Is there demand for more sleeper services?

[RT4038]

Most business travellers needing to travel long-distance in the UK would just catch a flight that morning, and another back in the evening. Costs less, takes less time.

Or, if the meeting or activity has an early start and/or punctual imperative, would fly the previous evening and have a good nights' sleep in a hotel, fresh and surely there for the morning, and then fly back that evening.

 

[SussexLad]

Most business travellers needing to travel long-distance in the UK would just catch a flight that morning, and another back in the evening. Costs less, takes less time.

And costs the business money as they have to pay you for the hours on the flights and all the faffing about for it.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

People forget the loss of revenue and/or loss of value businesses suffer from their personnel travelling - there's a lot of value generated by early morning and late evening flights which allow personnel to work in the office on Monday, fly out for a meeting Tuesday morning, have a meeting all day Tuesday, fly back in Tuesday evening and be back in the office on Wednesday, rather than them also being out of the office Monday afternoon and Wednesday morning

That's something rail alternatives will need to address going forward.

Ah, I see Patrickburford has said much the same.

 

[adamedwards]

Surely the simplest way to improve sleeper to Europe connections would be to run the sleepers from St Pancras. Given how long the trains are they'd have to use an international platform but then use the links to Camden Road to get to the WCML. Once the Midland is electrified to Sheffield and Doncaster we can then have lots of fun devising routes north.
It's not going to happen.

 

[xotGD]

And costs the business money as they have to pay you for the hours on the flights and all the faffing about for it.

You think business travellers get paid overtime for hours spent travelling?

Most just have to suck it up.

 

[Starmill]

If what you say applies to "almost everyone" based on your experience, perhaps everyone you know is from a section of society with less moral sense than average.

This is a genuinely crackers thing to say. People do not have much 'moral concern' about the environment when they're booking a holiday. I do, but I'm very very well aware I'm a pariah. If people did have "moral concern" theb climate change would have been solved entirely a decade ago. Your attempt to cast such grave aspersions on the character of my friends and colleagues doesn't change facts: people won't pay three or four times the price because of their concerns for the environment. Regulation and taxation are the answer.

I speak as someone who has insisted on the use of rail for journey from Manchester even all the way to Prague once, at enormous expense, just because it was physically possible. Most recently I bought a train ticket from Glasgow to Wool for £85, when I could have flown for, including tickets to Glasgow Airport and from Southampton Airport to Wool, one third of the cost. I'm not deluded enough to believe many people would make such a choice. Of course, that was pre-Flybe collapse, so may have changed big time.

 

[Energy]

There's a massive difference. They don't have to pay you as soon as you get on the train as that is effectively your hotel. So the difference is massive.

The higher paid the individuals are the bigger the difference.

Does a sleeper train count as a hotel or just transport? It is still a train.

 

[Energy]

This is a genuinely crackers thing to say. People do not have much 'moral concern' about the environment when they're booking a holiday. I do, but I'm very very well aware I'm a pariah. If people did have "moral concern" theb climate change would have been solved entirely a decade ago. Your attempt to cast such grave aspersions on the character of my friends and colleagues doesn't change facts: people won't pay three or four times the price because of their concerns for the environment. Regulation and taxation are the answer.

I speak as someone who has insisted on the use of rail for journey from Manchester even all the way to Prague once, at enormous expense, just because it was physically possible. Most recently I bought a train ticket from Glasgow to Wool for £85, when I could have flown for, including tickets to Glasgow Airport and from Southampton Airport to Wool, one third of the cost. I'm not deluded enough to believe many people would make such a choice. Of course, that was pre-Flybe collapse, so may have changed big time.

It also has to be more convenient to travel by rail, Eurostar has got a lot of its market by being just as fast or faster when you include time spent at the airport while putting you in the centre of the city and not in an airport miles away. It being greener does help it to be attractive but price and convenience are usually the focus.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think you all forget that where a business is picking up the cost of the hours spent travelling and their is a reasonably timed sleeper available they would want you to be productive so chose the sleeper.

And costs the business money as they have to pay you for the hours on the flights and all the faffing about for it.

But people work on the day train and plane (I do both, and am far from being alone), and are productive there. It’s not time lost.

 

[Starmill]

It also has to be more convenient to travel by rail, Eurostar has got a lot of its market by being just as fast or faster when you include time spent at the airport while putting you in the centre of the city and not in an airport miles away. It being greener does help it to be attractive but price and convenience are usually the focus.

