People should avoid domestic flights (comparison with Caledonian Sleeper)

[Peter Sarf]

I've only taken the Caledonian Sleeper once, and vowed never to do so again. First, there was no catering due to a technical issue, which I didn't know about in advance. No apology from the staff of course. Then, when we were being shunted, the staff were all loudly shouting instructions to each other down the platform, waking everyone up - why they couldn't use walkie talkies I don't know. Then the people in the adjoining room had a very loud conversation well into the early hours of the morning, which carried straight through the walls. I got no sleep at all.

I've flown every time since, for significantly less money too. If we want to make people choose the railway as the environmentally friendly option, then we've got to put a bit of effort in and not provide the absolute minimum service levels. It should feel like a hotel on wheels, not a prison cell on wheels. Airlines get that's its partly about psychology, thats why they offer airmiles, lounges, status for frequent flyers, snacks etc, it's all things to make people think they're valued.

Also, regarding the comparison with day trains, I suspect that one reason that the sleeper fares so well on emissions is because it is travelling at a slower speed which is probably more efficient. Things like air resistance and friction don't go up linearly with speed.

I avoid reliance on railway catering. This was after we changed our plans and dashed for an earlier intercity Manchester to London service that had a buffet advertised on the departure boards minutes before departure. By Stockport it was announced there would be no buffet. We could have bought food off the concourse. We spent much journey debating if the food would have been cheaper from the concourse anyway. In the end I vowed to NEVER buy BR food again and that includes inflated prices within the station. Since then I always pack sandwiches or the raw materials to make them - far cheaper and 100% reliable.

Advantage of an airline short haul is it is often quicker than the sleeper so less time going without food and drink. I have not flown often but I have never been let down by catering on a plane anyway.

 

[Starmill]

Me too.




I have, most recently last week. Over the years I have had staff entering the room uninvited and unannouced, staff making a racket outside, and other guests making rackets ranging from drunk perambulation bouncing off walls and my door (as happened last week) to “discussing the situation in Uganda”*, sometimes quite vigourously, and in one memorable occaison literally all night. (When the “discussions” concluded, I gave them a very loud round of applause).




I have had four hotel stays in the last decade with fire alarms going off, 2 in the middle of the night, another just after I had woken, and one very inconveniently as I was halfway through a shower.

Meanwhile on my 30 or so trips on the sleepers I have never had any of that. I don’t sleep well on the sleepers (or sometimes, at all) simply because the beds are too small for me and I am sensitive to movement. Despite being able to use them at ‘staff rates‘ I will always avoid them unless there is no other option for the journey / timing I need to make. But it is not because of unreliability of their offer.

I suppose the point is that expereinces vary.


* see Private Eye for definition.

I'm astonished you were willing to pay for a night in a hotel where you received little sleep? Surely nobody does that? If it's too noisy for you to sleep you raise the issue at the time, if it can't be solved, you shouldn't be being billed for the night? Invariably such issues aren't impossible to solve, unless you're staying at Easyhotel or budget independents. Same goes for a night time evacuation, free night as an absolute minimum surely? To give an example, if you were staying at a Premier Inn property, their conditions of contract would actually guarantee that your night were free if what you describe happened. Sometimes I admit that the hotel staff themselves will politely deflect you on sorting the matter out or refunding you, but in these circumstances you simply politely drop it and raise a complaint through the usual channels.

At the end of the day though if you compare the sleeper to the price of hotels minus the daytime train rate you won't be staying in the Travelodge or Easyhotel as you can easily afford a £200 room.

The Stena Brittanica and Hollandica have the same pokey beds and very tightly spaced the trains do, but they're also substantially cheaper and are very reliable in their onboard product.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm astonished you were willing to pay for a night in a hotel where you received little sleep?

Well most of the time it’s not me paying. But there have been conversations post event!

 

[Starmill]

Well most of the time it’s not me paying. But there have been conversations post event!

Goodness me. One of the reasons I always think the most stingy company travel policies are a false economy. You need somewhere you sleep well enough to work at your best in the morning. At least CS is too expensive for most such policies.

 

[Bald Rick]

Goodness me. One of the reasons I always think the most stingy company travel policies are a false economy. You need somewhere you sleep well enough to work at your best in the morning. At least CS is too expensive for most such policies.

