Caledonian Sleeper

[Bletchleyite]

The Caledonian Sleeper name is getting slated big time at the moment. Will they fully recover from that?

I'm not totally sure it will. If it was given back to ScotRail it could of course be wholly rebranded. Who wouldn't love to see "The Deerstalker Express" on the boards at Euston?

 

[6Z09]

Route and traction knowledge are now very contract specific,resulting in loss of both throughout the industry.

 

[JohnMcL7]

How do they normally rescue the 67 if it fails?

 

[jagardner1984]

Exactly what Andy said.

I don’t doubt there are big issues getting stock and staff in the right place. Maybe it’s even impossible.

When a train fails on Saturday morning, I DO find it unacceptable that even if all spare options have been exhausted within CS’ fleet, that GBRF are unable to move stock to the correct locations (are they doing this ? - the service alterations page suggests starting from Edinburgh) that no other train, locomotive or coaching stock can be driven by any other company or agency (albeit route conducted) anywhere in the UK, and you have to resort to sending a bus from Euston to Dumbarton, for a train departing almost 36 hours later.

Some people in this thread seem to want to say any reasonable alternative plan is unachievable, and we just have to accept such things. For a target market that is moving increasingly from being a form of travel into the selling of an experience, at a huge premium against simple day travel, the review sites and the social media, critical to communicating with international visitors, paint an increasingly bleak viewpoint. Serco and government ministers need to act fast to salvage this situation.

 

[Highlandspring]

What about the driver side of things? It's GBRf that provide the traction and drivers throughout on all trains. So limited amount of drivers. Limited amount of traction. As that failure on 1B01 shows, lack of drivers with route knowledge. Surely if Scotrail then all drivers on route would sign the traction.

When ScotRail (under NatEx then First) ran the sleepers provision of locomotives and drivers for all trains except the Fort William portion was hired in from EWS and at one point Virgin. The Fort William portion was worked by ScotRail drivers from Queen Street and Fort William depots with hired in traction from EWS. I don't see why Abellio would seek to do anything differently if they ran the sleepers.

From my perspective I know the GBRf controllers work extremely hard to overcome problems and are continually manipulating company resources throughout the whole 24 hour period to ensure services can be delivered. But they're not superheros and they are limited in what they can do because of what's available; the resourcing is very tight for both locos and drivers. I don't often have cause to deal with the CS Service Delivery Managers in Inverness but whenever I have spoken to them they've always been very focussed on the needs of the passengers.

People calling for the Caledonian Sleeper franchise to be returned to the main ScotRail franchise should be careful what they wish for given the very high profile difficulties encountered and the continual public slating Abellio has endured.

 

[Carlisle]

Back to Caledonian Sleeper.

So when do we think Transport Scotland will take back the Caledonian sleepers

very unlikely I’d say, a franchise has never previously been terminated for poor performance & these large companies employ professionals very capable of deflecting most of the blame, & the multitude of contracts involved in running today’s railway, make this a pretty straightforward task, besides with today’s polarised politics the current regime at Holyrood aren’t likely to relish tackling anything controversial that doesn’t further their cause for independence

 

[EE Andy b1]

People calling for the Caledonian Sleeper franchise to be returned to the main ScotRail franchise should be careful what they wish for given the very high profile difficulties encountered and the continual public slating Abellio has endured.

This is true as things are not going to well with them.
Something needs to happen though as CS is not looking too appetizing to passenger travel at the moment and staff trying there best are getting stressed out.
I enjoy my job and normally do enjoy turning up for work, some shifts better than others. If you lose that it can be a very long week.

 

[side effect]

I bought the FT, and was not advised on purchase of such restriction. Although the article doesn't add much to what is known here.

GZ

Thank you for that, very helpful

 

[side effect]

I wouldn't mind volunteering to help on board if I got free travel.

