Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
High speed rail might be able to beat the jets for Europe, but overnight sleeper trains have no chance - they just can't move enough people to be economic, and in any case can't really use high speed lines in Europe.
Fischer Tropsch fuel synthesis has been in industrial-scale operation since about 1940. As I said before, it predates the arrival of practical jet aircraft.
Leaving aside that wind and solar panels do not self-multiply and have to be built, if we have near unlimited energy then we can just eat the inefficiencies of going electricity-hydrogen-fischer tropsch kerosene-aircraft.
Are clean aircraft available today, tomorrow or within the next 10 years? It does not seem so. Now you may have the magic formula up your sleeve and haven’t told anyone, but it seems unlikely!
Even with today's electricity it is about an 80% saving and this will increase further with time.
The calculations from my PhD put the electricity gCO2/kWh for zero saving at over 700g/kWh.
UK electricity is now about 160g/kWh and falling rapidly.
Well.... business people would just travel in the normal seats with everyone else?
The average age of airliners is pretty young compared to trains (~11.6 years globally), so you wouldn't have to retrofit airliners to remove the windows.
It's hard to get good figures but most outline studies suggest fuel savings of ~30% or so from eliminating the windows.
There’s no need to imply bad faith if the argument doesn’t suit your objective. I’m not sure how and why my suggestion to literally double existing taxes is somehow proof of a selfish or bad faith position.
You could start by taxing fuel, but it should be noted that the exemption on aviation fuel tax is subject to a global treaty and cannot be solved locally without withdrawing unilaterally. I think I should note that unlike the progressive tax or quota system, that would be a measure which would affect everyone equally as airlines built that into the price of tickets. That’s at least an easy, neat and fair way of making air passengers compensate for their externalities, and would mean that of course the more you fly, the more tax you pay. That’s exactly what we do with fuel for cars at the moment. You want to drive 10 times as much as I do? You’ll pay 10x more in fuel duty. And if you drive a bigger car, you’ll pay even more than that as it’ll be less efficient.
Unfortunately this thread has sort of run a course where the significant barriers involved in just crayoning a whole load of sleeper trains and somehow hoping people all ride sleepers have become quite apparent, and now we are at the stage where we are thinking how to force people onto them.
There’s no need to imply bad faith if the argument doesn’t suit your objective. I’m not sure how and why my suggestion to literally double existing taxes is somehow proof of a selfish or bad faith position.
You could start by taxing fuel, but it should be noted that the exemption on aviation fuel tax is subject to a global treaty and cannot be solved locally without withdrawing unilaterally. I think I should note that unlike the progressive tax or quota system, that would be a measure which would affect everyone equally as airlines built that into the price of tickets. That’s at least an easy, neat and fair way of making air passengers compensate for their externalities, and would mean that of course the more you fly, the more tax you pay. That’s exactly what we do with fuel for cars at the moment. You want to drive 10 times as much as I do? You’ll pay 10x more in fuel duty. And if you drive a bigger car, you’ll pay even more than that as it’ll be less efficient.
Unfortunately this thread has sort of run a course where the significant barriers involved in just crayoning a whole load of sleeper trains and somehow hoping people all ride sleepers have become quite apparent, and now we are at the stage where we are thinking how to force people onto them.
Strictly speaking, that doesn’t prevent taxing aviation fuel. What it does prevent is taxing any fuel already on the aircraft as it enters the country.
So the UK could unilaterally start taxing fuel, but the airlines would very quickly start fuelling their aircraft abroad, potentially even flying further to arrange that. Which would be completely opposite to the intended purpose.
It is akin to this, as you have realised that there are plenty of reasons why quite specifically sleeper trains aren’t the solution to this, and are now suggesting “stick” instead of carrot methods to bolster your argument that everyone should be on sleeper trains.
If you continue to accuse me of bad faith or bias I will not engage with you further. I have not suggested you are biased or forming arguments out of bad faith and I expect the same courtesy.
