Is there demand for more sleeper services?

[telstarbox]

In the case of the Caledonian Sleeper, the Scottish Government puts a lot of money into it. There are various political and economic reasons why they choose to do this, but the UK Government is unlikely to be popular doing the same for people's holidays to Barcelona and Rome.

People might choose more environmentally friendly options where they're convenient (like electric cars) but I can't see large numbers of people opting for a journey which is both slower and more expensive than flights.

 

[Purple Orange]

Can we get away from the idea that Sleeper trains represent 'green' travel. They simply don't because the load factors are too low. Green travel involves self propulsion.


Significant subsidies from central or regional government.


Yes, perhaps by simply 'staying local' and relying on television and books to experience other parts of the country and world.

Well of course, if nobody uses a train then it is not ‘green’ travel. That is true for any mode of transport.

I take it that you holiday by staying in and watch the telly?

 

[RT4038]

I think how we approach holidays should change. 2 weeks on a beach (dull as dishwater IMHO) with a relatively short flight could make way for allowing the travel to become a part of the holiday.

If sleeper trains are so economically unviable, so as to be £500 for a ticket, how do they even survive in the U.K.?

(PS - is a thread asking about whether there is demand for more sleeper services not the place to ask whether there could be demand for sleeper services to other European countries? Seems relevant to the thread in my view).

How are you going to 'make' people start considering 2 weeks on a beach as not their ideal holiday? To most, the journey is a chore to be endured in the shortest possible period, irrespective of the mode of travel. Making this as 'part of the holiday' is going to mean conditions similar to that of a cruise ship, which is never going to happen on a train at a sensible price; couchette cars or sitting in 'airline' seats for 10hr or more, sharing with strangers and microwave buffet food is simply not going to cut it.

The problem is that we think of holiday train travel in terms of 'La Belle Epoch' with sumptuous sleeping and dining cars (and the odd murder to be solved en-route). But the truth is that only the (very small) upper classes could afford such travel, and they paid comparatively high fares for the privilege, at a time when railway staff were comparatively poorly paid. Ordinary people like us travelled to places such as Bridlington and Margate packed in suburban carriages.

This is not a phenomenon solely afflicting rail travel - air travel in the 50s and 60s was a far more comfortable and civilised experience when fares were high and only the well off travelled.

The greenest thing to do is to indeed holiday at home; second best is to travel to your closest seaside or holiday area, just as our forefathers did. If we wish to go further away by more sustainable land based transport we are going to have to pay extra - quite considerably extra - which is going to mean fewer , but possibly staying longer away - holidays.

 

[Ianno87]

How are you going to 'make' people start considering 2 weeks on a beach as not their ideal holiday? To most, the journey is a chore to be endured in the shortest possible period, irrespective of the mode of travel. Making this as 'part of the holiday' is going to mean conditions similar to that of a cruise ship, which is never going to happen on a train at a sensible price; couchette cars or sitting in 'airline' seats for 10hr or more, sharing with strangers and microwave buffet food is simply not going to cut it.

The problem is that we think of holiday train travel in terms of 'La Belle Epoch' with sumptuous sleeping and dining cars (and the odd murder to be solved en-route). But the truth is that only the (very small) upper classes could afford such travel, and they paid comparatively high fares for the privilege, at a time when railway staff were comparatively poorly paid. Ordinary people like us travelled to places such as Bridlington and Margate packed in suburban carriages.

This is not a phenomenon solely afflicting rail travel - air travel in the 50s and 60s was a far more comfortable and civilised experience when fares were high and only the well off travelled.

The greenest thing to do is to indeed holiday at home; second best is to travel to your closest seaside or holiday area, just as our forefathers did. If we wish to go further away by more sustainable land based transport we are going to have to pay extra - quite considerably extra - which is going to mean fewer , but possibly longer away - holidays.

It's heresy to this forum, but most "normal" people don't actually enjoy extremely long train journeys! People generally value getting there quickly and cheaply.

I do think more people would genuinely consider travelling by train to where it is relatively easy, say, the south of France, but often the price is very uncompetitive with flying, especially where connections are involved (e.g. train to London, then Eurostar, then TGV, for multiple people, adds up very quickly).

 

[Non Multi]

I suppose you could have a high speed train with some premium fare airline-style 'pod' seating, the bed functionality used for overnight services.

 

[Purple Orange]

How are you going to 'make' people start considering 2 weeks on a beach as not their ideal holiday? To most, the journey is a chore to be endured in the shortest possible period, irrespective of the mode of travel. Making this as 'part of the holiday' is going to mean conditions similar to that of a cruise ship, which is never going to happen on a train at a sensible price; couchette cars or sitting in 'airline' seats for 10hr or more, sharing with strangers and microwave buffet food is simply not going to cut it.

