Is there demand for more sleeper services?

[SussexLad]

its not really that different as the bed is stored the same way the top bunk is currently on UK sleepers

But the bottom bunk isn't

 

[BigCj34]

Better economics sure, but the beds don't sound that comfy to me...

Also to an extent they already exist, I went on one in Thailand. It was a nice experience overall tho

Where can I find this? I am curious!

 

[Journeyman]

If sleeper trains are not profitable due to the limited usage of the rolling stock, maybe we need to design carriages that can be used day and night, so seats can be folded away and beds folded out in a couchette style.. CA proper Transformer's train! Space would be limited on the inside so I would only consider this on the continental loading gauge!

Caledonian Sleeper attempted it with the pod bed concept - they'd fold into seats in the manner of business class airline seats, but they couldn't get around a number of safety issues.

 

[SussexLad]

Where can I find this? I am curious!

2nd class bangkok to change mai sleeper train. Train 9 I believe I caught. It arrives into chang mai as a sleeper and leaves surprisingly quickly as a day train.

 

[RT4038]

The capacity of an open saloon coach with airline style seating is much greater than of a Couchette Car. In the UK loading gauge you would be hard pressed to get a six berth couchette compartment, it would be very cramped and possibly not comply with safety regs. Couchettes are a far distance from a hotel room in comfort and facilities, which would reduce the market considerably. In Europe you are expected to sleep in your day clothes. Sink and roilet facilities are at the car ends only. Strangers are mixed into the compartments.

There are couchette cars running in many of the remaining European night trains. Examples of the concept (Day & Night convertable compartments) can be seen on Russian and South African railways, amongst others (with much larger loading gauge to UK), with some detail differences.

 

[Journeyman]

Couchettes have been discussed a lot before, but quite apart from the technical problems, I don't think they'd be popular in the UK at all. Caledonian Sleeper did a lot of market research as part of their bid, and found almost unanimously that the requirement for single travellers to share berths, however cheap they were, was extremely unpopular and losing them business. This is why it was withdrawn as soon as possible. The pod bed idea was meant to chase the budget single traveller market - it's a real shame it couldn't be made to work.

 

[43096]

Jeepers, this thread is still going!? Still people (well, one in particular) who can’t or won’t see the facts for what they are. As I said before, if you believe in it that much, go and set up a business to run some sleeper services. Given that even a serial open access promoter like Ian Yeowart has never suggested setting up a sleeper operation (that I know of), I rather think we know the viability of such an operation.

 

[PeterC]

Couchettes have been discussed a lot before, but quite apart from the technical problems, I don't think they'd be popular in the UK at all. Caledonian Sleeper did a lot of market research as part of their bid, and found almost unanimously that the requirement for single travellers to share berths, however cheap they were, was extremely unpopular and losing them business. This is why it was withdrawn as soon as possible. The pod bed idea was meant to chase the budget single traveller market - it's a real shame it couldn't be made to work.

Nobody seems to have considered the RailBeds used on the Spirit of Queensland. They look ideal for use both overnight and as premium seating on a day service.

 

[BigCj34]

Couchettes have been discussed a lot before, but quite apart from the technical problems, I don't think they'd be popular in the UK at all. Caledonian Sleeper did a lot of market research as part of their bid, and found almost unanimously that the requirement for single travellers to share berths, however cheap they were, was extremely unpopular and losing them business. This is why it was withdrawn as soon as possible. The pod bed idea was meant to chase the budget single traveller market - it's a real shame it couldn't be made to work.

Interesting that berth sharing wasn't popular even if it made the journeys cheaper. The pod beds by Nightjet seem to be a good trade off between a (very small) private sleeping space at couchette prices.

 

[BigCj34]

Jeepers, this thread is still going!? Still people (well, one in particular) who can’t or won’t see the facts for what they are. As I said before, if you believe in it that much, go and set up a business to run some sleeper services. Given that even a serial open access promoter like Ian Yeowart has never suggested setting up a sleeper operation (that I know of), I rather think we know the viability of such an operation.