All these events have been at decent hotels, ie at least a grade above Travelodge. These things happen anywhere!

 

[Starmill]

All these events have been at decent hotels, ie at least a grade above Travelodge. These things happen anywhere!

That would imply that either my several hundred stays were all unusually lucky, or that various yours were unusually unlucky. Somehow I find it extremely difficult to believe I've been so lucky. Alternatively perhaps you experienced serious issues with your sleep and chose for your own reasons not to speak to a member of staff about it? Regardless of all of the above, if one had that experience at a hotel in the price band of CS (minus daytime train fare) I think one can be entirely confident of a resolution or, in the last resort, a rate reduction or refund. You have pretty much zero chance of a refund on CS just for having noisy surroundings and poor sleep. If you reported to the staff at the time that you could hear noise in your cabin they would probably look at you blankly, they certainly wouldn't try to do anything about it.

 

[Bald Rick]

That would imply that either my several hundred stays were all unusually lucky, or that various yours were unusually unlucky. Somehow I find it extremely difficult to believe I've been so lucky.

Perhaps I’ve been unlucky. Two of the four fire alarms were actually fires!

 

[BlueLeanie]

BA will let me book a flight 350+ days in advance. It's not unusual that I can't be confident that a GWR/Chiltern, Avanti/Lumo/LNER, or Scotrail would definitely all be running on the same weekend within the next 90 days let alone 350 days.

My flight price is locked in almost a year in advance. Nobody knows what the availability, timetable, or price will be for the rail journey next March.

Then we've got the more basic stuff, ZEZ, LEZ, LTNs all make the centre of Glasgow or Edinburgh toxic to be picked up from later in the evening.or early morning. 30 minutes free pick up in the long stay at EDI makes things easy.

More importantly, I don't want to be trekking into London late at night to hang around Euston waiting for a sleeper, sleep in anything smaller than a king size, arrive in Scotland at stupid o'clock. Leave Scotland around midnight, get dumped in central London at 07:00, then have to pay a peak single to get home.

I can leave EDI at 20:xx, be at Heathrow by 21:xx, and in my own bed by 23:00.

 

[enginedin]

Then we've got the more basic stuff, ZEZ, LEZ, LTNs all make the centre of Glasgow or Edinburgh toxic to be picked up from later in the evening.or early morning. 30 minutes free pick up in the long stay at EDI makes things better easy.

I'd say you're being a little unfair here: the LEZs actually affect a relatively small number of vehicles - petrol cars now have to be 19 years old to not be compliant.

On the flip side, the Edinburgh Airport public transport "tax" makes it a pretty unappealing place to travel to by tram or bus given other options

 

[BlueLeanie]

On the flip side, the Edinburgh Airport public transport "tax" makes it a pretty unappealing place to travel to by tram or bus given other options

I'm sure it's just a standard single fare on the No18 from South Gyle Crescent to EDI.

 

[enginedin]

I'm sure it's just a standard single fare on the No18 from South Gyle Crescent to EDI.

oh yeh, sorry - it changed a couple of weeks ago so that 2 services now have regular fares

Fares revision on Lothian network - Lothian Buses

Changes to Lothian Buses’ network will take effect from Sunday 10 September in response to customer feedback, improving reliability and connectivity and increasing services for returning students.

www.lothianbuses.com

 

[Calthrop]

I'm astonished you were willing to pay for a night in a hotel where you received little sleep? Surely nobody does that? If it's too noisy for you to sleep you raise the issue at the time, if it can't be solved, you shouldn't be being billed for the night? Invariably such issues aren't impossible to solve, unless you're staying at Easyhotel or budget independents. Same goes for a night time evacuation, free night as an absolute minimum surely? To give an example, if you were staying at a Premier Inn property, their conditions of contract would actually guarantee that your night were free if what you describe happened. Sometimes I admit that the hotel staff themselves will politely deflect you on sorting the matter out or refunding you, but in these circumstances you simply politely drop it and raise a complaint through the usual channels.

At the end of the day though if you compare the sleeper to the price of hotels minus the daytime train rate you won't be staying in the Travelodge or Easyhotel as you can easily afford a £200 room.

The Stena Brittanica and Hollandica have the same pokey beds and very tightly spaced the trains do, but they're also substantially cheaper and are very reliable in their onboard product.