Well yes, is it necessary to travel internationally for holiday or visiting family more than once per year or once every two years? (and internationally is not necessarily the operative word here, it is the length of journey). We only do so much flying because it is available at a certain price. Realistically, price can only be the way to ration travel. The affluent people can afford to do more than the not so affluent, but that is true for anything. It is an incentive to work smarter, take the right choices and become affluent, if you aren't already. (and lets not get sidetracked here). The extra revenue raised by making flying more expensive can be used to improve things generally back home. I don't think trying to replicate existing travel patterns by subsidising a much more expensive means of travel is sensible, or necessary. Uncomfortable as it may be seen.
Go to Greece/Spain/Portugal by air or train for six weeks, once every three years.
That is a big presumption. And with respect I think you are overstating the imbalance.
1. If aviation fuel was taxed similarly to car fuel it would add more than 50% to airline fuel overheads.
2. If environmentalists get their way we should over-tax flying. It does make sense as it’s highly polluting. If aviation fuel tax was at 60-70% we’d reverse the current imbalance towards trains surely.
3. Rail infrastructure is largely in place. Yes there are maintenance costs but there are with plane checks too. I think people overstate this cost. It is not like all rail has to be built from scratch now.
The cost of maintaining rail infrastructure over its entire length is huge.
As a rule of thumb, more than three-quarters of the infrastructure costs are time related and do not depend on the number of trains being run. Just looking at the rails, they have to be maintained to millimetre accuracy in terms of gauge, twist, cant and several other parameters for their entire length, 1000km or more for the journeys you are proposing in spite of ground movements due to rain or drought.
Even if no trains were run the system has to be kept in good shape in case they were run then the signalling has to be maintained in good order and checked, the drains have to be kept clear, the state of the bridges, tunnels and viaducts have to be examined and repaired as necessary, the stations have to be painted as the weather affects them, any flooding or landslips have to be cleared away and so on and so forth.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Absolutely. The confines of rail systems are prohibitive. Yet there is an amazing infrastructure in place today. With investment and will it can be improved still.
The cost of maintaining rail infrastructure over its entire length in huge.
As a rule of thumb, more than three-quarters of the infrastructure costs are time related and do not depend on the number of trains being run. Just looking at the rails, they have to be maintained to millimetre accuracy in terms of gauge, twist, cant and several other parameters for their entire length, 1000km or more for the journeys you are proposing in spite of ground movements due to rain or drought.
Even if no trains were run the system has to be kept in good shape in case they were run then the signalling has to be maintained in good order and checked, the drains have to be kept clear, the state of the bridges, tunnels and viaducts have to be examined and repaired as necessary, the stations have to be painted as the weather affects them, any flooding or landslips have to be cleared away and so on and so forth.
You know far more than me and I bow to your greater knowledge. But isn’t this infrastructure being used for other services? With the maintenance cost diluted and shared with many other train services? Adding more use to the infrastructure only aids efficiency and cost reduction.
2. If environmentalists get their way we should over-tax flying. It does make sense as it’s highly polluting. If aviation fuel tax was at 60-70% we’d reverse the current imbalance towards trains surely.
If aviation fuel was taxed at the same rate as road fuel (duty at 53p/ litre + VAT)*, the average flight from the UK to europe would cost the airlines about £3000 more each way. At average occupancy rates on an average plane (80%, A320) that equates to around an extra £20 per person one way. That is not going to change the balance in any significant way. *This would be equivalent to a tax rate somewhat north of 100%.
You know far more than me and I bow to your greater knowledge. But isn’t this infrastructure being used for other services? With the maintenance cost diluted and shared with many other train services? Adding more use to the infrastructure only aids efficiency and cost reduction.
The point is that most maintenance is done at night. Running lots of extra trains at night causes the costs to increase - potentially significantly - as the work has to be done much less efficiently in shorter time windows.