Indeed. And I think Eurostar falls down massively because of the worry about missed connections, especially the tight 20 minute connections between ICE and Eurostar services at Bruxelles Midi. Especially when there's the threat of having to buy a new ticket if missed.

 

[CBlue]

And costs the business money as they have to pay you for the hours on the flights and all the faffing about for it.

I plucked some dates out of the air for an imaginary business trip to Glasgow from London

Total fare on the sleeper is £340 Sunday-Monday and return Monday-Tuesday

Same day flights to and from Stansted to Glasgow with Easyjet is £104 and you're in the air for 45 minutes each way, and get to sleep in your bed rather than try and do so on the sleeper.

Even if expenses are being paid, the sleeper option doesn't seem to be the economical choice.

 

[AlbertBeale]

This is a genuinely crackers thing to say. People do not have much 'moral concern' about the environment when they're booking a holiday. I do, but I'm very very well aware I'm a pariah. If people did have "moral concern" theb climate change would have been solved entirely a decade ago. Your attempt to cast such grave aspersions on the character of my friends and colleagues doesn't change facts: people won't pay three or four times the price because of their concerns for the environment. Regulation and taxation are the answer.

I speak as someone who has insisted on the use of rail for journey from Manchester even all the way to Prague once, at enormous expense, just because it was physically possible. Most recently I bought a train ticket from Glasgow to Wool for £85, when I could have flown for, including tickets to Glasgow Airport and from Southampton Airport to Wool, one third of the cost. I'm not deluded enough to believe many people would make such a choice. Of course, that was pre-Flybe collapse, so may have changed big time.

If people have to be coerced to act responsibly - ie by massively inflating air fares - then so be it. "Regulation and taxation" are indeed the answer if people won't make responsible choices otherwise. But I continue to hope that most people can behave less selfishly without being coerced. The more of us who do make choices such as travelling by rail "all the way" to Prague [you make it sound a hassle; when I went to Prague a few years back the rail journey was easy, efficient, and pleasant - it would never have occurred to me to travel any other way], and show by example, and argue the case with our friends and colleagues, then the more that people will make moral choices without the government forcing them. If you and I make not flying seem normal, then more people might join us.

 

[SussexLad]

Does a sleeper train count as a hotel or just transport? It is still a train.

I would say hotel as you have a variety of options to choose from. You can sleep, watch TV, eat and shower.

I plucked some dates out of the air for an imaginary business trip to Glasgow from London

Total fare on the sleeper is £340 Sunday-Monday and return Monday-Tuesday

Same day flights to and from Stansted to Glasgow with Easyjet is £104 and you're in the air for 45 minutes each way, and get to sleep in your bed rather than try and do so on the sleeper.

Even if expenses are being paid, the sleeper option doesn't seem to be the economical choice.

Assuming someone is paid £30 an hour. Tax and other costs of employing them is also £30, so per hour its £60. Recommended check in time is 2 hours plus 30 mins to the airport. To get out on the other side let's say 45 mins to your chosen destination. Plus flight time youre looking at 4 hours each way. Total paid hours for traveling for that day would be £480. So actually the sleeper is likely to come out on top.

 

[SussexLad]

And before anyone says, the reason why it doesn't come out on top more for existing services is because the quality of the offerings is bad. It can be noisy, showers don't work, too late leaving (so the hours spent waiting for the service when it is simply too late to work has to be paid to the employee) and can be a bumpy ride.

 

[Energy]

I would say hotel as you have a variety of options to choose from. You can sleep, watch TV, eat and shower.

Still not a hotel and would be classed as a train by a lot of policies, you can do all those things on a plane and first/business class often has a lie flat bed but it still counts as travelling.

And before anyone says, the reason why it doesn't come out on top more for existing services is because the quality of the offerings is bad. It can be noisy, showers don't work, too late leaving (so the hours spent waiting for the service when it is simply too late to work has to be paid to the employee) and can be a bumpy ride.

No it is because it is significantly more expensive than sending someone via easyjet or ryanair or a day train and giving them a hotel. A lot of people also get motion sickness so don't want to spend the whole night on a train.

 

[SussexLad]

Still not a hotel and would be classed as a train by a lot of policies, you can do all those things on a plane and first/business class often has a lie flat bed but it still counts as travelling.

