Caledonian Sleeper

[mde]

The comment about staff announcing they are overworked seems a new one though. I can't see it having been explained to the passenger like that somehow. I'd hazard a guess that no hot food has been loaded rather than none available.

Another masterpiece from Al Dalton… it's now been picked up by the local chip shop rag (Evening Times / Herald) as well.

I'd agree with your guess being closer to what actually happened - it was certainly the experience I had on the lowlander in May, the only food that had been loaded was snacks, and, the breakfasts. Not very good, but, there's always going to be more to it than the articles imply…

 

[6Z09]

I dont think many rely on the food apart from breakfast.
I certainly would not cancel my dinner in the anticipation of a microwave meal at midnight!

 

[47271]

In more positive news I've had a report of breakfast being brought to a Highlander cabin properly presented on a tray on Tuesday morning, no cardboard boxes and paper cups:
- bacon roll placed on a napkin on a plate
- tea in a metal pot
- orange juice
- muffin

Not only this, but the passenger was a Flexipass holder tired of arguing about their entitlement to inclusive breakfast. All of the above was provided without discussion!

Between this and the Lowlander running reliably - maybe things are picking up.

 

[MrEd]

I dont think many rely on the food apart from breakfast.
I certainly would not cancel my dinner in the anticipation of a microwave meal at midnight!

Depends whether you’re on the Highlander or the Lowlander, I suppose. I can’t imagine that many folks would be eating a full cooked meal on the Lowlander given the late departure, but I know many that do on the Highlander both northbound and southbound (myself included), and who are often quite upset to find there’s no meal service. I’m probably one of the few lucky regulars on the Highlander who’s never been faced with a train without a full catering service*; judging by the reports on here I may well be very lucky indeed!

Hopefully CS will have resolved their staff shortages by the end of the year; I’ve seen that there are some new staff currently in training at Inverness to replace the four who left en masse in March (which caused quite serious problems for CS, as the Inverness crew base is small and has very few spare staff, and there were delays in recruiting new crew); the new recruits (and probably some of the existing staff) are probably being trained on Mk5s as we speak, which won’t be helping with the shortages that they’re facing. The Inverness portion has quite often relied on staff from the other bases (Aberdeen, Fort William, even Glasgow and Edinburgh at times, bases which are themselves stretched) to keep it running this spring and summer. When I used the Inverness portion southbound on a Tuesday night in early July, we had a Glasgow-based team leader (who understandably could not stand the pace of a Highlander lounge service), a long-standing Inverness based host, two new trainee hosts from Inverness and even a trainee host from London working the train. The service in the lounge (and with check-in) was understandably quite disjointed, as the staff were understandably inexperienced and did not know each other well. Hopefully, once the new crew all settle in at Inverness, the service on the Inverness portion will be back to its usual high standard.

*Once, when I was travelling to Fort William last year, all the passengers northbound out of Euston had to cram into the Inverness lounge car as the Aberdeen lounge was dead, but everyone got served eventually. Hopefully the lounge was fixed in time for the return working from Aberdeen.

 

[BRX]

I dont think many rely on the food apart from breakfast.
I certainly would not cancel my dinner in the anticipation of a microwave meal at midnight!

I've nearly always relied on being able to have dinner. (This is on the highlander). Part of the whole point of the time efficiency of the service is that you don't have to have fed yourself before getting on the train. What is the point of having a dinner service if it can't be relied upon? I see it as quite a serious failure of service if people don't get fed and spend the night hungry. I hope Serco are getting hammered with penalties every night people are going without dinner, because as I see it, it's a direct result of them skimping on maintenance of the lounge car vehicles.

 

[MrEd]

I've nearly always relied on being able to have dinner. (This is on the highlander). Part of the whole point of the time efficiency of the service is that you don't have to have fed yourself before getting on the train. What is the point of having a dinner service if it can't be relied upon? I see it as quite a serious failure of service if people don't get fed and spend the night hungry. I hope Serco are getting hammered with penalties every night people are going without dinner, because as I see it, it's a direct result of them skimping on maintenance of the lounge car vehicles.