That would imply that either my several hundred stays were all unusually lucky, or that various yours were unusually unlucky. Somehow I find it extremely difficult to believe I've been so lucky. Alternatively perhaps you experienced serious issues with your sleep and chose for your own reasons not to speak to a member of staff about it? Regardless of all of the above, if one had that experience at a hotel in the price band of CS (minus daytime train fare) I think one can be entirely confident of a resolution or, in the last resort, a rate reduction or refund. You have pretty much zero chance of a refund on CS just for having noisy surroundings and poor sleep. If you reported to the staff at the time that you could hear noise in your cabin they would probably look at you blankly, they certainly wouldn't try to do anything about it.

A bit of topic-drifting, but one which I find irresistible -- a quotation, on which I initiated a thread on the "History and Nostalgia" sub-forum some years ago. A sentence in a book by the late travel writer Patrick Leigh Fermor; telling of a journey from Paris to rural Normandy, circa 1950. "I had spent an abominable night in Rouen in a small hotel near the station, wherein a procession of nightmares had been punctuated by the noise of trains arriving and leaving with a crashing and whistling and an escape of steam and smoke which, after a week's noctambulism in Paris, turned my night into a period of acute and apparently interminable agony." (An experience which would, for many of "the likes of us", be blissful rather than hellish; and which is totally no longer to be had -- with steam -- as something ordinary, everyday, and "incidental": anywhere on earth; but that's by the way.)

The author does not mention making any complaint, or seeking a financial reduction or refund. It is to be suspected that if one attempted such a ploy in France a lifetime ago, one would be instructed to go forth and multiply.

 

[BRX]

BA will let me book a flight 350+ days in advance. It's not unusual that I can't be confident that a GWR/Chiltern, Avanti/Lumo/LNER, or Scotrail would definitely all be running on the same weekend within the next 90 days let alone 350 days.

My flight price is locked in almost a year in advance. Nobody knows what the availability, timetable, or price will be for the rail journey next March.

Then we've got the more basic stuff, ZEZ, LEZ, LTNs all make the centre of Glasgow or Edinburgh toxic to be picked up from later in the evening.or early morning. 30 minutes free pick up in the long stay at EDI makes things easy.

More importantly, I don't want to be trekking into London late at night to hang around Euston waiting for a sleeper, sleep in anything smaller than a king size, arrive in Scotland at stupid o'clock. Leave Scotland around midnight, get dumped in central London at 07:00, then have to pay a peak single to get home.

I can leave EDI at 20:xx, be at Heathrow by 21:xx, and in my own bed by 23:00.

You don't say your start and end points but it sounds like your journey is one that happens not to work well with the sleeper, rather than there being some fundamental problem with the sleeper offering. This is always the problem in these discussions, apples being compared with oranges.

It sounds like your southern location is somewhere where it's more convenient to get to Heathrow than Euston. And that at your northern location you want/need to use private rather than public transport. Others will have different combinations of circumstances.

 

[route101]

I recently flew Manchester to Newquay. Could have taken the train, but it's an extortionate price for a cramped full day trip. So I flew instead.

Maybe if the train journey was the equivalent of Avanti's standard plus with 2+1 searing I'd have been interested.

Yes, South Coast to Scotland too. Train is too long and dear compared to easyjet.

 

[enginedin]

I recently flew Manchester to Newquay.

There's a slight disparity here for a couple of reasons:

- the comparison of Easyjet's 2 flights per week vs at least hourly trains - if there were hourly flights how would this be reflected in the price? The passenger has to be more flexible to fit around such constraints
- the relative unique geography of a relatively small town that's only at the end of a stopping service branch line having an airport!

 

[nlogax]

If I'm getting the train to London for work stuff then I'm taking Avanti the afternoon before and finding myself a Hampton Inn. Either that or I'm flying to City the same day.

Over the years I've learned CS just doesn't work for me. I'm a light sleeper and the ride quality plus noises of rattles and splashes that echo through the berths just don't make for a good experience. More than once I've arrived into Euston first thing and feeling something akin to jetlag. Even if CS pricing were more attractive I'd not change my behaviour.