Perhaps the main point, that no one has mentioned yet, is this. We know that sleeper trains are very inefficient people movers compared to day trains, in terms of staffing, material, and energy. We also know that sleeper trains usually lose money, and lots of it, and need Government support. Finally, we know that when presented with a choice of relatively quick day train or slower sleeper train, passengers overwhelmingly choose the day train. Therefore if the objective of running more sleeper trains is to reduce carbon emissions through improving rail services to attract those who fly, then Governments will get far more for their money - potentially an order of magnitude more - by providing improved day services over sleepers. I also surmise that Goverments would get far more value for money by investing in other carbon reduction schemes, from power generation subsidies, carbon capture, energy efficiency subsidies, industrial decarbonisation, and, yes, transport decarbonisation of other modes. Sleepers will be a long, long way diwn the list.
You know far more than me and I bow to your greater knowledge. But isn’t this infrastructure being used for other services? With the maintenance cost diluted and shared with many other train services? Adding more use to the infrastructure only aids efficiency and cost reduction.
Network Rail's operating expenditure (maintenance, renewal and operations) was around £7.5 billion in 2023-24 (look it up!) This covers the operation of all trains as well as the half a dozen sleeper trains each night.
Even if you added another couple of dozen sleeper trains the change in the cost/train will not vary very much - don't forget, some 75% to 80% of infrastructure costs are 'fixed' anyway.
Your concern for the environment is appreciated - but air travel is a small contributor to pollution compared to other industries and activities, like washing and showering in warm water in a warm house. Anyway, most aircraft emissions occur near the ground at take-off and not high up at cruising altitude.
And I don't share your enthusiasm for sleepers - once or twice for the experience or if there was no reasonable alternative yes but as for reaching the end of the journey well rested, no. And 'no' again. And over the years I have travelled Oostende - Ulm and Oostende - München (The Tauern Express), Augsburg-Hamburg, Turino-Roma (the latter in a sleeping car built by FIAT with a compartment so narrow I could only turn round by backing out into the corridor...!) and Paris - Berlin among others. If sleeper travel is to be relaxing then the entire suspension design has to be looked at, possibly by using some form of active suspension, the 'attraction' of sleeper travel has little to do with being pampered.
How did the service lose so much
money then? Was the business so badly run that even with 90% occupancy they lost money.
Anyone entering this venture has a biz plan etc. if you’re getting 90% full and losing money hand over fist, something has gone very wrong with the company management.
If aviation fuel was taxed at the same rate as road fuel (duty at 53p/ litre + VAT)*, the average flight from the UK to europe would cost the airlines about £3000 more each way. At average occupancy rates on an average plane (80%, A320) that equates to around an extra £20 per person one way. That is not going to change the balance in any significant way. *This would be equivalent to a tax rate somewhat north of 100%.
The point is that most maintenance is done at night. Running lots of extra trains at night causes the costs to increase - potentially significantly - as the work has to be done much less efficiently in shorter time windows.
Perhaps the main point, that no one has mentioned yet, is this. We know that sleeper trains are very inefficient people movers compared to day trains, in terms of staffing, material, and energy. We also know that sleeper trains usually lose money, and lots of it, and need Government support. Finally, we know that when presented with a choice of relatively quick day train or slower sleeper train, passengers overwhelmingly choose the day train.
Therefore if the objective of running more sleeper trains is to reduce carbon emissions through improving rail services to attract those who fly, then Governments will get far more for their money - potentially an order of magnitude more - by providing improved day services over sleepers.
Forgive my confusion. You seemed to be arguing that sleeper travel can not touch the sides of flight demand. Now you’re suggesting it should?
Doesn’t the truth lie somewhere in between? That long distance train services can make a dent on short distance flights. And this would be a good start to cutting aviation pollution.
If you get the levels of taxation that would be nessecary for Net zero absent some big technological advances, international travel is likely to go the way it was back in the 50s, only something for quite wealthy and an impossible dream for most. Not a bunch of sleepers replacing air travel one for one
Network Rail's operating expenditure (maintenance, renewal and operations) was around £7.5 billion in 2023-24 (look it up!) This covers the operation of all trains as well as the half a dozen sleeper trains each night.
