via Northampton.

 

[JonathanH]

Indeed, it doesn't go via Northampton.

The Highlander always goes via Weedon.

The timing of the Lowlander does permit it to go via Northampton if engineering work dictates a need for it to do so. It arrives in London early if it goes via Weedon.

 

[route101]

The Highlander always goes via Weedon.

The timing of the Lowlander does permit it to go via Northampton if engineering work dictates a need for it to do so. It arrives in London early if it goes via Weedon.

Last time i got lowlander SB it went via Northampton, was very late too

 

[JonathanH]

Last time i got lowlander SB it went via Northampton, was very late too

Ah yes, they can also go via Northampton if they are running late and have missed their path.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Well, it'd mean CS might have to put a bus on to somewhere on the TV, but that's not dramatically hard.

Sort of destroys the concept of an overnight hotel journey does it not ? -wold you pay £££ for a journey starting on a bus. Then a small hours entrance to your overnight train. I don't think so ,somehow.