 

[Howardh]

There's a slight disparity here for a couple of reasons:

- the comparison of Easyjet's 2 flights per week vs at least hourly trains - if there were hourly flights how would this be reflected in the price? The passenger has to be more flexible to fit around such constraints
- the relative unique geography of a relatively small town that's only at the end of a stopping service branch line having an airport!

Yes, but I'm still going to work around Easyjet's timetable rather than take that horrible train journey! I think there's another airline that flies domestically to Newquay, if so that increases options. Blue Islands/Loganair - anyone??

 

[zero]

If I'm getting the train to London for work stuff then I'm taking Avanti the afternoon before and finding myself a Hampton Inn.

[pedant mode] You won't find any Hampton Inns outside the US, they are called Hampton by Hilton in the UK. [/pedant mode]

 

[BlueLeanie]

Just to accommodate the flights leaving London for Edinburgh after 17:00 every day would require over 100 new coaches, perhaps 150 coaches if people aren't sharing a roomette. Then another 100-150 going the other direction.

So 300 new sleeper coaches plus 25 new locomotives, plus somewhere to store, service and platform them.

Is it any wonder we put 180 people into a single aircraft with 3+3 seating and the same frame will do LHR-EDI-LHR-of an evening, then be ready to Edinburgh in the morning? Carrying the same number of people as 72 sleeper coaches.

It'll then go onto to carry a further 2000+ passengers that day whilst the sleeper coaches are sitting empty?

 

[Starmill]

[pedant mode] You won't find any Hampton Inns outside the US, they are called Hampton by Hilton in the UK. [/pedant mode]

Technically yes, absolutely. Of course, that doesn't stop the phrases "Hampton" and "Hampton Inn" appearing within the properties or being used by their own staff!

 

[BRX]

Just to accommodate the flights leaving London for Edinburgh after 17:00 every day would require over 100 new coaches, perhaps 150 coaches if people aren't sharing a roomette. Then another 100-150 going the other direction.

So 300 new sleeper coaches plus 25 new locomotives, plus somewhere to store, service and platform them.

Is it any wonder we put 180 people into a single aircraft with 3+3 seating and the same frame will do LHR-EDI-LHR-of an evening, then be ready to Edinburgh in the morning? Carrying the same number of people as 72 sleeper coaches.

It'll then go onto to carry a further 2000+ passengers that day whilst the sleeper coaches are sitting empty?

Not sure what argument is being made here - is it that the volume of air traffic is so large that it would be infeasible to transfer it to overnight trains? It's written to make the numbers seem enormous but we currently dispatch 32 coaches each night from one platform at Euston.

But anyway, I don't see what the number of air passengers flying post 1700 really has to do with the feasibility of increased night train services.

Let's say we are asking the question, what would happen if we decided (as national policy) to strongly discourage domestic flights, perhaps by putting a significant tax on them. Those post-1700 air passengers to Edinburgh wouldn't all switch to the sleeper, many would instead take a late day train (or make different plans in the first place). But with the air option removed or made more expensive there would almost certainly be an increase in demand for night services - and the demand wouldn't just be between London and Edinburgh/Glasgow, there are all those longer and cross country journeys that many people consider too long to do in the day. If there were 300 (or more) new sleeper coaches they wouldn't all be running in and out of London.

There used to be multiple departures from multiple London terminii, every night, and also multiple cross country sleepers. It's a system that previously existed, and which was killed off largely by the advent of cheap flights.

No, it's no wonder that lots of people travel by air at present - it's cheap and in many cases convenient. Because current policy is to allow this to be the case, despite all of the harmful consequences.

The extra space needed to stable a few hundred extra railway coaches must be fairly insignificant compared to the size of a third Heathrow runway.

 

[BlueLeanie]

Not sure what argument is being made here - is it that the volume of air traffic is so large that it would be infeasible to transfer it to overnight trains? It's written to make the numbers seem enormous but we currently dispatch 32 coaches each night from one platform at Euston.

But anyway, I don't see what the number of air passengers flying post 1700 really has to do with the feasibility of increased night train services.

Let's say we are asking the question, what would happen if we decided (as national policy) to strongly discourage domestic flights, perhaps by putting a significant tax on them. Those post-1700 air passengers to Edinburgh wouldn't all switch to the sleeper, many would instead take a late day train (or make different plans in the first place). But with the air option removed or made more expensive there would almost certainly be an increase in demand for night services - and the demand wouldn't just be between London and Edinburgh/Glasgow, there are all those longer and cross country journeys that many people consider too long to do in the day. If there were 300 (or more) new sleeper coaches they wouldn't all be running in and out of London.