Even if you added another couple of dozen sleeper trains the change in the cost/train will not vary very much - don't forget, some 75% to 80% of infrastructure costs are 'fixed' anyway.
Your concern for the environment is appreciated - but air travel is a small contributor to pollution compared to other industries and activities, like washing and showering in warm water in a warm house. Anyway, most aircraft emissions occur near the ground at take-off and not high up at cruising altitude.
Not sure about this at all. Flying is one of the most carbon intensive activities. The only reason flying isn’t worse is that most people in the world do not fly (circa 10% do). As incomes rise in Asia, Africa etc this will change. And so
must we.
And I don't share your enthusiasm for sleepers - once or twice for the experience or if there was no reasonable alternative yes but as for reaching the end of the journey well rested, no. And 'no' again. And over the years I have travelled Oostende - Ulm and Oostende - München (The Tauern Express), Augsburg-Hamburg, Turino-Roma (the latter in a sleeping car built by FIAT with a compartment so narrow I could only turn round by backing out into the corridor...!)
and Paris - Berlin among others. If sleeper travel is to be relaxing then the entire suspension design has to be looked at, possibly by using some form of active suspension, the 'attraction' of sleeper travel has little to do with being pampered.
I was amazed recently how much the Cornish sleeper lent into the bends. I only felt it in the corridor, and not in bed. I remember when this became the norm on intercity trains. I am not usually a heavy sleeper. But for some reason I seem to sleep well on trains and find them cosy. Active damping could certainly alter the ride. I’m also fascinated by how trains might be made lighter and more efficient. Has anyone built a carbon carriage for testing？
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If you get the levels of taxation that would be nessecary for Net zero absent some big technological advances, international travel is likely to go the way it was back in the 50s, only something for quite wealthy and an impossible dream for most. Not a bunch of sleepers replacing air travel one for one
How did the service lose so much
money then? Was the business so badly run that even with 90% occupancy they lost money.
Anyone entering this venture has a biz plan etc. if you’re getting 90% full and losing money hand over fist, something has gone very wrong with the company management.
How many sleeper services are there in mainland Europe? Given that there are very many hundreds of day trains on routes of 7h+ and comparatively few sleepers (50? 75? daily - carrying vastly fewer passengers too as they're in beds not seats), it seems fairly obvious there is only niche demand. It's up to you to evidence the demand, given the status quo. I do not think that without a complete rethink of how sleepers are marketed and the sorts of services they offer, there is a huge amount of untapped demand. You can have this opinion from someone who has about 10 million views on Youtube of railway trips, and sleeper trains. "Not for me because X, Y, Z" is a very common comment/email/tweet I get - it really isn't for most people as it has the aesthetics of hostelling or 1* hotel stays, at least in their opinion.
@Bald Rick has explained how sleeper trains are operationally inflexible and a very inefficient use of track assets and coaching stock, not to mention staffing, supplies, laundry, etc. if you want to decarbonise travel, you really need to be providing more day trains - which carry vastly more people and don't have the stock sitting dead and doing nothing for upwards of 12 hours a day.
Sleeper services are ruinously expensive to run. Caledonian Sleeper loses millions each year and that's a service which just charged me £260 (with a railcard!) to go to Scotland in two weeks. Most sleeper trains are heavily subsidised and do not make a profit.
When you bid for a franchise you work out overheads and incomes and build a model with occupancy rates. Or at least any competent operator does. From what people have outlined here this service is particularly expensive. Idk how Serco were spending the revenue but clearly it was going somewhere. Other sleeper operators in Europe seem to do well charging a lot less. So something is amiss here I suspect.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
How many sleeper services are there in mainland Europe? Given that there are very many hundreds of day trains on routes of 7h+ and comparatively few sleepers (50? 75? daily - carrying vastly fewer passengers too as they're in beds not seats), it seems fairly obvious there is only niche demand. It's up to you to evidence the demand,
given the status quo. I do not think that without a complete rethink of how sleepers are marketed and the sorts of services they offer, there is a huge amount of untapped demand. You can have this opinion from someone who has about 10 million views on Youtube of railway trips, and sleeper trains. "Not for me because X, Y, Z" is a very common comment/email/tweet I get - it really isn't for most people as it has the aesthetics of hostelling or 1* hotel stays, at least in their opinion.
