Caledonian Sleeper discussion

[Bungle965]

I don't, it's more about the ageing, knackered rolling stock.

Does everyone remember how unreliable the WCML and XC were in the days of the old stock?

Virgin was partly down to that, they worked the older stock harder and as a result had more failures.
Sam

 

[Marklund]

I don't, it's more about the ageing, knackered rolling stock.

Does everyone remember how unreliable the WCML and XC were in the days of the old stock?

Did they move the maintenance depot at a time when ageing stock needed TLC the most?

(Actually, WC & XC gave EVR to a lot of long serving staff, so much of the same).

Not the most sensible thing to do.

 

[43096]

I don't, it's more about the ageing, knackered rolling stock.



Does everyone remember how unreliable the WCML and XC were in the days of the old stock?

And that same WCML stock is now the most reliable IC stock in the country over 10 years later. That says rather more about the attitude towards maintenance of the previous user.

 

[BRX]

Experience. I live in Inverness and travel to the Alps often, and often via London. 50% of the time I have used the sleeper it has been late or certainly uncertain until actual arrival. It's a stress I can do without to be honest. It's also more expensive but I like to use the train and support the sleeper.

If I get Easyjet to Gatwick or Luton it's almost 100% reliable and I make my connection.

I was interested to see what the *actual* reliability is, so I looked on www.recenttraintimes.co.uk.

Over he past 100 days, the Inverness to London sleeper has arrived within 15 mins of schedule 91% of the time. 4 instances of delays of more than an hour.

The London to Inverness sleeper has arrived within 15 mins of schedule 94% of the time with one instance of delays more than an hour.

Looking at Easyjet stats (not for the same time period though, for Jan-Sept 2016), http://www.flightontime.info/loco/airlines/ezy16.html

Luton to Inverness flights: within 15 mins of schedule 58% of the time, 10% of flights delayed by more than an hour.

Gatwick to Inverness flight: within 15 mins 50% of the time, 14% of flights delayed by more than an hour.

Not directly comparable data, perhaps, but I'd say it suggests that the sleeper actually does rather well in comparison.

 

[CosherB]

I was interested to see what the *actual* reliability is, so I looked on www.recenttraintimes.co.uk.

Over he past 100 days, the Inverness to London sleeper has arrived within 15 mins of schedule 91% of the time. 4 instances of delays of more than an hour.

The London to Inverness sleeper has arrived within 15 mins of schedule 94% of the time with one instance of delays more than an hour.

Looking at Easyjet stats (not for the same time period though, for Jan-Sept 2016), http://www.flightontime.info/loco/airlines/ezy16.html

Luton to Inverness flights: within 15 mins of schedule 58% of the time, 10% of flights delayed by more than an hour.

Gatwick to Inverness flight: within 15 mins 50% of the time, 14% of flights delayed by more than an hour.

Not directly comparable data, perhaps, but I'd say it suggests that the sleeper actually does rather well in comparison.

At last - some facts! Thank you for taking the time to post this very interesting information!

 

[Highland37]

I think those data only paint part of the picture. It certainly isn't my experience anyway. Usually with Easyjet you can be pretty sure that if they say they are going to be on time, they will be. Also, if not, they give you a pretty good idea of when they will arrive.

Note that I am usually flying south, not north, and the delays are often due to air traffic and other issues at airports larger than Inverness meaning they can make up time at Inverness as it's not busy.

The sleeper by contrast can be late for much of the journey and then make up time. That's isn't a stress I want. Much of it due to the nature of the transport medium which cannot be avoided. It's the winter I usually travel in as it's ski related.

 

[gsnedders]

Just booked tickets on the Lowlander last night for later this month; I've been trying to find something saying what the formation of the Glasgow portion is (I'm sure it's on here somewhere!). What order are the coaches in? I presume it's still the case that the lounge car is to the rear of the loco, then the sleepers, then the seated car?

That said, I'm well able to believe my memory is wrong given it's been almost a decade since I was last on it!

 

[Chrism20]

Note that I am usually flying south, not north, and the delays are often due to air traffic and other issues at airports larger than Inverness meaning they can make up time at Inverness as it's not busy.

The southbound flight will be as susceptible to delays as the northbound. it's just you circle in the air waiting to land at Luton or Gatwick rather than sit on the tarmac.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the delays were near enough 50/50 between north and southbound - particularly when the plane is returning back to the same airport.

 

[TimboM]

At last - some facts! Thank you for taking the time to post this very interesting information!