 

[MrEd]

When ScotRail (under NatEx then First) ran the sleepers provision of locomotives and drivers for all trains except the Fort William portion was hired in from EWS and at one point Virgin. The Fort William portion was worked by ScotRail drivers from Queen Street and Fort William depots with hired in traction from EWS. I don't see why Abellio would seek to do anything differently if they ran the sleepers.

I think the first thing we need to establish is why Abellio would want the Sleeper, given the unenviable nature of managing the complex Mk5 introduction and the complex operation generally. As the only traction now available to them is 92s and 73/9s given the constraints of the Mk5s, they would need to keep GBRf as a traction provider (unless they had a really radical plan), and GBRf as part of the contract supply drivers for all portions of the Sleeper. The use of Scotrail drivers on the Fort William run finished when GBRf took over in 2015. I cannot see why Abellio would want to train their own drivers to drive the 73/9s given the cost and time involved, and the fact that GBRf can already supply drivers.

Had Friday night’s failure occurred in Scotrail days, I personally very much doubt that Scotrail could have done anything different. Spare locos and drivers (who sign those locos) at Fort William would hardly have been guaranteed, and there’s also no guarantee that an RETB fitted 67 (or whatever- bearing in mind it would need both RETB fitted and to be cleared to work the WHL) and a driver who signed both it and the WHL would have been instantly available in the Glasgow area. In any case, I don’t think any Scotrail drivers from Glasgow who worked the Sleeper ever signed the WHL beyond Rannoch, so the problem of getting the rescue loco to the stricken train would still have remained, as there would probably have been no-one to route conduct the Glasgow driver.

Spare locos and crews are hardly in abundance on the modern railway full stop.

 

[MrEd]

What about the driver side of things? It's GBRf that provide the traction and drivers throughout on all trains. So limited amount of drivers. Limited amount of traction. As that failure on 1B11 shows, lack of drivers with route knowledge. Surely if Scotrail then all drivers on route would sign the traction. A back up Class 73 and crew at Fort William might have helped. Expensive things to have sat around we know, but what price bad customer service?

When, in July 2015, a Class 67 failed at Slochd with the southbound Inverness portion and was stranded all night in a high profile incident, CS insisted (till the end of the year) that the Inverness portion was worked by two Class 67s. The arrangement was then seen as wasteful, as failures on the Highland main line were very rare, and forgotten about by the start of 2016. CS could insist that this happens with 73s on the FTW in the short-term, but once the Mk5s are running, there won’t be enough locos for this, as two 73s will always be needed on the Inverness.

There is absolutely no guarantee that all Scotrail drivers at Queen St and Fort William would sign the Sleeper locos: the Sleeper work is often considered top-link work and reserved for the higher links in a given depot, meaning that lower links are unlikely to sign the Sleeper locos (these, whether 67s or 73/9s, are complex machines and very different from driving the usual units). I admittedly know nothing about the link structure of those depots in First Scotrail days, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that was the case (certainly with GBRf at larger depots, the Sleeper work is reserved for the top link, with the result that lower links may not always sign the appropriate traction).

 

[Caleb2010]

They do have that computer, but they can technically be in any formation so aren't MUs. The TPE sets are bar-coupled within a "unit" and have screw couplers and buffers on the outer ends so those are unpowered MUs.

Cheers, apologies for the last line of my original post - it should have said I really need - to read the forum properly .... But my mobile keyboard plays tricks on me!!

 

[Highlandspring]

I think the first thing we need to establish is why Abellio would want the Sleeper, given the unenviable nature of managing the complex Mk5 introduction and the complex operation generally. As the only traction now available to them is 92s and 73/9s given the constraints of the Mk5s, they would need to keep GBRf as a traction provider (unless they had a really radical plan), and GBRf as part of the contract supply drivers for all portions of the Sleeper. The use of Scotrail drivers on the Fort William run finished when GBRf took over in 2015. I cannot see why Abellio would want to train their own drivers to drive the 73/9s given the cost and time involved, and the fact that GBRf can already supply drivers.