@Bald Rick has explained how sleeper trains are operationally inflexible and a very inefficient use of track assets and coaching stock, not to mention staffing, supplies, laundry, etc. if you want to decarbonise travel, you really need to be providing more day trains - which carry vastly more people and don't have the stock sitting dead and doing nothing for upwards of 12 hours a day.
Sleeper services are ruinously expensive to run. Caledonian Sleeper loses millions each year and that's a service which just charged me £260 (with a railcard!) to go to Scotland in two weeks. Most sleeper trains are heavily subsidised and do not make a profit.
No doubt they are expensive. But let’s hope there is a way to develop a UK-Continental service. I’m sure you’ll be the first to get a ticket and show the world should it ever happen. Love your content, all the best producing it. That technologically we could run sleeper services to the South of France now, just makes it all the more frustrating. Politics, immigration concerns the greatest barriers. I don’t personally believe economics is necessarily the greatest barrier as OBB are demonstrating. Do you think a service from London to the south of France would be unpopular? Of course not. It would be booked up months in advance. Overheads are high, but it wouldn’t lose money. And it would enrich many people’s lives and offer an alternative to spewing out gasses into the atmosphere.
Now try me after ÖBB - the largest sleeper operator in Europe - decided in 2023 it was not a wise use of subsidy to pay people to take the Nightjet - and fares skyrocketed, by up to 500% in many cases.
Sleeper demand is definitely there - but not at the extent you think it is, and not the sort of conversion demand (plane+hotel to train) you’d be wanting to achieve the carbon goals. Which, in any case, are better served by increased capacity on day trains.
No doubt they are expensive. But let’s hope there is a way to develop a UK-Continental service. I’m sure you’ll be the first to get a ticket and show the world should it ever happen. Love your content, all the best producing it. That technologically we could run sleeper services to the South of France now, just makes it all the more frustrating. Politics, immigration concerns the greatest barriers. I don’t personally believe economics is necessarily the greatest barrier as OBB are demonstrating. Do you think a service from London to the south of France would be unpopular? Of course not. It would be booked up months in advance. Overheads are high, but it wouldn’t lose money.
Sorry but no, it would lose money. You’d need to subsidise it instead. It would need dedicated and expensive stock compliant with the Channel Tunnel, and it would need bilingual staff. For that market it would likely need to be a higher spec train. You’d need to make sure people could shower on board. It would need catering. It would be very expensive to run indeed.
How much do you think it should cost for two people to take a sleeper train from London to Nice? And who is taking it? Then we have to decide whether and how much to subsidise it, above, say, 1000+seat high speed trains. And you’d need to figure out whether the demand for it is taking people off their £50 flights, or actually creating entirely new demand from people who just like taking the train - which wouldn’t really affect modal shift.
When you bid for a franchise you work out overheads and incomes and build a model with occupancy rates. Or at least any competent operator does. From what people have outlined here this service is particularly expensive. Idk how Serco were spending the revenue but clearly it was going somewhere. Other sleeper operators in Europe seem to do well charging a lot less. So something is amiss here I suspect.
A small order of brand new essentially bespoke rolling stock, COVID hitting as soon as it was introduced and a huge rise in fuel costs and interest rates. The fare income comes nowhere near to covering the fixed, base expenses.
Do you think a service from London to the south of France would be unpopular? Of course not. It would be booked up months in advance. Overheads are high, but it wouldn’t lose money.
Seeing as you're as asking others for evidence, what basis are you using for your statements here? Can you back up, factually, why and how this hypothetical service would make money?
A small order of brand new essentially bespoke rolling stock, COVID hitting as soon as it was introduced and a huge rise in fuel costs and interest rates. The fare income comes nowhere near to covering the fixed, base expenses.
