Caledonian Sleeper

[trebor79]

I would have liked to have seen the originally suggested lie flat pod beds on the Sleeper - but we are where we are.

Me too. There's no way I'd even consider an overnight trip on a seat, but I'd have been very happy with a pod. Apparently it was crash issues that did for them, but I don't understand why you'd be less safe in a pod than a bunk bed in the event of a crash.
All I can assume is that they were to have been laid out longitudinally rather than transversely. Why the obvious solution of a transverse layout wasn't adopted I don't know.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Me too. There's no way I'd even consider an overnight trip on a seat, but I'd have been very happy with a pod. Apparently it was crash issues that did for them, but I don't understand why you'd be less safe in a pod than a bunk bed in the event of a crash.
All I can assume is that they were to have been laid out longitudinally rather than transversely. Why the obvious solution of a transverse layout wasn't adopted I don't know.

I believe the issue was that half of them would have had to be back to the direction of travel, meaning potential back/neck injuries in an accident. The Stagecoach Megabus sleeper coaches used to have staff checking you were the "right way round" to avoid this.

I'm not sure transverse pods would have been very nice - no opportunity to look out of the window.

Personally, I think they should have done couchettes - either transverse or longitudinal. (A proper couchette would allow it to be used either way round).

 

[Highlandspring]

Me too. There's no way I'd even consider an overnight trip on a seat, but I'd have been very happy with a pod. Apparently it was crash issues that did for them, but I don't understand why you'd be less safe in a pod than a bunk bed in the event of a crash.
All I can assume is that they were to have been laid out longitudinally rather than transversely. Why the obvious solution of a transverse layout wasn't adopted I don't know.

You’re making that statement based on zero knowledge of the facts. The “crashworthiness issues” of the lie-flat pods were much discussed here a wee while back but as far as I saw no one ever produced any tangible evidence that this was a factor in why they were not progressed. Many people stated it as a fact but no evidence ever emerged in the public domain. It could easily have been an entirely commercially driven decision for all we know.

 

[Mathew S]

I believe the issue was that half of them would have had to be back to the direction of travel, meaning potential back/neck injuries in an accident. The Stagecoach Megabus sleeper coaches used to have staff checking you were the "right way round" to avoid this.

I'm not sure transverse pods would have been very nice - no opportunity to look out of the window.

Personally, I think they should have done couchettes - either transverse or longitudinal. (A proper couchette would allow it to be used either way round).

I'm not saying you're wrong, especially since I know nothing about it at all, but that does seem a bit daft to me. All trains have seats which face backwards, and surely if you're lying down/reclining it makes even less difference which way around you are?

 

[alangla]

I'm not saying you're wrong, especially since I know nothing about it at all, but that does seem a bit daft to me. All trains have seats which face backwards, and surely if you're lying down/reclining it makes even less difference which way around you are?

The opposite surely? If you’re sitting upright, facing backwards, you’ll be forced into the cushion of your seat (probably the best situation & why I believe the front coach of Pendolinos face backwards), if you’re facing forward you’ll be propelled into the seat in front, hence why 21st century seat shells have smooth curves & no corners, or a table (not ideal). If you were lying down in a reclining seat then you’d either be propelled into the shell of either your own or the adjoining one feet first (not too bad) or into it head first (oh dear) hence why you’d want all pods & occupants aligned the same way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not saying you're wrong, especially since I know nothing about it at all, but that does seem a bit daft to me. All trains have seats which face backwards, and surely if you're lying down/reclining it makes even less difference which way around you are?

Let's say you fell from a height onto your head - this wouldn't end well for your neck, would it?

A sudden stop causing a backward-facing lying down passenger to be propelled into the seat would have the same effect. Not so in a seat, where your body would all be pushed into the seat with no undesirable loading on the neck.

 

[trebor79]

So what's the difference when said passenger is lying in a bunk bed? The only thing I can think of is transverse Vs longitudinal layout.
If they didn't consider transverse layout that's daft, who's going to want a window view when they're asleep?
I think @Highlandspring might have hit the nail on the head - a commercial decision. It's consistent with no longer allowing a twin cabin to be shared with a stranger. They are going after the luxury market, hence no pods (or the cost benefit wasn't there).

 

[Bletchleyite]

So what's the difference when said passenger is lying in a bunk bed? The only thing I can think of is transverse Vs longitudinal layout.

Er, yes, that's a fairly big difference (think about what happens to a body weighing say 80kg flying against a partition when the coach stops dead). And even if you went longitudinal people could ensure they slept the right way round (though reversals could cause issues there).

If they didn't consider transverse layout that's daft, who's going to want a window view when they're asleep?