Had Friday night’s failure occurred in Scotrail days, I personally very much doubt that Scotrail could have done anything different. Spare locos and drivers (who sign those locos) at Fort William would hardly have been guaranteed, and there’s also no guarantee that an RETB fitted 67 (or whatever- bearing in mind it would need both RETB fitted and to be cleared to work the WHL) and a driver who signed both it and the WHL would have been instantly available in the Glasgow area. In any case, I don’t think any Scotrail drivers from Glasgow who worked the Sleeper ever signed the WHL beyond Rannoch, so the problem of getting the rescue loco to the stricken train would still have remained, as there would probably have been no-one to route conduct the Glasgow driver.

Spare locos and crews are hardly in abundance on the modern railway full stop.

Well, exactly. I'm in agreement with everything you have written there.

 

[Highlandspring]

CS could insist that this happens with 73s on the FTW in the short-term, but once the Mk5s are running, there won’t be enough locos for this, as two 73s will always be needed on the Inverness..

If I were in charge at GBRf I'd be looking to convert a few more 73/9s as a matter of urgency. Another three should do it...

 

[TimboM]

ECS working from Polmadie to Wembley on it's way as well

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O18148/2019/06/30/advanced

Only 140 tonnes trailing load though so may not be the empties to work north tonight?

Fort William working hasn't left yet though according to RTT (as at 1152)

I wouldn't pay much attention to timing loads, especially on STP paths.

It was 92010 with 8x Mk5s, being the 'missing' Glasgow portion from the cancelled 1M11 on Friday night going to Wembley to ensure the northbound tonight is fully-formed.

 

[Kendalian]

I wouldn't pay much attention to timing loads, especially on STP paths.

It was 92010 with 8x Mk5s, being the 'missing' Glasgow portion from the cancelled 1M11 on Friday night going to Wembley to ensure the northbound tonight is fully-formed.

Yes, quite a few photos have turned up...

The guests on tonight's marathon coach journey to Dumbarton could be forgiven for asking why the FW coaches couldn't have been tagged on as well!

 

[chuff chuff]

I'm not totally sure it will. If it was given back to ScotRail it could of course be wholly rebranded. Who wouldn't love to see "The Deerstalker Express" on the boards at Euston?

And to justify that scotrail would have to allow guns on board again.

 

[EE Andy b1]

If I were in charge at GBRf I'd be looking to convert a few more 73/9s as a matter of urgency. Another three should do it...

How different are GBRfs other Class 73/9s, apart from the lack of a dellner coupler, they use down south for freight work?
Perhaps these could be moved north at least as a temporary fix, once dellner fitted, or perhaps not.

 

[TimboM]

Yes, quite a few photos have turned up...

The guests on tonight's marathon coach journey to Dumbarton could be forgiven for asking why the FW coaches couldn't have been tagged on as well!

If they ask, there's a simple answer: Mk3s/Mk2s cannot couple to Mk5s.

How different are GBRfs other Class 73/9s, apart from the lack of a dellner coupler, they use down south for freight work?
Perhaps these could be moved north at least as a temporary fix, once dellner fitted, or perhaps not.

They're a different build with different driving controls. They also are used for other duties and the mods (which are just a new coupler) take months to do, so they're not an option for a "temporary fix".

If I were in charge at GBRf I'd be looking to convert a few more 73/9s as a matter of urgency. Another three should do it...

Those in charge will have weighed up the costs of cancelling services vs the costs per loco (which are significant) and determined what was necessary to deliver the service in line with the contract. More will only be done if a) it looks like the costs of cancellations would outweigh the cost of another loco or b) someone else (e.g. Serco or TS) pays for it to be done.

Once the froth over Friday-night's failure has been waded through, the facts are 73/9 failures are pretty rare and would not appear to justify the cost of several extra locomotives... one perhaps, but not three.

