Caledonian sleeper speculative improvements

[Trainbike46]

The Riviera seats are a type not used elsewhere in the UK but are near identical to the new Pendolino ones in terms of shape and "wings".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2022 ==



It's a step above a road coach, reflecting it being more expensive than one. If you seated it to 2+2 it wouldn't be.

I'll give you that the Fort William is a unique thing, but on the Lowlander why would you pay CS about £50 when Megabus only wants 20 quid tonight (even cheaper in advance no doubt) for the same quality of accommodation? Or better quality, if the 2+2 seats didn't recline?

While sharing a cabin with a stranger (when it was allowed) was something I'd consider, I don't really want to spend a night half asleep in a seat right next to a stranger, and when I use the seats I always aim to get one of the single ones. The paired ones are fine for people travelling together, and maybe some people who aren't bothered. The 2+1 arrangement gives the best chance of a variety of people getting what they want and also provides an advantage over the bus alternatives.

Continuing on from the Caledonian Sleeper thread, because I was drifting a bit too far into speculative territory I think. https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/caledonian-sleeper.176365/page-446

That is a good point. I wish there was a way to increase capacity (preferably without massively increasing costs at the same time), because they do book up regularly. Ideal of course would be if we went from the current 2 trains per direction per day to 3, but that would also increase costs a lot (as more staff and stock required).

A way to increase capacity without increasing costs too much might be to, if the sleeper get reintegrated with Scotrail, use the seated carriages and locos for services within scotland during the day, and then buy enough extra stock to run 3 daily services, without making people from Fort William change between coaches in Edinburgh. Though this may introduce more issues than it solves, you could potentially use them to run Inverness-Aberdeen services (assuming you'd get 2 seated carriages in Inverness, as well as 1 in Aberdeen, plus you could also use the bar coach).

 

[JonathanH]

Though this may introduce more issues than it solves, you could potentially use them to run Inverness-Aberdeen services (assuming you'd get 2 seated carriages in Inverness, as well as 1 in Aberdeen, plus you could also use the bar coach).

The seated coach has such low capacity though that there isn't much meaningful you can really do with it (or even two of them).

The Night Riviera coaches were reseated with rigid 2+2 seating effectively to increase daytime capacity. Not particularly conducive for sleeping even if you get a pair of seats to yourself.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Night Riviera coaches were reseated with rigid 2+2 seating effectively to increase daytime capacity. Not particularly conducive for sleeping even if you get a pair of seats to yourself.

I quite liked curling up on a pair with my bag as a pillow, to be honest. No good if all are taken though, and no reason to pay £50 odd over the £20 Megabus wants in that case.

 

[mike57]

Would a solution be something more like the Russian Platzkart carriages as the low cost option. What could be fitted within the UK loading gauge? Yes it would be cramped, open bunks, but better horizontal instead of reclining seats in a traditional carriage, more conducive to a getting some sleep. Is there anything that could be converted?

 

[Trainbike46]

Would a solution be something more like the Russian Platzkart carriages as the low cost option. What could be fitted within the UK loading gauge? Yes it would be cramped, open bunks, but better horizontal instead of reclining seats in a traditional carriage, more conducive to a getting some sleep. Is there anything that could be converted?

that seems unlikely - as the main reason we can't have 6-bed couchettes is that it simply wouldn't fit in the UK loading gauge. And the Russian loading gauge is very large, larger than most other european ones even

 

[Bletchleyite]

that seems unlikely - as the main reason we can't have 6-bed couchettes is that it simply wouldn't fit in the UK loading gauge. And the Russian loading gauge is very large, larger than most other european ones even

You could do 3-high couchettes - Megabus did it on a high floor coach originally which has less vertical height. However they'd be tight and the bottom one basically on the floor.

 

[Trainbike46]

The seated coach has such low capacity though that there isn't much meaningful you can really do with it (or even two of them).

The Night Riviera coaches were reseated with rigid 2+2 seating effectively to increase daytime capacity. Not particularly conducive for sleeping even if you get a pair of seats to yourself.