On the Lowlander yes, but on the Highlander most people won't sleep for all of it.

I think @Highlandspring might have hit the nail on the head - a commercial decision. It's consistent with no longer allowing a twin cabin to be shared with a stranger. They are going after the luxury market, hence no pods (or the cost benefit wasn't there).

That may have been the reason they didn't pursue alternative designs, but it absolutely wasn't the main problem.

 

[trebor79]

Er, yes, that's a fairly big difference (think about what happens to a body weighing say 80kg flying against a partition when the coach stops dead). And even if you went longitudinal people could ensure they slept the right way round (though reversals could cause issues there).

Yes, I agree that the longitudinal layout would be problematic. The obvious solution being a transverse pod. Fundamentally there's no difference between lying in a transverse pod or transverse bunk in a crash situation.
I'm sure the issue could have been solved, but evidently there were reasons that the solutions weren't pursued.

 

[Highlandspring]

That may have been the reason they didn't pursue alternative designs, but it absolutely wasn't the main problem.

Given the absence of publicly available evidence of what actually drove the decision I’ll choose to make my own mind up.

 

[Hipster Dashie]

67007 on the southbound Sleeper from Inverness tonight.

 

[Surreytraveller]

The opposite surely? If you’re sitting upright, facing backwards, you’ll be forced into the cushion of your seat (probably the best situation & why I believe the front coach of Pendolinos face backwards), if you’re facing forward you’ll be propelled into the seat in front, hence why 21st century seat shells have smooth curves & no corners, or a table (not ideal). If you were lying down in a reclining seat then you’d either be propelled into the shell of either your own or the adjoining one feet first (not too bad) or into it head first (oh dear) hence why you’d want all pods & occupants aligned the same way.

The Pendolino I was in recently didn't have all rear facing seats (first class, traditional seats round tables)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Pendolino I was in recently didn't have all rear facing seats (first class, traditional seats round tables)

Coaches A and K are mostly rear facing.

 

[Scotrail84]

86 101 on 1C11/1B26 the final (booked) slam door services on this run.

 

[TimboM]

Is the expectation that the mk5s will be less costly to maintain than the existing stock?

Yes.
Also with the new stock being part funded by a £60m government grant the monthly lease costs (or equivalent) will be less as they only financing about half the cost of the fleet.

 

[TimboM]

86 101 on 1C11/1B26 the final (booked) slam door services on this run.

Skoda 43 doing the honours on 1S26 and Skoda 46 (with Skoda 44 along for the ride) on 1M11.

 

[Highlandspring]

86 101 on 1C11/1B26 the final (booked) slam door services on this run.

An interesting bracketed caveat there! Sad to see the old girl go, I nearly managed to scramble it to rescue a NR test train that was in trouble at Cleland in the dead of night about 3 weeks ago but sadly the driver managed to get it going again.

 

[Kite159]

Skoda 43 doing the honours on 1S26 and Skoda 46 (with Skoda 44 along for the ride) on 1M11.

Hauled into Glasgow by an unknown 73.

 

[TimboM]

Hauled into Glasgow by an unknown 73.

73970

 

[jagardner1984]

Trying to book the sleeper southbound for mid next week. On the new reduced capacity stock, all berths on Edinburgh and Glasgow portions completely full.

Inviting options include driving to Dalmuir and hanging around at 11pm at night, or sitting in a chair for 8 hours.

Anyone wonder whether CAF could make a few more ?! Think of it as a late delivery bonus !

(Semi joking, but wonder if these are so successful, whether in time a longer train might need to go separately to Edinburgh and Glasgow).

Guess I’ll be heading over to skyscanner quicker than you can say “couchette ?”

 

[modernrail]

Trying to book the sleeper southbound for mid next week. On the new reduced capacity stock, all berths on Edinburgh and Glasgow portions completely full.

Inviting options include driving to Dalmuir and hanging around at 11pm at night, or sitting in a chair for 8 hours.

Anyone wonder whether CAF could make a few more ?! Think of it as a late delivery bonus !

(Semi joking, but wonder if these are so successful, whether in time a longer train might need to go separately to Edinburgh and Glasgow).

Guess I’ll be heading over to skyscanner quicker than you can say “couchette ?”

My northbound journey to Glasgow very heavily loaded as well. I wonder if the word is out and some people fancy testing the new stock?

 

[leightonbd]

Trying to book the sleeper southbound for mid next week. On the new reduced capacity stock, all berths on Edinburgh and Glasgow portions completely full.

Inviting options include driving to Dalmuir and hanging around at 11pm at night, or sitting in a chair for 8 hours.

Anyone wonder whether CAF could make a few more ?! Think of it as a late delivery bonus !