Agreed. Not least because they make on-train catering such a big part of their marketing; I for one rely on it on the Highlander and I’m hardly alone in that. I have a feeling that Serco will be facing some pretty hefty penalties for this; an unusable lounge car ought to be dealt with as a short formation (I know that a failed seated coach classes as a short formation). I think that staff shortages on the Highlander are as much to blame for lack of catering, though, as are faulty Mk2s (although these vehicles are long past their best, and were dropping to bits a decade ago). Hopefully Serco will get their act together and both these problems (staffing and coaching stock) will be history before too long.

 

[TimboM]

Another masterpiece from Al Dalton… it's now been picked up by the local chip shop rag (Evening Times / Herald) as well.

Lack of understanding from Dalton re the reported loss in the accounts too...

The 31 March 2019 accounts show Serco Caledonian Sleepers Limited lost £3.1m, but that was after utilising/releasing £13.3m of the 'onerous contract provision' built up in prior years. An additional £2m was also booked to the provision in relation to the extra future (post 31 March 2019) losses arising from the subsequent delay of the Highlander roll-out, which gives a flavour of how much Serco are expecting the delay from June to Sept (ish) to cost them.

To unravel a couple of those figures, Serco's underlying loss for the year's trading to 31 March 2019 was £14.4m

The Highlander delay is expected to cost Serco in the region £150,000 per week.

The cost of running the Sleeper during the year was in effect covered as follows:

Passenger Income - £24.1m [39%] (including £0.7m catering sales)
Franchise Payments - £23.4m [38%]
Serco (via losses) - £14.4m [23%]
Total: £61.9m

 

[Bassman]

As a Public Transport service, supported by taxpayers, SERCO need directed to cut the marketing of 'hotel on wheels', the catering and drinks service, provide an inclusive breakfast pack to all, included in the price, and let the staff be focused on advising and attending to passengers free from all this hubris of social class /tourist expectations.

 

[BRX]

Lack of understanding from Dalton re the reported loss in the accounts too...

The 31 March 2019 accounts show Serco Caledonian Sleepers Limited lost £3.1m, but that was after utilising/releasing £13.3m of the 'onerous contract provision' built up in prior years. An additional £2m was also booked to the provision in relation to the extra future (post 31 March 2019) losses arising from the subsequent delay of the Highlander roll-out, which gives a flavour of how much Serco are expecting the delay from June to Sept (ish) to cost them.

To unravel a couple of those figures, Serco's underlying loss for the year's trading to 31 March 2019 was £14.4m

The Highlander delay is expected to cost Serco in the region £150,000 per week.

The cost of running the Sleeper during the year was in effect covered as follows:

Passenger Income - £24.1m [39%] (including £0.7m catering sales)
Franchise Payments - £23.4m [38%]
Serco (via losses) - £14.4m [23%]
Total: £61.9m

Is all this before attempting to recover costs from CAF, or is some of that already factored in?

 

[TimboM]

As a Public Transport service, supported by taxpayers, SERCO need directed to cut the marketing of 'hotel on wheels', the catering and drinks service, provide an inclusive breakfast pack to all, included in the price, and let the staff be focused on advising and attending to passengers free from all this hubris of social class /tourist expectations.

Serco’s bid was for the “hotel on wheels” with associated marketing and target market(s).

That’s the bid Transport Scotland (TS) selected and awarded the Franchise (and hence taxpayers’ money) to - and indeed have a grant of £60m towards the new “hotel” stock.

Also, based on 2018/2019 accounts, “the taxpayer” funded 38% of the cost of running the Sleeper and Serco 23% (via its losses) - so it’s far from a fully funded public transport service where TS could insist Serco operate the Franchise in a completely different way to that already agreed between the two parties.

 

[TimboM]

Is all this before attempting to recover costs from CAF, or is some of that already factored in?

It’s not possible to tell from the accounts alone.

In general terms, anything already recovered or Serco were pretty certain of recovering would be factored in to the accounts in the relevant place.

e.g. the extra £2m provision for the latest Highlander delay will be after anything Serco know they can claim back from CAF.

Worth noting that it’s possible that any penalties on CAF would reduce the overall price paid for the Mk5 fleet asset (rather than a standalone “P&L” payment to Serco) - in which case this would only benefit Serco Caley Sleepers gradually over the full length of the contract (through lower stock lease payments) rather than a lump sum in a given year.