No it is because it is significantly more expensive than sending someone via easyjet or ryanair or a day train and giving them a hotel. A lot of people also get motion sickness so don't want to spend the whole night on a train.

Policies can change with the correct engagement. Also you cant compare a lie flat first class offering to a sleeper and then say a sleeper will never work because easyjet is cheaper. It makes no sense.

Also its really not more expensive. You spend to save money. Particularly if you're billing all your hours to a client.

The point about motion sickness is a fair point but by no means is it most people. Plus in a dark room you don't really get it as much.

 

[Energy]

Policies can change with the correct engagement. Also you cant compare a lie flat first class offering to a sleeper and then say a sleeper will never work because easyjet is cheaper. It makes no sense.

Different things, I was using first class as an example that just because you get a bed and you can eat or watch tv doesn't mean that you aren't travelling not that a business would send their employees on a long haul first class product for a UK domestic flight. Both would lose to easyjet on such a short route as a company will care most about price on such a short journey.

 

[SussexLad]

Different things, I was using first class as an example that just because you get a bed and you can eat or watch tv doesn't mean that you aren't travelling not that a business would send their employees on a long haul first class product for a UK domestic flight. Both would lose to easyjet on such a short route as a company will care most about price on such a short journey.

Difference is virtually no one can get sleep on a plane. Youre confined to a small space and have virtually no personal space. Its better in higher classes but you still don't get a personal cabin. Therefore compensation is perfectly reasonable when you fly.

The reason business pay for higher classes on flights is to try and make sure you're productive on the other end as withoyt it you'll be even more jetlagged.

Staying on a hotel on wheels it is reasonable to expect hours not to be paid for.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Particularly if you're billing all your hours to a client.

When I'm authorising payments of several hundred Pounds/Euros per hour, I damn well expect the consultant, engineer or auditor to be on-site, not pissing about on a sleeper train for half a day.

 

[SussexLad]

When I'm authorising payments of several hundred Pounds/Euros per hour, I damn well expect the consultant, engineer or auditor to be on-site, not pissing about on a sleeper train for half a day.

Understandable. Where I work we are expected to take the lowest overall cost option when you factor in billing hours.

 

[Bald Rick]

When I'm authorising payments of several hundred Pounds/Euros per hour, I damn well expect the consultant, engineer or auditor to be on-site, not pissing about on a sleeper train for half a day.

Exactly. And I expect them to be travelling in their own time, and by the most efficient way possible. There would have to be a very, very good reason to pay a sleeper bill if it was presented to me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When I'm authorising payments of several hundred Pounds/Euros per hour, I damn well expect the consultant, engineer or auditor to be on-site, not pissing about on a sleeper train for half a day.

Whether you can reasonably expect that or not entirely depends on the contract.

 

[SussexLad]

Exactly. And I expect them to be travelling in their own time, and by the most efficient way possible. There would have to be a very, very good reason to pay a sleeper bill if it was presented to me.

The fact that their travelling for one of your meetings and you don't want them wasting half a day on day trains or airports? Many business run like this because they bill to a client.

 

[SussexLad]

Whether you can reasonably expect that or not entirely depends on the contract.

Most will rinse you for every hour that they can if its within their contract.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Whether you can reasonably expect that or not entirely depends on the contract.

It does but it works both ways. And if you upset me during a contract period, I'll still be upset when it's time to renegotiate, renew or tender for something else. And we might well specify response time, travel costs or other issues into the contract next time round if someone was to try and take the wee-wee.

Contracts frequently have engineer response time, equipment availability and failure rate metrics. If it's not me that's unhappy about someone spending half a day on a train, it's my opposite number with the vendor, who is looking at 8 or 10 extra hours of downtime and penalty payments being incurred.

 

[RT4038]

And before anyone says, the reason why it doesn't come out on top more for existing services is because the quality of the offerings is bad. It can be noisy, showers don't work, too late leaving (so the hours spent waiting for the service when it is simply too late to work has to be paid to the employee) and can be a bumpy ride.

For business travel, the Sleeping Car product is inherently inferior (in all but a tiny number of cases) to the alternatives now easily available. There is no small adjustment that can be made to change this. And without business travel paying high end prices, the concept is nowhere near economical. Hence why there will be no expansion.