 

[TimboM]

Well, exactly. I'm in agreement with everything you have written there.

+1
Refreshing to see some common sense on here @MrEd !!

 

[Mainliner]

Latest depressing Tripadvisor review, so many failings for a £400 journey https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowU...iam_Lochaber_Scottish_Highlands_Scotland.html

 

[EE Andy b1]

Sounds like the saga will go on until the Mk5 sleeper coaches work properly, then the complaints will just go back to seating and how uncomfortable they seem to be, beds, who knows, oh and the noise, oh and the rough riding, rubbish food if your unlucky enough to get some.
Oh dear UK rail gone down the pan.

 

[Maxfly]

I do agree that a ‘thunderbird’ is wasteful but any spare locos should be fuelled up wherever possible. It’s ok on anything that has a long range but one of the very few shortcomings on a 73 is the range. This wouldn’t purely be for WHL standby but any failure off the wires of a GBRF hauled service. There should surely be at least an idea of what needs to happen when a failure occurs in a remote area, asking the driver to get to the nearest road and get to Helensburgh shows a lack of knowledge of the area the train runs through which shouldn’t be the case. An in-depth knowledge is not required but the basics should at least be, believe driver was also told to utilise the gsm-r........
Also as said previously WCRC had 3 locos at Fort William, I would hope they had at least been approached to see if they could offer any assistance. As a loco 30 minutes away is a heck of a lot handier than one in polmadie.

 

[trebor79]

Also as said previously WCRC had 3 locos at Fort William, I would hope they had at least been approached to see if they could offer any assistance. As a loco 30 minutes away is a heck of a lot handier than one in polmadie.

How would they be able to help? Single track line so their loco would have had to couple to the rear, which it can't because it doesn't have Dellner couplers...

Edit: oops forgot this is the old stock. No Dellner to worry about.

 

[Ianigsy]

You can't sell people a hotel on wheels experience and then provide Fawlty Towers on the day- the sleeper is increasingly marketed as a premium leisure product and people will make their decision on that basis. An overnight road coach, lack of catering or lounge car is equivalent to Cunard hiring an Isle of Man ferry to cover for the Queen Mary 2!

Unfortunately Thursday was also a bad day for Glasgow in particular- problems with overhead power at Charing Cross in the morning and Partick in the evening knocked out much of the low level service from the main termini and a points failure at Bridge Street hit the evening peak from Central towards Ayrshire in particular with a fair few services cancelled or turned at Paisley.

 

[Maxfly]

How would they be able to help? Single track line so their loco would have had to couple to the rear, which it can't because it doesn't have Dellner couplers...

Mk3/2’s don’t have dellners.......

 

[6Z09]

How would they be able to help? Single track line so their loco would have had to couple to the rear, which it can't because it doesn't have Dellner couplers...

Old stock,does not need dellners
Beat me to it Maxfly

 

[6Z09]

You can't sell people a hotel on wheels experience and then provide Fawlty Towers on the day- the sleeper is increasingly marketed as a premium leisure product and people will make their decision on that basis. An overnight road coach, lack of catering or lounge car is equivalent to Cunard hiring an Isle of Man ferry to cover for the Queen Mary 2!

Unfortunately Thursday was also a bad day for Glasgow in particular- problems with overhead power at Charing Cross in the morning and Partick in the evening knocked out much of the low level service from the main termini and a points failure at Bridge Street hit the evening peak from Central towards Ayrshire in particular with a fair few services cancelled or turned at Paisley.

The marketing of the hotel on wheels has been a fiasco , and someone should have realised that long ago!

 

[Bletchleyite]

And to justify that scotrail would have to allow guns on board again.

They do.

https://www.sleeper.scot/faq/?search=firearms

 

[chuff chuff]

They do.

https://www.sleeper.scot/faq/?search=firearms

Yes the sleeper does but scotrail stopped allowing firearms on their trains a year or three back.