I did make the suggestion of switching to 2+2 in the caledonian sleeper thread!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I did make the suggestion of switching to 2+2 in the caledonian sleeper thread!

A full 2+2 coach would be horrible, and no reason to pay £50+ to CS for that when the same in a Megabus is £20. The Riviera is tolerable as you can have a pair of seats to yourself as it's so lightly loaded.

 

[Trainbike46]

You could do 3-high couchettes - Megabus did it on a high floor coach originally which has less vertical height. However they'd be tight and the bottom one basically on the floor.

Then why don't we have some 6-bed couchettes for booking single beds in?

one of the advantage of 6-bed couchettes is that you have basically the same capacity as a 2+1 seated arrangement, but you get to lie down (so better comfort)

 

[JonathanH]

I did make the suggestion of switching to 2+2 in the caledonian sleeper thread!

Yes, and that compromises the use of the trains for overnight travel, even more than the current lack of a generous level of recline.

 

[mike57]

You could do 3-high couchettes - Megabus did it on a high floor coach originally which has less vertical height. However they'd be tight and the bottom one basically on the floor.

It boils down to would you rather be 'tight' but laid out or sat in a chair. Probably to keep cost down dont provide a cover or pillow, you bring your own/use your coat. 8 groups of 6 would be 48 per carriage which doesn't seem too bad. If I were travelling on a budget I would rather have 'couchettes' than seats for an overnight journey. Sleep with your head away from the corridor and you wont get as much disturbance with people going past.

 

[BRX]

I travelled once or twice in these Talgo type DB Intercitynight couchette carriages. They seem a little obscure as it's hard to find much info on them, but I liked this design because it allowed a relatively dense layout and a couchette type arrangement that I think feels safer for single travellers (because no-one is shut in a compartment with strangers; all berths open to the central corridor. I'd have loved the CS to have something like this. Some decisions would have to be made about when to switch from seating to bunk - maybe it could simply be a bunk only version.

Talgo Liegewagen / couchette 360 Panorama | 360Cities

360° panorama photo from Munich by Willy Kaemena. German Railways introduced these night Talgo trains 1994 for unknown reasons the service was r...

www.360cities.net

Alternatively there is this Japanese approach:

 

[mike57]

Alternatively there is this Japanese approach:

How are the bunks arranged, two high by the looks of it, but are they across the carriage? Looks like a side corridor. That is the sort of thing I had in mind as a low cost open option that's better than seats. Am I right in saying Japanese 3ft6in gauge loading gauge is similar to the UK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The DB one is longitudinal which is a non starter due to the neck injury risk.

 

[BRX]

I don't now recall whether the neck injury risk was ever backed up by any evidence. That is, what's most likely to injure people in a train crash: sudden longitudinal deceleration or things like overturning or sudden movements sideways?

 

[XAM2175]

I don't now recall whether the neck injury risk was ever backed up by any evidence.

And it's only in the UK that I've ever seen it even suggested.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would have thought it pretty obvious that rapid deceleration onto the head would cause injury.

On the old Megabus sleeper they did plenty of checking that people were the right way round.

 

[BRX]

I would have thought it pretty obvious that rapid deceleration onto the head would cause injury.

On the old Megabus sleeper they did plenty of checking that people were the right way round.

The risks on buses are different though. Hence coaches have seatbelts and trains don't.

 

[XAM2175]

I would have thought it pretty obvious that rapid deceleration onto the head would cause injury.

My comment was on the apparent perception of the risk, not the risk itself.

 

[HSTEd]

The primary limitation, as far as I can see, is the need for huge numbers of crew per passenger moved, and the only way to reduce that problem is to do something like make the trains longer.
Not really much way of doing that - I can't imagine its really practical to have more platforms full of sleeper stock at the termini, even if it is the evening - and the shunts would be a pain.

Although a Class 92 can obviously handle a formation much longer than the current one and still keep to time.

