New routes for sleeper trains

[En]

But this is speculative so would they be viable if permitted? The Australians don't seem to be worried about using them on the Spirit of Queensland

exactly , also not being familiarwith this were they proposing lay flats as an alternative to the none premium rooms ( the ones without the ensuite ) ? or as an additional layer of service ( as iirc the Caledonian offers seats, not ensuite bunk cabin, en suite bunk cabin , en -suite double bed cabin )

 

[HSTEd]

But this is speculative so would they be viable if permitted? The Australians don't seem to be worried about using them on the Spirit of Queensland

APparently the seat pitch on airline lie flat seats is about 170cm.

That means you are going to get something like 11 rows, for 22 total seats.

 

[Indigo Soup]

But this is speculative so would they be viable if permitted? The Australians don't seem to be worried about using them on the Spirit of Queensland

AIUI the issue with them for the Caledonian Sleeper was that the service involves reversal, so it would be impossible to ensure that passengers were always travelling feet first.

APparently the seat pitch on airline lie flat seats is about 170cm.

That means you are going to get something like 11 rows, for 22 total seats.

i.e. no greater capacity than conventional sleeping car compartments, though I think Serco's proposal for lie-flat seats was for slightly staggered 2+1 which would give about 30 seats per vehicle. And it still has the issue that it's bespoke rolling stock that can only be usefully employed on one train a day.

 

[En]

AIUI the issue with them for the Caledonian Sleeper was that the service involves reversal, so it would be impossible to ensure that passengers were always travelling feet first.

i.e. no greater capacity than conventional sleeping car compartments, though I think Serco's proposal for lie-flat seats was for slightly staggered 2+1 which would give about 30 seats per vehicle. And it still has the issue that it's bespoke rolling stock that can only be usefully employed on one train a day.

Would you want to travel feet first ? Ambulances and Sleeper (tour) buses tend to be set up so the recumbant passenger is travelling head first
the stagger / 2 +1 lay flat at 30 ish seats while a drop from the 45 -55 or so in a modern First class carriage ( based on LNER seating plans published on t'internet) could be used gfor a 'better than currewnt first' in the day time

 

[HSTEd]

Would you want to travel feet first ? Ambulances and Sleeper (tour) buses tend to be set up so the recumbant passenger is travelling head first
the stagger / 2 +1 lay flat at 30 ish seats while a drop from the 45 -55 or so in a modern First class carriage ( based on LNER seating plans published on t'internet) could be used gfor a 'better than currewnt first' in the day time

If you travel head first the ORR believes a collision will break the passengers' neck.

 

[Bald Rick]

i wonder what the sums would look like for 1+1 lay flats in a semi open carriage like some ofthe airline business class offerings ? as these could also be used for daytime ' better than current First' use ... but again it requires the maths to math correctly ...

But this is speculative so would they be viable if permitted? The Australians don't seem to be worried about using them on the Spirit of Queensland

The sums look like the sleeper, just worse. Same passenger numbers, much the same cost, but lower income.

 

[Indigo Soup]

The absence of that service is an occasional nuisance to the, oh, six of us that would use it in any given year. That'll be me, @JamieL, and I'm guessing a handful of our colleagues who might deign to travel by train. And to the entire rest of the world, including the unfortunate staff who might be expected to work it, its absence is a blessed relief.

I was looking at some actual passenger numbers, and I think I may have been a little harsh.

The London-Inverness route, like the Bristol-Central Belt route, is technically possible by day train, but a pain in the backside. And there's competing air travel on both routes.

Combined air traffic from Glasgow and Edinburgh to Bristol is about twice the combined air traffic from Inverness to London. Looked at from the other side, Bristol-Edinburgh day train traffic is a bit more than half of Inverness-London day train traffic.

That suggests that the potential market for a Bristol to Central Scotland sleeper train is comparable (within a factor of two or so) to that of the London to Inverness sleeper. Obviously anyone seriously proposing such a service would want to carry out a more detailed traffic study. And would need a serious pile of money they didn't care about seeing any return on. But there's at least some grounds to think there'd be a reasonable number of passengers.

 

[HSTEd]

That suggests that the potential market for a Bristol to Central Scotland sleeper train is comparable (within a factor of two or so) to that of the London to Inverness sleeper. Obviously anyone seriously proposing such a service would want to carry out a more detailed traffic study. And would need a serious pile of money they didn't care about seeing any return on. But there's at least some grounds to think there'd be a reasonable number of passengers.

Obviously the London-Inverness sleeper would cost an awful lot more if it was operated as an individual train for its entire length, rather than sharing a lot of its costs with the other two arms of the Caledonian Sleeper.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Obviously the London-Inverness sleeper would cost an awful lot more if it was operated as an individual train for its entire length, rather than sharing a lot of its costs with the other two arms of the Caledonian Sleeper.

Which is why the only sensible way to operate it would be as part of the Caledonian Sleeper network. If the timings work out, it might make sense to run from Glasgow and/or Edinburgh with the Lowland sleeper, remarshalling into London and Bristol trains at Carstairs. I'd guess diesel under the wires from Carstairs is operationally simpler than changing locomotives at Birmingham.