There used to be multiple departures from multiple London terminii, every night, and also multiple cross country sleepers. It's a system that previously existed, and which was killed off largely by the advent of cheap flights.

No, it's no wonder that lots of people travel by air at present - it's cheap and in many cases convenient. Because current policy is to allow this to be the case, despite all of the harmful consequences.

The extra space needed to stable a few hundred extra railway coaches must be fairly insignificant compared to the size of a third Heathrow runway.

Ah, you may not be familiar with working life, but many people finish work daily at 17:00 and head to the airport. There are hundreds of people who travel to London daily to work, going back a few years you'd often find half the Labour Cabinet in the BA lounge on a Friday night.

Those 300 coaches are only just enough to accommodate a transition of passengers from London to Edinburgh who travel after 17:00, you'd need a further 300 for people who travel between Glasgow and London.

You'd have to build a brand new Sleeper service only underground station under London with 20 400 metre long platforms to accommodate them.

Then after that is done, you'd find that people would fly to Belfast and change in order to get home in time to read their child a story before bedtime.

 

[Bald Rick]

There used to be multiple departures from multiple London terminii, every night, and also multiple cross country sleepers. It's a system that previously existed, and which was killed off largely by the advent of cheap flights.

It’s not cheap flights that did for the sleepers, as they had mostly gone long before cheap flights were a thing.

What did for the sleepers was
a) vast improvement in frequency, speed (and value) of day trains
b) the disappearance of newspaper and parcels traffic, which were often the reason the overnight trains ran in the first place
c) the advent of cheap hotels
d) development of the motorway network
e) changes to consumer tastes

cheap flights was merely a bit part actor that came on for the final scene.

 

[Starmill]

Not sure what argument is being made here - is it that the volume of air traffic is so large that it would be infeasible to transfer it to overnight trains? It's written to make the numbers seem enormous but we currently dispatch 32 coaches each night from one platform at Euston.

But anyway, I don't see what the number of air passengers flying post 1700 really has to do with the feasibility of increased night train services.

Let's say we are asking the question, what would happen if we decided (as national policy) to strongly discourage domestic flights, perhaps by putting a significant tax on them. Those post-1700 air passengers to Edinburgh wouldn't all switch to the sleeper, many would instead take a late day train (or make different plans in the first place). But with the air option removed or made more expensive there would almost certainly be an increase in demand for night services - and the demand wouldn't just be between London and Edinburgh/Glasgow, there are all those longer and cross country journeys that many people consider too long to do in the day. If there were 300 (or more) new sleeper coaches they wouldn't all be running in and out of London.

There used to be multiple departures from multiple London terminii, every night, and also multiple cross country sleepers. It's a system that previously existed, and which was killed off largely by the advent of cheap flights.

No, it's no wonder that lots of people travel by air at present - it's cheap and in many cases convenient. Because current policy is to allow this to be the case, despite all of the harmful consequences.

The extra space needed to stable a few hundred extra railway coaches must be fairly insignificant compared to the size of a third Heathrow runway.

I'd say the salient point is that the CS arrangements at present have a maximum capacity which is very, very low. Even if we assume all journeys are sold out with all seats and cabins occupied, and some sensible addition on top for those cabins which have a second occupant.

Even if the capacity were to double or triple it'd still be negligible.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I'd say the salient point is that the CS arrangements at present have a maximum capacity which is very, very low. Even if we assume all journeys are sold out with all seats and cabins occupied, and some sensible addition on top for those cabins which have a second occupant.

Even if the capacity were to double or triple it'd still be negligible.

And Caledonian Sleeper is costing a lot in subsidy per passenger. So if all domestic flights were disallowed there would need to be a decision on how much money to spend subsidising the alternatives - sleeper, daytime trains or coaches. I for one would love to see the return of the night rider services thus allowing me a long day out or more likely a couple of nights less hotel to pay for. But is there enough demand ?. Daytime trains have got quicker and that erodes the justification for longer and slower overnight services.

What could compete with domestic flights ?.