Indeed. And during that period those services were c.75-80% 92-hauled under the wires and I can't think of one of the major delays that was due to a 92 failure. Most have been north of Edinburgh issues, with the only one on the WCML itself I can recall being the broken rail/helping nudge from a Class 70 incident of a few weeks back (and that was a 90 and not a traction issue as such).

Appreciate the stress of delays and making time up if you're needing to get somewhere as Highland37 says. Good communication helps with this, though - particularly on a service with plenty of leeway in the timings like the sleeper; e.g. last night's Lowlander was 72L departing Euston but CS advised prior to departure it was expected to arrive in Glasgow/Edinburgh on time, which it did.

 

[TimboM]

Just booked tickets on the Lowlander last night for later this month; I've been trying to find something saying what the formation of the Glasgow portion is (I'm sure it's on here somewhere!). What order are the coaches in? I presume it's still the case that the lounge car is to the rear of the loco, then the sleepers, then the seated car?

That said, I'm well able to believe my memory is wrong given it's been almost a decade since I was last on it!

The last few times I've been on it the seated and lounge cars have been at the "London"/south end, then First berths, then Standard berths at the "Glasgow"/north end of the portion. That said (and I'm sure someone will be able to clarify) I think they can end up either way round.

 

[BRX]

I think those data only paint part of the picture. It certainly isn't my experience anyway. Usually with Easyjet you can be pretty sure that if they say they are going to be on time, they will be. Also, if not, they give you a pretty good idea of when they will arrive.

Note that I am usually flying south, not north, and the delays are often due to air traffic and other issues at airports larger than Inverness meaning they can make up time at Inverness as it's not busy.

The sleeper by contrast can be late for much of the journey and then make up time. That's isn't a stress I want. Much of it due to the nature of the transport medium which cannot be avoided. It's the winter I usually travel in as it's ski related.

Objectively though, I don't really see how it's different. Say you are getting the sleeper south, and you know that if you are more than an hour late in London you will miss your connection.

If in the first part of the journey you pick up a delay, you know that there's an increased possibility that you'll arrive in London >1hr late. However you also know that there's a good chance the time will be made up. All you really know is that there's a <5% probability of missing your connection overall, and the information that your train has picked up a delay somewhat increases the probability in this particular journey.

Say you are flying instead, I assume early the next morning. With a 1 hr leeway in London to make your connection, to make it a fair comparison. When you go to bed the only information you have is that there is a >10% probability of missing your connection.

So, getting on a sleeper that leaves on time should indicate a lesser probability of missing your connection than would be the case if you were going to bed to get up for an early flight.

Getting on a sleeper that leaves late *might* indicate an increased probability of missing your connection, compared to the 10% associated with getting on a flight in the morning. You'd have to show that more than 10% of sleepers that pick up a delay in the first part of the journey end up being >1hr late in London.

The only really useful information comes in the morning when either (a) you wake up somewhere on the WCML with a heavy delay or (b) you check your flight an hour or two beforehand to see that a delay is expected. In both cases, stressful, but in both cases there's not much you can do about it at that point. On the sleeper at least you can be fairly certain that you will arrive in London at some point in the morning, whereas I'm guessing that's not the case if you're sitting in Inverness airport with your flight cancelled or badly delayed.

 

[Highland37]

The difference is pretty clear to me. In one case I arrive in Gatwick or Luton late and have to either get another flight to GVA or move to another airport to do so (I have never had to do that).

In the other, you arrive at Euston, need to get to St Pancras, with a massive bag and skis, train to Paris, TGV to Chambery and TER to Bourg St Maurice.

Believe me, when you are carrying a lot of gear a multiple connection service going through two big cities is not easy!

 

[berneyarms]

The difference is pretty clear to me. In one case I arrive in Gatwick or Luton late and have to either get another flight to GVA or move to another airport to do so (I have never had to do that).

In the other, you arrive at Euston, need to get to St Pancras, with a massive bag and skis, train to Paris, TGV to Chambery and TER to Bourg St Maurice.

Believe me, when you are carrying a lot of gear a multiple connection service going through two big cities is not easy!

Well in that case the sleeper isn't really an option in the first place, reliable or not surely?

Which kinda makes the reliability argument irrelevant.

 

[CosherB]

The difference is pretty clear to me. In one case I arrive in Gatwick or Luton late and have to either get another flight to GVA or move to another airport to do so (I have never had to do that).

In the other, you arrive at Euston, need to get to St Pancras, with a massive bag and skis, train to Paris, TGV to Chambery and TER to Bourg St Maurice.

Believe me, when you are carrying a lot of gear a multiple connection service going through two big cities is not easy!

Why don't you just go to Aviemore instead?