The problem is that we think of holiday train travel in terms of 'La Belle Epoch' with sumptuous sleeping and dining cars (and the odd murder to be solved en-route). But the truth is that only the (very small) upper classes could afford such travel, and they paid comparatively high fares for the privilege, at a time when railway staff were comparatively poorly paid. Ordinary people like us travelled to places such as Bridlington and Margate packed in suburban carriages.

This is not a phenomenon solely afflicting rail travel - air travel in the 50s and 60s was a far more comfortable and civilised experience when fares were high and only the well off travelled.

The greenest thing to do is to indeed holiday at home; second best is to travel to your closest seaside or holiday area, just as our forefathers did. If we wish to go further away by more sustainable land based transport we are going to have to pay extra - quite considerably extra - which is going to mean fewer , but possibly staying longer away - holidays.

I’m not advocating “making” people to do anything. My comment is based on a trend and a change in habits. We have already seen a change in habits away from an annual 2-weeks on the Costa del Sol, and there is nothing to say it can’t happen again. It won’t be whole sale changes in habits for everyone, but an increase in people travelling differently could happen. A few nights in France, a few nights in Spain, a few nights in Portugal. I’m not advocating doing a 15 hour journey to sit on the beach for 2-weeks as that is unfeasible.

This would mostly be confined to people who do not want to travel on a plane because of how polluting it is, but that group of people is growing. Hence the thought that Sleepers may see some appeal to those people.

 

[RT4038]

I’m not advocating “making” people to do anything. My comment is based on a trend and a change in habits. We have already seen a change in habits away from an annual 2-weeks on the Costa del Sol, and there is nothing to say it can’t happen again. It won’t be whole sale changes in habits for everyone, but an increase in people travelling differently could happen. A few nights in France, a few nights in Spain, a few nights in Portugal. I’m not advocating doing a 15 hour journey to sit on the beach for 2-weeks as that is unfeasible.

This would mostly be confined to people who do not want to travel on a plane because of how polluting it is, but that group of people is growing. Hence the thought that Sleepers may see some appeal to those people.

A holiday as you suggest is easily possible now, but comparatively few people take holidays like this. Indeed, to many, this scenario is a nightmare of suitcase packing and unpacking, and spending time in transport, both transit and stations/airports. Hardly relaxation, esp. with children. The appeal of sleepers would soon pale when they see the fares. But as you say, some people do it.

I am reminded of a colleague who worked in Broken Hill, Northern Rhodesia (now Kabwe, Zambia). Accumulated leave for 4 years (12 weeks) for the holiday back in the UK. 2 nights on the mail train to Bulawayo and two more on the 'Rhodesia Mail' to Cape Town, then a week on the Mailship to Southampton. The same journey back again. 4 weeks travelling, with his young family.

 

[paul1609]

Penzance/Plymouth/Bristol to Glasgow/Edinburgh might be worthwhile, although the economics would be dubious. Plymouth-Scotland was one of the last sleeper services to be withdrawn, and the distances are long enough to provide some justification for its re-introduction. It would also not require any additional stabling points for the sleeping cars, if run from Penzance.

The reason that the Plymouth to Scotland sleeper continued as long as it did was that its clientele was almost entirely Naval Personnel, MOD civil servants and dockyard workers travelling between Devonport and Rosyth. When the government closed Rosyth Naval Base in a defence cut back the sleeper was withdrawn a few weeks later. There is very little Navy travel left on rail now as the budget holder is required to arrange the journey by the cheapest method with is invariably one way hire cars at the MOD corporate rate or Easyjet.

 

[Purple Orange]

A holiday as you suggest is easily possible now, but comparatively few people take holidays like this. Indeed, to many, this scenario is a nightmare of suitcase packing and unpacking, and spending time in transport, both transit and stations/airports. Hardly relaxation, esp. with children. The appeal of sleepers would soon pale when they see the fares. But as you say, some people do it.

I am reminded of a colleague who worked in Broken Hill, Northern Rhodesia (now Kabwe, Zambia). Accumulated leave for 4 years (12 weeks) for the holiday back in the UK. 2 nights on the mail train to Bulawayo and two more on the 'Rhodesia Mail' to Cape Town, then a week on the Mailship to Southampton. The same journey back again. 4 weeks travelling, with his young family.

I think it’s more prevalent than you think. My thinking is more aligned to those who are happy to go backpacking. Multi-stop holidays are very common and the question is whether Rail can get more from that market.