Seeing as you're as asking others for evidence, what basis are you using for your statements here? Can you back up, factually, why and how this hypothetical service would make money?
Sleeper services should be expensive. They should be compared to airlines biz class seats that recline. And the service needs to match. Yet people pay a premium for premium travel. They also pay a premium for premium accommodation.
As OBB are showing. As well as premium cabins a cheaper smaller sleeper ‘bunk’ should allow fares that are cheaper for students or single travelers.
With limited availability, travelling overnight to Nice or Marseille would have genuine demand. I maybe wrong. But that’s my inclining.
Idk how Serco were spending the revenue but clearly it was going somewhere. Other sleeper operators in Europe seem to do well charging a lot less. So something is amiss here I suspect.
Other operators in Europe benefit from significant government subsidy to run sleepers. Sometimes this is explicit, but more often than not it is "hidden" within the state-owned major rail operator in the relevant country. Personally I have no objection to this (especially if it means I can get a new NightJet mini-cabin across the length of Austria for 25eur at Interrail prices!), but it's not the same thing as the service being commercially viable.
One of the reasons that sleeper operations over on the continent are generally more efficient than in the UK is because of the way the operations are set up. Using the example of NightJet (again), most complex operational manoeuvres (such as splitting the train) take place where there is pretty much a 24/7 shunting presence anyway, for which the sleeper is just another train for them to deal with. Often this will mean "borrowing" a shunter from the nearby freight yard (because they still have those over there, and run trains which require shunting). This is one of the benefits of vertical integration - the staff have essentially been paid for by the freight business. Whereas in Britain, there's no need for a shunter to be at Edinburgh Waverly, so the entire cost of that person's shift (or potentially several shifts?) is borne by Caledonian Sleeper.
Another difference is the fact that traditional loco-haulage is still common (albeit declining) across Europe (especially further east), so there is a far larger pool of staff available, who can be shifted onto sleeper work like any other service. In addition, all the key infrastructure required for loco-haulage hasn't been ripped out. More importantly, however, is the sheer amount of freight traffic and in particular electrically-hauled freight. This means that:
Freight is paying for the lines to remain open overnight
There is a large stock of suitable locomotives available to haul the sleepers, as many modern locomotives are equally suited to passenger as freight trains, with high power train supply feeds etc
In operationally challenging areas (such as steep gradients), chances are there will be (for example) banking locomotives sitting around ready to assist the sleeper, because they're needed for freight. The sleeper is "just another train" to push up the hill
None of that really is applicable to the UK. Especially as electric freight is pretty much non-existent - you can't just stick a class 66 or two onto the Caledonian sleeper. For a start, they don't have any train supply, and I think the sleeper uses auto-couplers (Dellner?) not traditional hook and screw. (There is potentially an argument that the Mk5 coaches should have been built with more flexible coupling arrangements and "less non-standard" train supply requirements, so as to not require expensively-modified locomotives. But that ship has sailed... and wouldn't really be of much use anyway, due to the very small pool of locomotives available. Over in Austria, they'll have several spare Tauruses sat in the nearby freight yard, and a shunter driver available to take it into the station to replace the failed one.)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You can already do that. 1631 Eurostar to Paris Nord 1948, giving a fairy tight connection into the 2051 from Austerlitz to Nice (or Briancon, if you prefer). Shortly after, another sleeper departs, can't remember which destinations it serves.
Coming back, the Nice sleeper arrives in Paris just before 0800. Spend a day doing touristy things in the city, then get an evening Eurostar back to London.
Problem is, it's not cheap. Eurostar alone will cost more than a flight (although if you're planning to bring lots of luggage the plane will become more expensive).
Other operators in Europe benefit from significant government subsidy to run sleepers. Sometimes this is explicit, but more often than not it is "hidden" within the state-owned major rail operator in the relevant country. Personally I have no objection to this (especially if it means I can get a new NightJet mini-cabin across the length of Austria for 25eur at Interrail prices!), but it's not the same thing as the service being commercially viable.