I think you are completely not getting the thinking of business. Sleeping car travel just does not come into it. The business I work in (and probably most others) are relying on the goodwill of staff going on these trips (not paying overtime, or granting time off in lieu), so they generally will give them the travel arrangements they prefer, within reason. Invariably this is Flight (and hotel if desired) for three reasons - cutting down travelling time (and total away time), better nights' sleep, plus the kudos of travelling by air.

 

[Bald Rick]

The fact that their travelling for one of your meetings and you don't want them wasting half a day on day trains or airports? Many business run like this because they bill to a client.

They are working on the day train. If they are billing hours I don’t want them wasting half a day arriving in London well before 0700, or waiting till 2350 for the sleeper back, AND having to spend a lot more on the travel itself. If they are on a day rate I’m paying them anyway, and it makes no difference, so I want them to use the cheapest reasonable transport option, which is never the sleeper.

 

[telstarbox]

If I needed to go from London to Scotland for work my preference would be either an evening train and a hotel north of the border, or to sleep in my own bed and get an early flight up from LCY (30 mins from my house). Hanging around Euston for a potentially bad night's sleep sounds like the worst of both worlds.

Even going as far as Liverpool or Manchester, midweek it can be cheaper to get an evening train and hotel rather than a peak morning Avanti fare.

 

[SussexLad]

They are working on the day train. If they are billing hours I don’t want them wasting half a day arriving in London well before 0700, or waiting till 2350 for the sleeper back, AND having to spend a lot more on the travel itself. If they are on a day rate I’m paying them anyway, and it makes no difference, so I want them to use the cheapest reasonable transport option, which is never the sleeper.

This is why I've suggested way back any new sleepers need to leave earlier and arrive at about 7:30.

 

[BigCj34]

You are looking at this with a 'pro-rail/anti-air' viewpoint, not unsurprisingly on a Railforum! - there are as many factors against Sleeping car trains, including their poor timekeeping and thus reliability (e.g. due to winds bringing down OHLE and heavy rain flooding the tracks, signal failures, track defects, locomotive failures, faults on other trains blocking the line, engineering works, persons struck by train etc. etc. [ there are massive threads on this forum detailing recent woes]), ease of getting to a Sleeping car station (whether by car or public transport), frequency of services and availability of berths at a reasonable price, the additional charges of getting to the Sleeping Car station and car parking (availability and security), security of stations at night, lengthy journey time, poor standard of room (size, showers, bed) compared to a hotel, rocking of train, noise (movement and other passengers/staff), inconsistency of service on the train (will there be food and drink available?). The list is not comprehensive. For short business trips, the amount of time taken up using a Sleeping car is a significant factor, and it is being a hare that will clinch the business deal before the tortoise gets there.

People are voting with their feet between London & Scotland - far more go by air than by Sleeping car train. I travel by Sleeping Car train as often as possible, because I am a rail enthusiast and enjoy the quirky experience. None of my colleagues are, and would not consider using them.
There will always be some people who are frightened to use planes - but then my Mother was particularly upset by the Harrow & Wealdstone crash in 1952 (knowing several of the injured and dead), and didn't much like going on long distance trains because of it!

Though rail in general has clawed back against flying. 34% in 2019 took the train from London to Scotland, and will go down once HS2 starts reducing journey times further, though I would imagine more competitive fares would help in the meantime.

I think that Couchettes are no longer an acceptable travel mode for the majority of people, although they copuld probably be convinced if the alternative is unaffordable!

Government may well elect to prioritise rail over air, but I do not think this will lead to any more Sleeping Car services, due to the poor economics already discussed in this thread. At best Air will only be 'de-prioritised', which could mean higher fares. This would not particularly affect the 'higher end traffic', as they would merely pay up. Others will have to take day trains and stay in Travelodges (and other similar) instead.

Not sure how Brexit would affect domestic sleeping car trains, and would likely affect international services in exactly the same way as air travel.

Heightened awareness of the environmental damage of flying is far more likely to result in fewer International journeys being made (due to the expense), rather than Government subsidising holiday rail travel to enable the current level. Be careful what you wish for.

With Sleepers reappearing in the mainland surely that means there is room for couchettes, maybe less applicable in the UK.

More expensive air travel may be a sacrifice that will have to be made, even if rail travel is not subsidised further as a counterweight sadly.