Maybe the question is who can the government subsidise! If there was a demonstrable benefit in providing it (such as a sharp drop in CO2 emissions from people not flying or driving) it could add to an argument, though in reality it probably won't.

 

[AlbertBeale]

The cheapest round trip on Eurostar is now £78, which is the most economical way to book. They're very difficult to secure though so £89 is much more likely. One can add £30 each way for cheap Manchester to London tickets, noting that it will be more than that if your connections from Eurostar see you dropping into 'peak' times. That brings us to £149 and we've made it only as far as Brussels...

Neither a sleeping car service nor the daytime 'high speed' services can compete on price with airlines in the current regulatory environment for a trip like Manchester to Prague. It's just not possible. Regulation must change.

Yes, from Manchester adds a fair bit! (Though don't the London CIV tickets give you the chance to travel at peak times without paying peak rates?) My trip was before the recent raising of the cheapest Eurostar prices of course - ie it was £29 each way if booked as a return. (I came back a different route, but the Eurostar bit was a return.) I seem to remember the Paris-Zurich leg was £30-ish; and the sleeper berth in a shared sleeper compartment Zurich-Prague was £40+. So close to £100 overall. But, as you suggest, still (no doubt ... no idea personally, never bothered to look since I wouldn't consider flying for a European journey like that) more expensive than some London-Prague plane flights. Though regulatory and taxation changes could - as you suggest - take away the "lower" [ignoring full social etc costs] air prices.

But I think people do overestimate the cost of longer European rail journeys. For instance, some colleagues hardly believed it when - also a few years back - I did London-Syracuse (the far corner of Sicily), also with just 2 changes, and also for little more than £100; including London-Paris; Paris-Milan; and a nearly 1000-mile run on a cosy sleeper all the way from Milan to Syracuse. I considered that fair value for a pleasant and convenient journey (including a good night's sleep) taking a day and a night (and a part of the next day) in comfort.

 

[Starmill]

Yes, from Manchester adds a fair bit! (Though don't the London CIV tickets give you the chance to travel at peak times without paying peak rates?)

No they merely ease the arrival time restriction from 1130 to 0940. And a round trip costs £128.80 - significantly more than a normal Off Peak Return to London Terminals at £92.10.

 

[Starmill]

But I think people do overestimate the cost of longer European rail journeys.

In cases where the Channel Tunnel isn't involved, and where there's a through service, or as a very minimum a connection between services of the same operator, then yes maybe. For example from Brussels to Dresden a Super Sparpeis Europa ticket could be remarkably good value for fast trains over a long distance. Good luck trying something similar with, say, Amsterdam to Milan.

 

[Clayton]

The thing is, it’s not just flights that have got cheaper, it’s hotels too. They’re no longer expensive or ‘posh’ and it’s more enjoyable to take a quick flight and stay over in a budget hotel, with a chance to explore the town and have a few drinks, than spend many hours in a stuffy train.

 

[AlbertBeale]

The thing is, it’s not just flights that have got cheaper, it’s hotels too. They’re no longer expensive or ‘posh’ and it’s more enjoyable to take a quick flight and stay over in a budget hotel, with a chance to explore the town and have a few drinks, than spend many hours in a stuffy train.

Everyone has their own ideas as to what's most enjoyable; I can't feel I'm enjoying myself if my consciences is troubling me - which would be the case if I were on a plane. (Not that I find plane travel enjoyable even apart from that!)

 

[30907]

No they merely ease the arrival time restriction from 1130 to 0940. And a round trip costs £128.80 - significantly more than a normal Off Peak Return to London Terminals at £92.10.

And waive the afternoon restriction.
That is a fairly recent hike. It seems that someone in Virgin/Avanti has (fairly recently) realised that the SVS offpeak single isn't regulated, and the LNE fares are tied to that. Cunning move by VT/Avanti .

 

[Starmill]

And waive the afternoon restriction.
That is a fairly recent hike. It seems that someone in Virgin/Avanti has (fairly recently) realised that the SVS offpeak single isn't regulated, and the LNE fares are tied to that. Cunning move by VT/Avanti .

Good point re afternoon restrictions. I had forgotten that.