 

[AlterEgo]

Let's say we are asking the question, what would happen if we decided (as national policy) to strongly discourage domestic flights, perhaps by putting a significant tax on them.

It would probably harm the economy and weaken the Union.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Let's say we are asking the question, what would happen if we decided (as national policy) to strongly discourage domestic flights, perhaps by putting a significant tax on them.

It would probably harm the economy and weaken the Union.

Flying is something people who live in Great Britain do to visit foreign countries whereas travel by train is almost exclusively journeys within Great Britain. Unlike much larger countries domestic flights are not a normal way to make domestic journeys within Great Britain whereas train travel is almost exclusively within Great Britain as it is an island. Eurostar is the only exception but travelling on the Eurostar does not feel in any way like domestic train travel.
If the only practical way to travel somewhere else within Great Britain is to fly it does not feel like the destination is part of the same country. This is why to avoid weakening the Union between Scotland England and Wales it is essential to greatly increase rail capacity between Scotland and all parts of England and Wales so journeys between Scotland and all parts of England and Wales can be done affordably as a walk on train journey. The aim needs to be to at least replace all flights within Great Britain to and from Edinburgh and Glasgow with train journeys so travelling between all parts of England and Wales and Edinburgh and Glasgow at least feels like travelling within the same country.
If the only practical way to make such journeys is to fly it gives the impression that Scotland is not really part of a Union with England and Wales.
Travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is in the majority of cases by flying and otherwise has to be by ferry and this is one reason for the feeling that Northern Ireland is somewhat detached from the rest of the Union and why a fixed link was proposed and investigated.

 

[AlterEgo]

Flying is something people who live in Great Britain do to visit foreign countries whereas travel by train is almost exclusively journeys within Great Britain. Unlike much larger countries domestic flights are not a normal way to make domestic journeys within Great Britain whereas train travel is almost exclusively within Great Britain as it is an island. Eurostar is the only exception but travelling on the Eurostar does not feel in any way like domestic train travel.
If the only practical way to travel somewhere else within Great Britain is to fly it does not feel like the destination is part of the same country. This is why to avoid weakening the Union between Scotland England and Wales it is essential to greatly increase rail capacity between Scotland and all parts of England and Wales so journeys between Scotland and all parts of England and Wales can be done affordably as a walk on train journey. The aim needs to be to at least replace all flights within Great Britain to and from Edinburgh and Glasgow with train journeys so travelling between all parts of England and Wales and Edinburgh and Glasgow at least feels like travelling within the same country.
If the only practical way to make such journeys is to fly it gives the impression that Scotland is not really part of a Union with England and Wales.
Travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is in the majority of cases by flying and otherwise has to be by ferry and this is one reason for the feeling that Northern Ireland is somewhat detached from the rest of the Union and why a fixed link was proposed and investigated.

There are a great many countries where the only practical way of getting around it quickly is by air. Do you think Los Angeles isn’t in the same United States as Washington DC?

What matters to state building is the fast exchange of human capital, not whether “it feels odd to take a plane somewhere”.

 

[weeklycommuter]

There are a great many countries where the only practical way of getting around it quickly is by air. Do you think Los Angeles isn’t in the same United States as Washington DC?

What matters to state building is the fast exchange of human capital, not whether “it feels odd to take a plane somewhere”.

The United States of America covers around forty times the area of the United Kingdom and the distances for domestic journeys are many times greater than for domestic journeys within Great Britain. For this reason flying is a normal way making domestic journeys within the United States of America.

 

[D1024]

Flying is something people who live in Great Britain do to visit foreign countries whereas travel by train is almost exclusively journeys within Great Britain. Unlike much larger countries domestic flights are not a normal way to make domestic journeys within Great Britain whereas train travel is almost exclusively within Great Britain as it is an island.

This viewpoint is dependant on where within Great Britain you live and what journeys you make domestically. I am in the North East of Scotland and regularly visit family members who live in the New Forest are of South West Hampshire (where I was born and grew up) - near enough a 600mile journey. By air via Heathrow and hire car I can do front door to front door in 5 hours - by train it's circa 12 hours for the same journey and that includes an awkward trek across London and ends up with no personal transport on arrival. The cost is about the same for both methods. I am not the only one - there are up to 14 flights a day from Aberdeen to 3 of the London Airports and they are always very busy....