 

[Marklund]

The difference is pretty clear to me. In one case I arrive in Gatwick or Luton late and have to either get another flight to GVA or move to another airport to do so (I have never had to do that).

In the other, you arrive at Euston, need to get to St Pancras, with a massive bag and skis, train to Paris, TGV to Chambery and TER to Bourg St Maurice.

Believe me, when you are carrying a lot of gear a multiple connection service going through two big cities is not easy!

Easier yes, but nothing to do with reliability, and U2 don't interline between flights, so you still have to get the luggage within the airports.
Also good luck with missing the connection.

 

[Highland37]

Well in that case the sleeper isn't really an option in the first place, reliable or not surely?

Which kinda makes the reliability argument irrelevant.

It really isn't irrelevant out in the real world. I have used the sleeper various times to get to the Alps. Mainly to support it but also for environmental reasons and the pleasure of a journey by train. It's A LOT easier once you get to SNCF.

Marklund - had a great ski season in Scotland this year but I have had to work really hard for it. Lots of walking and beasting with big packs on. Some parts of the Alps weren't great either.

 

[BRX]

As others have said, your preference seems to based on other things than the reliability of the sleeper. It's about a balance of convenience considered over the whole journey. Each option has its advantages.

The sleeper gets into Euston at 7.47. The connection to Bourg St Maurice departs at 11.30. It takes ten minutes to walk from Euston to St Pancras (admittedly less straightforward if you have a lot of luggage) and it's usually fine to check in for Eurostar 30 mins ahead (or less) so in reality the sleeper would have to be about 3 hours late before you'd be likely to miss your connection.

I've gone from London to Bourg St Maurice (and Swiss destinations around Geneva) with ski stuff several times by the way. Getting across Paris is a bit of a pain. It can sometimes be avoided by changing at Lille instead, though.

In your flying option you've missed out the final link from Geneva to your destination by the way, so in reality there's another change there.

 

[Scotrail84]

Indeed. And during that period those services were c.75-80% 92-hauled under the wires and I can't think of one of the major delays that was due to a 92 failure. Most have been north of Edinburgh issues, with the only one on the WCML itself I can recall being the broken rail/helping nudge from a Class 70 incident of a few weeks back (and that was a 90 and not a traction issue as such).

Appreciate the stress of delays and making time up if you're needing to get somewhere as Highland37 says. Good communication helps with this, though - particularly on a service with plenty of leeway in the timings like the sleeper; e.g. last night's Lowlander was 72L departing Euston but CS advised prior to departure it was expected to arrive in Glasgow/Edinburgh on time, which it did.

Because it had a 90 on the front.

 

[Scotrail84]

Just booked tickets on the Lowlander last night for later this month; I've been trying to find something saying what the formation of the Glasgow portion is (I'm sure it's on here somewhere!). What order are the coaches in? I presume it's still the case that the lounge car is to the rear of the loco, then the sleepers, then the seated car?

That said, I'm well able to believe my memory is wrong given it's been almost a decade since I was last on it!

Layout as follows. Starting from Euston .

Buffers (South end)

Coach A (seated)

Edinburgh Lounge car

Coach B (1st)

Coach C (1st)

Coach D (1st)

Coach E (std)

Coach F (std)

Coach G (std)
--------------------------
Coach H (seated)

Glasgow Lounge Car

Coach J (1st)

Coach K (1st)

Coach L (1st)

Coach M (std)

Coach N (std)

Coach P (std)

Loco (North end)

 

[CosherB]

Because it had a 90 on the front.

Are you sure about that? You're assuming the 90 was able to utilise the extra 13mph it has over a 92 over a long period of time - can you confirm that?

A speculative comment at best I'd say.

 

[Scotrail84]

Are you sure about that? You're assuming the 90 was able to utilise the extra 13mph it has over a 92 over a long period of time - can you confirm that?

A speculative comment at best I'd say.

It had a 90 049 on the front, due to a 92 failure.

 

[CosherB]

It had a 90 049 on the front, due to a 92 failure.

I meant that the only reason that time was made up was because a 90 was used. I doubt that assertion.

 

[Scotrail84]

I meant that the only reason that time was made up was because a 90 was used. I doubt that assertion.

You doubt what you like but take it from me if that had been a 92 it would not have clawed back 72 minutes.

 

[CosherB]

You doubt what you like but take it from me if that had been a 92 it would not have clawed back 72 minutes.

Touch and go I'd say: 72 / (87-75) = 6 hours. Assuming of course the 92 could run at 87mph all the way.

 

[BRX]

Are you sure about that? You're assuming the 90 was able to utilise the extra 13mph it has over a 92 over a long period of time - can you confirm that?