 

[popeter45]

My comment was on the apparent perception of the risk, not the risk itself.

i belive the new nightjet trains have longitudinal beds so seems on the continent they dont precive it as much of a risk

https://twitter.com/seatsixtyone/status/1567106294376456200

 

[Bletchleyite]

i belive the new nightjet trains have longitudinal beds so seems on the continent they dont precive it as much of a risk

https://twitter.com/seatsixtyone/status/1567106294376456200

How many reversals (if any) take place on Nightjet's network?

It wouldn't be the only thing where mainland Europe operated much lower safety standards than the UK, though.

 

[43096]

How many reversals (if any) take place on Nightjet's network?

Plenty.

 

[popeter45]

How many reversals (if any) take place on Nightjet's network?

It wouldn't be the only thing where mainland Europe operated much lower safety standards than the UK, though.

quite a few in fact!
the Basal-Hamburg route i took in the summer reversed twice, once at frankfurt and again at Hildesheim

 

[BRX]

How many reversals (if any) take place on Nightjet's network?

It wouldn't be the only thing where mainland Europe operated much lower safety standards than the UK, though.

What does "much lower" mean in this case though, without any idea of how great the risk is in the first place, and without balancing it against the risks of alternative arrangements? For example, risks of being thrown off a top bunk sideways, or the relative risk of injury in a bus accident if the decision results in the sleeper being unable to offer something competitive with coach travel?

 

[30907]

Plenty.

At least one on the Italian routes which will get the first new sets.
Not sure about the former Spanish (and German) Talgo sets.

But it may be that the risk to someone horizontal is different from the risk to someone in a not fully horizontal sleeper-seat which I believe was a possibility for CS.

 

[Trainbike46]

A different layour within the units is only really relevant if it can increase capacity or comfort, or ideally both. Neither of those require lay-flat options in the direction of travel. Things like the japanese example, or 6-berth couchettes could potentially do that, without requiring anyone laying down in the direction of travel.

a 6-berth couchette has basically the same density as 3+0 (or 2+1) seating, so if you can make it work it would be a quality uplift without reducing capacity over the seats

My suggestion for 2+2 seats was based on the same idea; you could fit more seats in, leading to higher capacity and higher fare take, but that has the disadvantage of reducing comfort, making competing with the overnight coaches harder.

I think my favourite improvement is still going to running 3 trains per direction per day:
one lowlander (edinburgh + glasgow)
one Inverness + Aberdeen
one Inverness + Fort William + Oban

As you would need extra stock, I would shuffle things around so that you would have a new 6-berth couchette in every portion (except possibly the fort william and oban sections)

But obviously that would require extra stock and cause extra costs

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because of its popularity with outdoor enthusiasts who are notoriously tight (but may not want a seat) couchettes would be more suited to FW, not less.

 

[popeter45]

A different layour within the units is only really relevant if it can increase capacity or comfort, or ideally both. Neither of those require lay-flat options in the direction of travel. Things like the japanese example, or 6-berth couchettes could potentially do that, without requiring anyone laying down in the direction of travel.

a 6-berth couchette has basically the same density as 3+0 (or 2+1) seating, so if you can make it work it would be a quality uplift without reducing capacity over the seats

My suggestion for 2+2 seats was based on the same idea; you could fit more seats in, leading to higher capacity and higher fare take, but that has the disadvantage of reducing comfort, making competing with the overnight coaches harder.

I think my favourite improvement is still going to running 3 trains per direction per day:
one lowlander (edinburgh + glasgow)
one Inverness + Aberdeen
one Inverness + Fort William + Oban

As you would need extra stock, I would shuffle things around so that you would have a new 6-berth couchette in every portion (except possibly the fort william and oban sections)

But obviously that would require extra stock and cause extra costs

one offset of extra stock is if a few where Mark5A style Driving trailers with or without a thru corridor, could help save alot with removing the need for extra locomotives and reduce extra movment paths

 

[Trainbike46]

Because of its popularity with outdoor enthusiasts who are notoriously tight (but may not want a seat) couchettes would be more suited to FW, not less.

Good point. The reason I partially excluded the Fort William/Oban trains is simply because they would be shorter than the Inverness/Aberdeen/Glasgow/Edinburgh sections