One of the reasons that sleeper operations over on the continent are generally more efficient than in the UK is because of the way the operations are set up. Using the example of NightJet (again), most complex operational manoeuvres (such as splitting the train) take place where there is pretty much a 24/7 shunting presence anyway, for which the sleeper is just another train for them to deal with. Often this will mean "borrowing" a shunter from the nearby freight yard (because they still have those over there, and run trains which require shunting). This is one of the benefits of vertical integration - the staff have essentially been paid for by the freight business. Whereas in Britain, there's no need for a shunter to be at Edinburgh Waverly, so the entire cost of that person's shift (or potentially several shifts?) is borne by Caledonian Sleeper.
Another difference is the fact that traditional loco-haulage is still common (albeit declining) across Europe (especially further east), so there is a far larger pool of staff available, who can be shifted onto sleeper work like any other service. In addition, all the key infrastructure required for loco-haulage hasn't been ripped out. More importantly, however, is the sheer amount of freight traffic and in particular electrically-hauled freight. This means that:
Freight is paying for the lines to remain open overnight
There is a large stock of suitable locomotives available to haul the sleepers, as many modern locomotives are equally suited to passenger as freight trains, with high power train supply feeds etc
In operationally challenging areas (such as steep gradients), chances are there will be (for example) banking locomotives sitting around ready to assist the sleeper, because they're needed for freight. The sleeper is "just another train" to push up the hill
None of that really is applicable to the UK. Especially as electric freight is pretty much non-existent - you can't just stick a class 66 or two onto the Caledonian sleeper. For a start, they don't have any train supply, and I think the sleeper uses auto-couplers (Dellner?) not traditional hook and screw. (There is potentially an argument that the Mk5 coaches should have been built with more flexible coupling arrangements and "less non-standard" train supply requirements, so as to not require expensively-modified locomotives. But that ship has sailed... and wouldn't really be of much use anyway, due to the very small pool of locomotives available. Over in Austria, they'll have several spare Tauruses sat in the nearby freight yard, and a shunter driver available to take it into the station to replace the failed one.)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You can already do that. 1631 Eurostar to Paris Nord 1948, giving a fairy tight connection into the 2051 from Austerlitz to Nice (or Briancon, if you prefer). Shortly after, another sleeper departs, can't remember which destinations it serves.
Coming back, the Nice sleeper arrives in Paris just before 0800. Spend a day doing touristy things in the city, then get an evening Eurostar back to London.
Problem is, it's not cheap. Eurostar alone will cost more than a flight (although if you're planning to bring lots of luggage the plane will become more expensive).
Interesting points on the inefficiencies. A separate discussion but would be good to learn more about why there isn’t more freight on rails in the UK. I lived in Camden Town right next to an elevated train line. In the day it was just passenger trains flying past. But occasionally at night huge freight trains would shake me awake. Clearly far heavier and like an earth quake!
I must admit learning about Shunting practices makes me think of two things: Thomas the tank engine, and why aren’t there more advanced computerised system to take care of these things yet.
The changing and faffing around in Paris just kills it. Punters need to board at night and wake up at their destination. That is the joy of the sleeper. It is a convenient and easy way to travel.
Now try me after ÖBB - the largest sleeper operator in Europe - decided in 2023 it was not a wise use of subsidy to pay people to take the Nightjet - and fares skyrocketed, by up to 500% in many cases.
OBB didn't withdraw a subsidy, they upped the prices because they could because there was far more demand than they had rolling stock to satisfy (and people still used the services). Rationing by price - why wouldn't they in that situation (it raised capital for the extra trains)? Once they have all their additional rolling stock in place, and can carry far more people on their sleeper services, prices will come back down again.
OBB didn't withdraw a subsidy, they upped the prices because they could because there was far more demand than they had rolling stock to satisfy (and people still used the services). Rationing by price - why wouldn't they in that situation (it raised capital for the extra trains)? Once they have all their additional rolling stock in place, and can carry far more people on their sleeper services, prices will come back down again.