It's a total economic basket case, like all UK sleepers, but that's probably how you minimise the additional cost if you insist on running it.

 

[Bald Rick]

I was looking at some actual passenger numbers, and I think I may have been a little harsh.

The London-Inverness route, like the Bristol-Central Belt route, is technically possible by day train, but a pain in the backside. And there's competing air travel on both routes.

Combined air traffic from Glasgow and Edinburgh to Bristol is about twice the combined air traffic from Inverness to London. Looked at from the other side, Bristol-Edinburgh day train traffic is a bit more than half of Inverness-London day train traffic.

That suggests that the potential market for a Bristol to Central Scotland sleeper train is comparable (within a factor of two or so) to that of the London to Inverness sleeper. Obviously anyone seriously proposing such a service would want to carry out a more detailed traffic study. And would need a serious pile of money they didn't care about seeing any return on. But there's at least some grounds to think there'd be a reasonable number of passengers.

Don’t forget that the Inverness sleeper is also serving Stirling - Inverness stations. There is a fair bit of traffic to Aviemore, Kingussie, Blair and even Dalwhinnie through the year, and the airlines aren’t so competitive in that market.

 

[JonathanH]

If the timings work out, it might make sense to run from Glasgow and/or Edinburgh with the Lowland sleeper, remarshalling into London and Bristol trains at Carstairs

I'm not convinced that a swap of that nature would be an operational saving as it would involve a very complicated shunt. Carstairs is only 28 miles from Edinburgh.

The lowland sleeper south of Carstairs is clearly already maximum length so a Bristol portion can't be readily tagged on.

 

[MCR247]

I think the best bet for new night services in the UK would be under GBR running 5 car IEPs along lines with sufficient demand. Far enough into the future that the IEPs have been refurbed with more comfortable seating

 

[HSTEd]

The lowland sleeper south of Carstairs is clearly already maximum length so a Bristol portion can't be readily tagged on.

Is there really a maximum length?
Once you have left Euston there is no pressing need to fully platform the train given the miniscule number of people aboard and the lack of proper intermediate stops.

 

[En]

Is there really a maximum length?
Once you have left Euston there is no pressing need to fully platform the train given the miniscule number of people aboard and the lack of proper intermediate stops.

more pointedly is there a minimum length between relevant features on the track ? without fouling point work or crossing short signalling blocks in stations etc if held at signal / dispatching point on a platform ...

 

[JonathanH]

Is there really a maximum length?

What are the possible restrictions if we discount platforms and train berth lengths?
* tractive effort of the 92 at up to 87.5 mph - I can guess that is easily more than 16 carriages
* the ETS capability of 180 - How far can the ETS go through the carriages?
* the TMS on the Mark 5 carriages which no doubt is set up for a maximum of 16 carriages.

 

[HSTEd]

What are the possible restrictions if we discount platforms and train berth lengths?
* tractive effort of the 92 at up to 87.5 mph - I can guess that is easily more than 16 carriages
* the ETS capability of 180 - How far can the ETS go through the carriages?
* the TMS on the Mark 5 carriages which no doubt is set up for a maximum of 16 carriages.

Strictly speaking, the ETS index and TMS are not necessarily showstoppers, because those systems are not required for a driver to control the trains.
We could, for example, order a carriage with a pantograph to provide ETS on this segment.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Don’t forget that the Inverness sleeper is also serving Stirling - Inverness stations. There is a fair bit of traffic to Aviemore, Kingussie, Blair and even Dalwhinnie through the year, and the airlines aren’t so competitive in that market.

On the other hand, the hypothetical Bristol service also serves Bath, Gloucester, Cardiff, potentially Birmingham or the further southwest, which are also poorly served by air. It's perfectly possible that the potential traffic just isn't there. But I was surprised to find that that isn't obviously the case.

I'm not convinced that a swap of that nature would be an operational saving as it would involve a very complicated shunt. Carstairs is only 28 miles from Edinburgh.

The lowland sleeper south of Carstairs is clearly already maximum length so a Bristol portion can't be readily tagged on.

If the Carstairs shuffle is too complicated somehow, then you probably get most of the potential traffic off an Edinburgh train.

The very long train from Carstairs to Crewe was something I assumed was obviously impractical and dismissed!

more pointedly is there a minimum length between relevant features on the track ? without fouling point work or crossing short signalling blocks in stations etc if held at signal / dispatching point on a platform ...

Isn't the WCML one of the routes planned to be cleared for 775m trains for freight purposes?

 

[Bald Rick]

On the other hand, the hypothetical Bristol service also serves Bath, Gloucester, Cardiff, potentially Birmingham or the further southwest, which are also poorly served by air. It's perfectly possible that the potential traffic just isn't there. But I was surprised to find that that isn't obviously the case.