 

[CBlue]

I think it’s more prevalent than you think. My thinking is more aligned to those who are happy to go backpacking. Multi-stop holidays are very common and the question is whether Rail can get more from that market.

I think the trouble here is that a sleeper service would need full mass-market appeal to stack up financially. Backpackers are often travelling on a tighter budget, no? Certainly my brother and my sister-in-law were doing so when they backpacked around Europe using cheap advance purchase tickets.

How are any (likely expensive) fares covering the costs of operation with a sleeper going to appeal to backpackers?

 

[BigCj34]

I think the trouble here is that a sleeper service would need full mass-market appeal to stack up financially. Backpackers are often travelling on a tighter budget, no? Certainly my brother and my sister-in-law were doing so when they backpacked around Europe using cheap advance purchase tickets.

How are any (likely expensive) fares covering the costs of operation with a sleeper going to appeal to backpackers?

If there are seats on the night train it might appeal! After all the CS has seats for those who need to travel on the cheap.

 

[Bald Rick]

If there are seats on the night train it might appeal! After all the CS has seats for those who need to travel on the cheap.

And in normal times, each seated passenger is subsidised to the tune of £100+ each...

 

[Journeyman]

And in normal times, each seated passenger is subsidised to the tune of £100+ each...

People don't seem to understand that Caledonian Sleeper makes absolutely no financial sense, and it's nowhere near as green as daytime trains due to the load factors. It only survives because axing it would cause outrage, and no-one wants to deal with the political fallout.

 

[43096]

I think it’s more prevalent than you think. My thinking is more aligned to those who are happy to go backpacking. Multi-stop holidays are very common and the question is whether Rail can get more from that market.

I notice you're not quoting evidence of any of this. Indeed, the first two words of what I've quoted are probably a giveaway.

 

[Tobbes]

I like sleeper trains. I would be delighted to have post-COVID NightJet service from London to Vienna, or from conventional sleeper from London to Rome.

There is no way that this would ever be commercially viable without large subsidies or taxing short-haul flying out of existence (ie, London - Rome at £500 each way).

As neither of these things is going to happen, enjoy the sleepers we have for as long as we have them.

 

[BigCj34]

And in normal times, each seated passenger is subsidised to the tune of £100+ each..

No-one is saying they print money, but budhet travel is what they are there for. I I would be intrigued to know if they are even more loss making than the sleeper cabins. I know the Australian Indian Pacific trains axed their seated services a few years ago due to a reduction in subsidy.

 

[Bald Rick]

There is no way that this would ever be commercially viable without large subsidies or taxing short-haul flying out of existence (ie, London - Rome at £500 each way).

Given the choice of a £500 flight to Rome, or a £500 sleeper, the market would collapse, and a majority of those remaining would still fly. The day train would become more popular though.

No-one is saying they print money, but budhet travel is what they are there for. I I would be intrigued to know if they are even more loss making than the sleeper cabins. I know the Australian Indian Pacific trains axed their seated services a few years ago due to a reduction in subsidy.

There’s no way, really, of disaggregating it. Every passenger who uses the Caledonian Sleeper is subsidised by government by over £100. That includes those who use the seats for only part of the journey.

 

[FQTV]

Given the choice of a £500 flight to Rome, or a £500 sleeper, the market would collapse, and a majority of those remaining would still fly. The day train would become more popular though.




There’s no way, really, of disaggregating it. Every passenger who uses the Caledonian Sleeper is subsidised by government by over £100. That includes those who use the seats for only part of the journey.

With apologies for possibly taking this a little OT, the reality is that a flight to Rome from the UK does actually cost not far off £500.

It’s a function of the way that aviation is funded/marketed/taxed/subsidised/supported/regulated/capacity controlled (pick your combination) that ends up with the fare structures and ancillary cost frameworks that have become apparently quickly and readily accepted with air travel.

 

[Bald Rick]

With apologies for possibly taking this a little OT, the reality is that a flight to Rome from the UK does actually cost not far off £500.

I’m not sure I understand that. Presumably you don’t mean cost to the passenger. I can fly this weekend for under £70, and next spring for under £30.

 

[CptCharlee]

I'd love a Plymouth to Edinburgh sleeper

 

[Journeyman]

I'd love a Plymouth to Edinburgh sleeper

It'll never happen. As has already been repeatedly stated, in the past it ran mainly for the benefit of military personnel travelling from Plymouth to Rosyth Docks. The latter has long since gone, and the customers went with it.

 

[Bald Rick]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Nov 2020 ==

I'd love a Plymouth to Edinburgh sleeper

How often would you use it at, say, £200 a go?