A speculative comment at best I'd say.

If you look at RTT

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C74107/2017/04/11/advanced

You see that there are a few periods where it makes up 10-15 mins in quite a short section of time. I thought I'd calculate the average speeds, timetabled and actual, for these. I expected that I'd find it was explained by very slow timetabled speeds (ie padding) beaten by faster but still not very fast running. But actually in at least a couple of instances it does suggest the train was running at over 87mph.

The three I looked at

Watford Junction - Ledburn Junction 21 miles

Timetabled for 22 minutes av. speed 58mph
Took 12 minutes av speed 105mph

Weedon-Hillmorton Jn 11.5 miles

Timetabled for 21 minutes av. speed 23mph
Took 8 minutes av speed 88mph

Rugely North Jn - Colwich 2.5 miles

Timetabled for 12 minutes av. speed 12.5 mph
Took 2 minutes av. speed 75mph

 

[43096]

If you look at RTT



http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C74107/2017/04/11/advanced



You see that there are a few periods where it makes up 10-15 mins in quite a short section of time. I thought I'd calculate the average speeds, timetabled and actual, for these. I expected that I'd find it was explained by very slow timetabled speeds (ie padding) beaten by faster but still not very fast running. But actually in at least a couple of instances it does suggest the train was running at over 87mph.



The three I looked at



Watford Junction - Ledburn Junction 21 miles



Timetabled for 22 minutes av. speed 58mph

Took 12 minutes av speed 105mph



Weedon-Hillmorton Jn 11.5 miles



Timetabled for 21 minutes av. speed 23mph

Took 8 minutes av speed 88mph



Rugely North Jn - Colwich 2.5 miles



Timetabled for 12 minutes av. speed 12.5 mph

Took 2 minutes av. speed 75mph

The Watford - Ledburn time suggests it was speeding, unless the analysis is flawed?

 

[BRX]

The Watford - Ledburn time suggests it was speeding, unless the analysis is flawed?

Yes it does! Especially if it's from a stand at Watford. My analysis may be flawed. I took the mileage from http://rmme.railmiles.me/ and I don't know how accurate the times on RTT are.

 

[TimboM]

Yes it does! Especially if it's from a stand at Watford. My analysis may be flawed. I took the mileage from http://rmme.railmiles.me/ and I don't know how accurate the times on RTT are.

The mileage looks about right and the RTT timing was 12 mins by looks of it. Bear in mind though it's relatively small numbers you're working with - 21 miles at 100mph is 12.6 mins, which is within the margin of error by using round minutes/round miles.

I'm not sure if it stopped at Watford - not clear on RTT if it did as has a "N/R" for the departure time. Might have sent pax down to board at Euston as it was running that late. If it did stop there's no way it could average c.100mph from a standing start and there's something awry with the RTT timings.

That aside, a lot of the gains last night (and on any night) are made up by not utilising pathing/engineering allowances and other 'padding' in the timings. There were 38.5 mins between Euston and Crewe of such allowances (and more beyond Crewe, but I've not added those up). So of the 62 mins recovered by Crewe, 38.5 mins were "freebies" and the other 23.5 mins through making better-than-timed progress (including going at 100mph).

It's hypothetical, but some rough calcs indicate a 92 would have had it down to about 20-22L at Crewe (vs the 90s 10L) and I'd expect in all the miles to go after Crewe it's reasonable to suggest a 92 would have got back on time before the crucial point of arriving at Glasgow/Edinburgh - and with the bonus of giving the passengers a less rocky ride in the process.

The 90s are quicker - it's a fact - but the service is timed at 80mph with plenty of "padding", so an 87mph loco in the vast majority of cases is adequate to get to the end destination on time. The extra 13mph of the 90 will only make a material difference in terms of the end destination time in a pretty small % of all services run.

It's all a bit of a moot point, though - last night the 90 was infinitely quicker than a 92, as the booked 92 evidently failed and didn't even run...

...roll-forward 12 months (or so!) and the 92 will be infinitely quicker than the 90s as the 90 won't be able to cope with the new stock's ETS demand.

 

[Rick1984]

Would it have made sense for one of the carriages to have a generator or would this be to noisy or take up to much space?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would it have made sense for one of the carriages to have a generator or would this be to noisy or take up to much space?

Train length is an issue so that wouldn't be ideal[1]. Thai sleepers have a gennie on each coach, but it's a bit noisy like a DMU.

[1] Given that and many other factors (e.g. how it would make the shunts far easier), I'm actually slightly surprised an EMU solution (but fitted with traditional drawgear and buffers to allow diesel locomotive haulage in Scotland) wasn't selected.