What has happened is the price of the single to London Terminals and the price of the single to London International or London Eurostar have been equalised, to enormous disbenefit.

While I do not know is what the old price was over time, I've found one old ticket from Manchester Stations to London Eurostar CIV from August 2018 which is £28.70 with railcard. This would place it at £43.10, or close to half of that year's £86.90 Off Peak Return to London Terminals. Today the fare is £64.40. As there is no corresponding return to London Eurostar that's an enormous price rise.

Apologies for how far we've drifted but the general trend is clearly towards some very big increases in prices for international rail.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Everyone has their own ideas as to what's most enjoyable; I can't feel I'm enjoying myself if my consciences is troubling me - which would be the case if I were on a plane. (Not that I find plane travel enjoyable even apart from that!)

Maybe the question is who can the government subsidise! If there was a demonstrable benefit in providing it (such as a sharp drop in CO2 emissions from people not flying or driving) it could add to an argument, though in reality it probably won't.

Apart from these two perfectly valid reasons for taking a train/plane, I think that there's one more, namely the convenience of taking a train often outweighing that of flying. I don't know if this might be overly personal and I'm the only one with this opinion or if others share it but I haven't been on a plane in a few years now but that has nothing to do with the environment but rather that 1] other than budget airlines (which tend to squeeze people in like cattle and suffer a lower safety record), rail travail is often more economical and 2] airports being out of town and necessitating long check-in and queue times makes it less attractive.

 

[RT4038]

Apart from these two perfectly valid reasons for taking a train/plane, I think that there's one more, namely the convenience of taking a train often outweighing that of flying. I don't know if this might be overly personal and I'm the only one with this opinion or if others share it but I haven't been on a plane in a few years now but that has nothing to do with the environment but rather that 1] other than budget airlines (which tend to squeeze people in like cattle and suffer a lower safety record), rail travail is often more economical and 2] airports being out of town and necessitating long check-in and queue times makes it less attractive.

This is a perfectly valid reason (and one that I generally share myself) but I suspect it is very much an Enthusiast viewpoint and creates little demand for Sleeping Car trains [ the title of this thread].

 

[30907]

Good point re afternoon restrictions. I had forgotten that.

What has happened is the price of the single to London Terminals and the price of the single to London International or London Eurostar have been equalised, to enormous disbenefit.

While I do not know is what the old price was over time, I've found one old ticket from Manchester Stations to London Eurostar CIV from August 2018 which is £28.70 with railcard. This would place it at £43.10, or close to half of that year's £86.90 Off Peak Return to London Terminals. Today the fare is £64.40. As there is no corresponding return to London Eurostar that's an enormous price rise.

I'm not up to date on West Coast fares, having left that area, but not so long ago there was a one-way Saver (Off-peak) priced at half the SVR fare but only bookable as part of a return trip. The LNE fare was the same as that.
It seems no longer to exist, but the old SVS priced 10p or so below the SVR is now priced halfway between the two.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

other than budget airlines (which tend to squeeze people in like cattle and suffer a lower safety record)

That is demonstrably completely incorrect. easyJet, Ryanair and WizzAir have a safety record that's equal to or better than any of the European legacy carriers.

 

[Bald Rick]

That is demonstrably completely incorrect. easyJet, Ryanair and WizzAir have a safety record that's equal to or better than any of the European legacy carriers.

And that the first two at least have seat pitches similar to BA...

 

[class26]

That is demonstrably completely incorrect. easyJet, Ryanair and WizzAir have a safety record that's equal to or better than any of the European legacy carriers.

But these "low cost carriers" have not been around anything like as long as the legacy carriers in most cases.

 

[Bald Rick]

But these "low cost carriers" have not been around anything like as long as the legacy carriers in most cases.

Maybe not, but it would be interesting to compare total flying hours or total passenger numbers since their inception.

 

[coppercapped]

Apart from these two perfectly valid reasons for taking a train/plane, I think that there's one more, namely the convenience of taking a train often outweighing that of flying. I don't know if this might be overly personal and I'm the only one with this opinion or if others share it but I haven't been on a plane in a few years now but that has nothing to do with the environment but rather that 1] other than budget airlines (which tend to squeeze people in like cattle and suffer a lower safety record), rail travail is often more economical and 2] airports being out of town and necessitating long check-in and queue times makes it less attractive.