(Semi joking, but wonder if these are so successful, whether in time a longer train might need to go separately to Edinburgh and Glasgow).

Guess I’ll be heading over to skyscanner quicker than you can say “couchette ?”

I was unable to book northbound to Edinburgh for next Tuesday. Certainly a lot of people are aware new stock is coming in; it’s quite a talking point in both Edinburgh and London. Could be a game changer ...

 

[Deafdoggie]

The opposite surely? If you’re sitting upright, facing backwards, you’ll be forced into the cushion of your seat (probably the best situation & why I believe the front coach of Pendolinos face backwards), if you’re facing forward you’ll be propelled into the seat in front, hence why 21st century seat shells have smooth curves & no corners, or a table (not ideal). If you were lying down in a reclining seat then you’d either be propelled into the shell of either your own or the adjoining one feet first (not too bad) or into it head first (oh dear) hence why you’d want all pods & occupants aligned the same way.

The Pendolino I was in recently didn't have all rear facing seats (first class, traditional seats round tables

.


Pendolinos, Voyagers, Super Voyagers & Meridians all have seats facing both ways in the leading and trailing coaches and have seats round tables. Thus whichever way it travels there are backwards passengers (if you’ll pardon the expression) and forward passengers in the front coach.

 

[robertbishop]

Quick question for the oracle of knowledge that is this thread: I'm booking on the northbound Highland Sleeper to Fort William in mid-May, before the old stock gets replaced and for a First Club Solo berth I'm being offered berths is coaches D, E, F and G. What formation are these coaches in, and crucially, which is at the front leaving Edinburgh?

And for my return journey - Glasgow to London via the ECML on a Sunday in May - which coach out of J, M and N are closest to the blocks at Euston? RTT tells me there will be a reversal at Wembley.

Thanks,
Robert

 

[TimboM]

And for my return journey - Glasgow to London via the ECML on a Sunday in May - which coach out of J, M and N are closest to the blocks at Euston? RTT tells me there will be a reversal at Wembley.

Thanks,
Robert

If they form the train up at Edinburgh as they have done on the recent diversions the GLC portion will be at the front leading up the ECML, but then on the back after the reversal at Wembley - so if anyone can get their heads round which way round the sets will be, either way you’ll be a long way back...!

I’m fairly sure D is the one at the front leaving EDB on your FTW. Others will confirm.

The coach letters go up so G is next to the loco at Euston, but after the split at EDB, the day coaches are attached at that end and the FTW engine goes on the other end (i.e. the D end).

EDB-FTW should be (I think!) 739xx - D - E - F - G - Lounge - Seats/Brake.

 

[Bassman]

Yes, I agree that the longitudinal layout would be problematic. The obvious solution being a transverse pod. Fundamentally there's no difference between lying in a transverse pod or transverse bunk in a crash situation.
I'm sure the issue could have been solved, but evidently there were reasons that the solutions weren't pursued.

3 bed Couchette on the Prague overnight
Advance-purchase First Minute fares from Prague to Budapest start at around €39 including a couchette, €49 including a bed in a 3-bed sleeper, €69 including a bed in a 2-bed sleeper or €80 in a single-bed sleeper. (from Seat 61)

My complaint is that we (government) are subsidising only an upmarket travel option or alternatively the dire prospect of sitting up all night.

 

[Scotrail84]

Quick question for the oracle of knowledge that is this thread: I'm booking on the northbound Highland Sleeper to Fort William in mid-May, before the old stock gets replaced and for a First Club Solo berth I'm being offered berths is coaches D, E, F and G. What formation are these coaches in, and crucially, which is at the front leaving Edinburgh?

And for my return journey - Glasgow to London via the ECML on a Sunday in May - which coach out of J, M and N are closest to the blocks at Euston? RTT tells me there will be a reversal at Wembley.

Thanks,
Robert

Coach D

Coach N

 

[Bald Rick]

I was unable to book northbound to Edinburgh for next Tuesday. Certainly a lot of people are aware new stock is coming in; it’s quite a talking point in both Edinburgh and London. Could be a game changer ...

I think it’s mostly people wanting to try it out following recent publicity, including a fair few people with anoraks.

I booked on the Edinburgh for late June last week and was the first booking on the train...

 

[leightonbd]

The PR machine is running. No pressure ...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...otland-revamped-train-sleeper-romance-revival

 

[Kite159]

And some of us accidentally booked on the launch night without knowing because I needed to take one more day annual leave in April and wanted to get the most out of my weekly season ticket

The guard of the Fort William portion didn't like me boarding this morning (with money for a single ticket), but I would say a good few walk ups walkers didn't get the chance to buy tickets.