My point was that those from Bath, Glos, Cardiff (and further afield) to the central belt will already be using the flights. (Anecdote alert, I have a friend who regularly flies Bristol to Gladgow, and he lives well into Gloucestershire). Whereas those from London to Aviemore / Dalwhinnie etc are already on the sleeper / day train. (Some will be flying, but I’d bet a decent sum that the proportion on the train is higher than it is for inverness). We already know that Birmingham - Scotland is planned to be served directly.

Isn't the WCML one of the routes planned to be cleared for 775m trains for freight purposes?

It already is.

 

[Tetragon213]

Lay flats are unlikely to pass muster with ORR, as Caledonian Sleeper found out when they tried it.

Seems quite bizarre. Aviation has had little problem with lay-flats for decades now, and I'd wager that aviation is just as, if not more safety conscious than even the rail industry.

Did ORR give a specific reason, or are they just being obtuse here?

 

[JonathanH]

Seems quite bizarre. Aviation has had little problem with lay-flats for decades now, and I'd wager that aviation is just as, if not more safety conscious than even the rail industry.

Did ORR give a specific reason, or are they just being obtuse here?

The issue, as mentioned a number of times, is that the trains reverse so passengers aren't always travelling feet first.

 

[zwk500]

Isn't the WCML one of the routes planned to be cleared for 775m trains for freight purposes?

A 775m train will typically not remarshal itself en-route in a passenger station.

 

[daodao]

If the Carstairs shuffle is too complicated somehow, then you probably get most of the potential traffic off an Edinburgh train.

The very long train from Carstairs to Crewe was something I assumed was obviously impractical and dismissed!

It might be simpler to run separate electrically-hauled trains from each of Edinburgh (bypassing Carstairs) and Glasgow Central direct to Crewe and remarshal them there into separate trains to each of London Euston and Bristol/Plymouth/Penzance (with the option of running via the North and West main line).

I agree that the Scottish Central Belt to SW England axis is the best one to consider as a potential "new" route for sleeper trains in Great Britain, and one that I used myself several times in the early 1990s. However, various factors have changed in the last 30 years such that benefit-cost ratio of re-introducing it would now be highly unfavourable and cannot be justified. In today's hostile financial climate, British railways need to reduce costs (not increase them) and significant pruning of existing services is required, including scrapping some or all existing sleeper services.

 

[Tetragon213]

The issue, as mentioned a number of times, is that the trains reverse so passengers aren't always travelling feet first.

I'm fairly certain British Airways has half their seats backwards for their business/Club World seats.

BA was the first airline to do lie-flat beds in business class, hence the odd arrangement where half the seats face backwards (stacking people alternating allows you to pack them in tighter, hence why BA is the only airline on the planet to have 8-across business).

An alternative would be to do what the Japanese do, and make it so you can reverse the seats like they do on the Shinkansen.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm fairly certain British Airways has half their seats backwards for their business/Club World seats.

They do. The difference being that if you are in a plane crash, it really doesn’t matter which way round you‘re lying down.

An alternative would be to do what the Japanese do, and make it so you can reverse the seats like they do on the Shinkansen.

Scene, a frosty Platform 2 at Edinburgh station, inside a dimly lit coach with airline style lie flat seats

HOST: “Good morning Sir. This is Edinburgh. Would you mind awfully getting out of bed and turning yourself and the seat round, so that we can continue our journey to Inverness. No, feet first please, Sir”

PASSENGER: “BUT IT’S 4AM YOU MADMAN !!!!”

 

[Tetragon213]

They do. The difference being that if you are in a plane crash, it really doesn’t matter which way round you‘re lying down.

I suppose that's a rather good, if somewhat fatalistic what of looking at it! Point taken.

Scene, a frosty Platform 2 at Edinburgh station, inside a dimly lit coach with airline style lie flat seats

HOST: “Good morning Sir. This is Edinburgh. Would you mind awfully getting out of bed and turning yourself and the seat round, so that we can continue our journey to Inverness. No, feet first please, Sir”

PASSENGER: “BUT IT’S 4AM YOU MADMAN !!!!”

That would be quite the amusing scene

 

[HSTEd]

Well I guess we could put the lie flats crossways, with dividers between adjacent seats.

 

[Tetragon213]

Well I guess we could put the lie flats crossways, with dividers between adjacent seats.

It's at this point I think back on my holiday to Japan, and the bad idea fairy suddenly pops into my head...

Capsule hotel sleeper trains, anyone?
Claustrophobia? What's that?

 

[Indigo Soup]

They do. The difference being that if you are in a plane crash, it really doesn’t matter which way round you‘re lying down.

One is also required to be sitting, rather than lying, for takeoff and landing - which is the time at which crashing is (a) more likely, and (b) potentially survivable. There are certain safety advantages to being rear facing in an air crash, and military airlifters sometimes have all rear facing seats for that reason, but paying passengers don't like it very much.

 

[stuu]

It's at this point I think back on my holiday to Japan, and the bad idea fairy suddenly pops into my head...

Capsule hotel sleeper trains, anyone?
Claustrophobia? What's that?

Been done - OBB Nightjet has capsule-type rooms

 

[Tetragon213]

Been done - OBB Nightjet has capsule-type rooms

Just had a quick look, they actually look surprisingly nice.