The safety argument is nonsense - in Europe Ryanair, Easyjet, Vueling and the rest have safety records which are as good as those of the 'legacy' airlines.

Whichever airline one flies with, the width of the cabin is the same for any aircraft model. All that the airlines can change is the seat pitch - and any aircraft model is certificated for a maximum number of passengers so there are essentially regulatory limits to the minimum seat pitch possible.

The convenience or otherwise of the train or plane depends on the particular journey being made. The fact that airports are out of town benefits all those who don't live in or near town centres. In my case it's about 20 miles to Heathrow from my home (as the crow flies...!) and 35-odd miles to those London terminals which offer sleeping car travel.

 

[coppercapped]

Maybe not, but it would be interesting to compare total flying hours or total passenger numbers since their inception.

An interesting challenge!

As air travel really only expanded dramatically since the advent of the jet engine, specifically the by-pass engine which dramatically improved the economics and reduced noise levels, this dates the start of the growth to the late 1960s/early 1970s. I suspect the total number of passengers carried up to that point would be a fraction of todays annual total. For example <https://www.academia.edu/193274/Pas...h_imperial_air_routes_refinement_and_revision> suggests that Imperial Airways carried some 560,000 people between 1924/5 and 1938/9 - but the basic data are uncertain. In any event the numbers were tiny compared to today.

Not quite an answer to your challenge, but a quick search <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_airlines_in_the_world#By_passengers_carried> shows the following annual passenger numbers in millions for airline groups in 2019:

1	American Airlines Group	215.18
2	Delta Air Lines	204.00
3	Southwest Airlines	162.68
4	United Airlines	162.44
5	Ryanair	152.4
6	China Southern Airlines	151.63
7	Lufthansa Group	145.2
8	China Eastern Airlines	121.1 (in 2018)
9	IAG (BA, Iberia, Aer Lingus, Vueling)	118.3
10	Air China Group	115.00

By this measure Ryanair is the fifth largest airline on the planet.

In passenger-kilometres per year Ryanair comes in at number 7 in the list of individual airlines (rather than groups), ahead of BA which shares tenth place with Lufthansa. As these latter two also operate long-haul sectors and Ryanair is a short-haul operator that is quite impressive.

 

[BigCj34]

I'm not up to date on West Coast fares, having left that area, but not so long ago there was a one-way Saver (Off-peak) priced at half the SVR fare but only bookable as part of a return trip. The LNE fare was the same as that.
It seems no longer to exist, but the old SVS priced 10p or so below the SVR is now priced halfway between the two.

This only appears to have happened under Avanti. It is highly disappointing, for unless I can buy two advance singles I have to pay for a full price return. I can only hope it is a pandemic measure but it probably is not.

 

[Mogz]

Remember the environmental factor. The days of cheap short haul airlines may be numbered.

Channel Tunnel services nearly happened (Nightstar) but were strangled at birth by budget airlines.

In the UK I wonder whether it's worth replacing the lowland sleepers with a West Country to Edinburgh/Glasgow service.

How about a South Coast to Wick or Thurso via Reading & Birmingham?

 

[Journeyman]

In the UK I wonder whether it's worth replacing the lowland sleepers with a West Country to Edinburgh/Glasgow service.

How about a South Coast to Wick or Thurso via Reading & Birmingham?

Neither are even remotely viable.

 

[BigCj34]

Remember the environmental factor. The days of cheap short haul airlines may be numbered.

Channel Tunnel services nearly happened (Nightstar) but were strangled at birth by budget airlines.

In the UK I wonder whether it's worth replacing the lowland sleepers with a West Country to Edinburgh/Glasgow service.

How about a South Coast to Wick or Thurso via Reading & Birmingham?

A sleeper from Wick and Thurso is being explored to Edinburgh, being the Scottish capital justifies the small case there, which can easily have a connection for onward travel to London.

Not going to be much demand to the South Coast om a sleeper from the very top of Scotland really!