 

[BigCj34]

Popping over the Rome for a weekend is the kind of travel we just don't need to be doing. Bucket lists are a bit toxic, and thesd cities are better experienced for a longer time period or as part of a Eurotrip. We have to question why we need to go to all these places in a short space of time. Impressing people on social media, keeping up with the Jones's and not enough time to properly enjoy places are probably factors.

The world will get bigger but cheap flights cannot last. I remember booking to go Copenhagen for £30 return and not having to take any time off work for the weekend, thinking that could not last. Probably true.

 

[Bald Rick]

Impressing people on social media, keeping up with the Jones's and not enough time to properly enjoy places are probably factors.

Seeing you family...

 

[FQTV]

I’m not sure I understand that. Presumably you don’t mean cost to the passenger. I can fly this weekend for under £70, and next spring for under £30.

That’s right. It’s a little bit like the real meaning of ‘low cost airline’.

It doesn’t mean guaranteed low cost to the passenger; it simply means that the airline’s costs are lower than might be the case for competitors.

It’s instructive to apply for a charter cost for a given route. This tends to take on all the actual costs for the particular rotation, plus a margin, of course.

By comparison, the headline ‘fare’ offered by many airlines is little more than a marketing hook.

In the current operating environment, there’s also the frantic need to get cash in, and then hang on to it either by restricting refunds or issuing vouchers, which is pushing fares down for flights that have only a vague possibility of operating.

More generically, for certain airline models, there are (for example) fast track security fees, lounge access commissions, boarding priority fees, seat selection fees, baggage fees, flight change fees, name change fees, on board sales revenues, accommodation commissions, car rental commissions and, to a far greater extent even than network airlines, no-shows and over sales.

For a number of new airlines, when you relate that revenue cocktail to very/artificially low finance costs; airport, local authority and government subsidy; limited employee rights and benefits, along with the generic environment of zero fuel duties, zero VAT etc., it’s possible to divine that revenues sometimes bear only scant relation to fares, and similarly to costs.

As an example, the likelihood of people in recent months having paid Ryanair (and their ilk) more in change fees than it would actually have cost to simply buy a new ticket on their revised dates is simply staggering.

So, in those scenarios, you’ve had people potentially paying up to EUR235 to change a flight which might have cost anything between EUR1 and EUR500 in the first place, to one which was then on sale for as little as EUR10.

Add that kind of thing up, and it happens to a lesser extent in normal times and is an inherent part of the business model, and a better idea of revenues is arrived at.

I don’t think that there’s a network railway operator in the world that ‘works’ revenues, let alone costs, in this way.

 

[BigCj34]

Seeing you family...

Probably explains cheap flights to Wroclaw more than Rome! Though I'm sure Wroclaw is nice.

 

[Ianno87]

Probably explains cheap flights to Wroclaw more than Rome! Though I'm sure Wroclaw is nice.

I recall a former Spanish colleague telling me that she spent less money on a flight home to see her parents for the weekend than it would cost for a weekend staying in London meeting friends etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As an example, the likelihood of people in recent months having paid Ryanair (and their ilk) more in change fees than it would actually have cost to simply buy a new ticket on their revised dates is simply staggering.

That is rather a "stupidity tax", or perhaps more "laziness tax". Anyone with any sense who is changing a flight finds out the cost, then researches if a new flight with that or another airline is cheaper before doing it.

Actually, a lot of fees on budget airlines are stupidity/laziness taxes, not just that one. For example charges for not printing your boarding pass. And a lot of other things - private parking enforcement's entire business model is primarily a stupidity/laziness tax, and would go away if people just bothered to read the notices and comply strictly to the letter.

 

[xotGD]

I'd love a Plymouth to Edinburgh sleeper

A Transit van with a couple of mattresses in the back would probably be enough to meet the demand.

 

[FQTV]

That is rather a "stupidity tax", or perhaps more "laziness tax". Anyone with any sense who is changing a flight finds out the cost, then researches if a new flight with that or another airline is cheaper before doing it.

Actually, a lot of fees on budget airlines are stupidity/laziness taxes, not just that one. For example charges for not printing your boarding pass. And a lot of other things - private parking enforcement's entire business model is primarily a stupidity/laziness tax, and would go away if people just bothered to read the notices and comply strictly to the letter.

The point is that it's a fundamental part of the business model, and a definable revenue stream to the operator but not to the customer - as are no-shows and oversales.

If you asked every single passenger on a given flight what 'fare' they'd paid to be on it, the aggregate amount would still only be a fraction of the revenue accrued by the operator.