To put it more succinctly, they decided that the sleepers weren’t a good use of the subsidy they were getting.
I think the chances of prices returning to previous levels are quite slim even with the extra stock, because in Central Europe the sleeper train arguably makes the most sense and has a market able to withstand it.
Trains in the UK don't pay much fuel duty on diesel at all? The duty is a fifth of what road duty is (its ~11p/litre, much less than the price of the diesel itself).
Rail diesel is even zero-rated for VAT, whereas road fuel is charged at 20%.
Sleeper services should be expensive. They should be compared to airlines biz class seats that recline. And the service needs to match. Yet people pay a premium for premium travel. They also pay a premium for premium accommodation.
As OBB are showing. As well as premium cabins a cheaper smaller sleeper ‘bunk’ should allow fares that are cheaper for students or single travelers.
Sleeper demand in Europe is booming as a budget option, because it allows people to save costs compared to a hotel and fast train. However for sleepers from the UK to the continent the option of charging low cost fares and making it up in volume isn't possible, because of the access charges for 3 of the most highly in-demand sections of infrastructure in Europe. People who can afford to pay more for a sleeper train are also likely to be able to pay for a day train and a hotel, so the business model falls apart.
The air market can be very misleading - the vast majority of UK air travel from regional cities is either long-haul connections (where ticketing and layover are a high priority) or package holidays (where getting to the hotel ASAP is key). Neither of these are likely to transfer to the sleeper train, and package holidays are budget-conscious.
Ultimately, the limitation of 1 fixed crossing is always going to be a step too far for something as niche and inefficient as a sleeper train. Leave the limited overnight tunnel capacity to a mix of freight and shuttles.
Never mind 'miserable economics' it is a miserable outlook. Sleeper trains exist and work in numerous locations. Developing and nudging human behaviour takes time, and changing the zero tax on aviation fuel can't come soon enough. A credits system for flights seem totally fair as well, and a matter of time in one shape or another. It won't be in the next 5 years but sometime after that I would imagine.
If you agree that air travel needs greater taxation, what kinds of alternative ways to travel are you proposing? Easy to criticise, harder to create.
Sleeper trains may well exist and work (in an operational sense) in some locations (most have disappeared both in Europe and worldwide). Very few 'work' in a financial, non subsidy sense either in themselves or in comparison with subsidy to daytime trains or other modes. I do not think it appropriate to subsidise leisure journeys to far destinations, and certainly not high service operations.
I am not suggesting alternative modes - initially I would expect people to travel less often as air fares rise (not proposing 'cliff-edge' massive hikes in air fares, but a gradual increase), or will travel to closer destinations (domestically or internationally) on day trains/car journeys. At some point these rises may make some sleeper services economic, but these are likely to be maximum capacity budget couchette type services, not high service sleepers. Those who can afford high service unsubsidised sleeper trains will probably fork out for high price air tickets anyway.
I do think there would be demand for sleepers. I do not think that there is demand for sleepers at a non-subsidised fare unless air fares are seriously into the stratosphere. I do not think subsidies for International leisure trains is justifiable.
Sleeper services should be expensive. They should be compared to airlines biz class seats that recline. And the service needs to match. Yet people pay a premium for premium travel. They also pay a premium for premium accommodation.
As OBB are showing. As well as premium cabins a cheaper smaller sleeper ‘bunk’ should allow fares that are cheaper for students or single travelers.
With limited availability, travelling overnight to Nice or Marseille would have genuine demand. I maybe wrong. But that’s my inclining.
I am yet to be convinced that OBB know what they are doing financially on their international sleeper services, and fully expect the whole operation to come crashing down on them , as CityNightLine before. As for the other start up operations, using elderly depreciated rolling stock, time will tell whether these operations are making any money (or just eating into the start up capital) and whether there is enough revenue to pay for stock replacement.
As a businessman yourself, you will know that the existence of a service or product does not imply financial success, and we can wait with bated breath to see if the longer term economics pan out. (especially as we know what the economics of our own sleeper trains are)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