 

[jagardner1984]

For any failings Serco have had, it does seem grossly unfair, as a Scottish Taxpayer, that any of the direct cost of such early day faults to the rolling stock should not be directly and immediately covered by CAF (/the leasing company).

Similarly given the agreement with CAF was to provide this stock into Passenger service in April 2018, and CAF have barely managed half the stock reliably by Summer 2019, I really fail to see why Serco, Transport Scotland or anyone but CAF should be expecting to pay a penny extra due to the Highlander delay.

Obviously I get that is what the contract says, but it feels like the Transport committee at Holyrood would have a field day on this debacle. CAF's performance really is all the more shameful in the light of all this info.

Given the Scottish government is building quite the portfolio of loss making airports, shipyards, fabricators etc, I'd imagine they will do pretty much anything they can to keep Serco going as the operators ....

 

[Antman]

You forgot trams.

The risks of public sector running programmes with private companies and loads of people suckling on their money teat. The intentions are good, but they so often come up with nonsense timetables and deliverables. And everyone nods sagely in the wider meetings then ignores it all internally.

And the cost spirals, delays and quality isn’t ther. But someone else pays. And suffers. And pensions are kept.

 

[47271]

Does anyone on this thread really know why the mk5s are so delayed and ropey though? We're blaming CAF, and no doubt CAF will have a lot to do with it, but the stock's been built to a brief that may well have been flawed, or perhaps the customer changed the specification on items during the build.

I don't know any better than anyone else, but using the Ferguson Shipbuilders analogy suggests to me that there may be multiple causes, only a proportion of which have been created by the manufacturer, and many of which could be disputed between the two parties.

For what it's worth, sixth hand onboard gossip passed on to me by regular passengers is that the design was created without adequate regard to the experience of existing staff, making the trains difficult to operate, and Serco's inexperience in rail operations led to build errors not being picked up early enough to prevent serious delays. This has been compounded by a raft of technical issues on introduction, mainly related to plumbing and software, and indeed often the software that controls the plumbing, you've got to laugh, which have led to the very public incidents during May and June.

Like I say, I don't know any better than anyone else, but that's what I hear at a distance.

 

[Northhighland]

Does anyone on this thread really know why the mk5s are so delayed and ropey though? We're blaming CAF, and no doubt CAF will have a lot to do with it, but the stock's been built to a brief that may well have been flawed, or perhaps the customer changed the specification on items during the build.

I don't know any better than anyone else, but using the Ferguson Shipbuilders analogy suggests to me that there may be multiple causes, only a proportion of which have been created by the manufacturer, and many of which could be disputed between the two parties.

For what it's worth, sixth hand onboard gossip passed on to me by regular passengers is that the design was created without adequate regard to the experience of existing staff, making the trains difficult to operate, and Serco's inexperience in rail operations led to build errors not being picked up early enough to prevent serious delays. This has been compounded by a raft of technical issues on introduction, mainly related to plumbing and software, and indeed often the software that controls the plumbing, you've got to laugh, which have led to the very public incidents during May and June.

Like I say, I don't know any better than anyone else, but that's what I hear at a distance.

We seem to have these discussions every time new stock is introduced. Every company can’t be wrong or incompetent. I struggle to recall any new stock being introduced without significant delay. Surely something must be wrong here the way we procure and commission rolling stock?

Companies will be pricing these delays in. Whatever the cause it is costing taxpayers and passengers sweetly. Be interested to know what others think?

 

[John Bishop]

For any failings Serco have had, it does seem grossly unfair, as a Scottish Taxpayer, that any of the direct cost of such early day faults to the rolling stock should not be directly and immediately covered by CAF (/the leasing company).

Similarly given the agreement with CAF was to provide this stock into Passenger service in April 2018, and CAF have barely managed half the stock reliably by Summer 2019, I really fail to see why Serco, Transport Scotland or anyone but CAF should be expecting to pay a penny extra due to the Highlander delay.

Obviously I get that is what the contract says, but it feels like the Transport committee at Holyrood would have a field day on this debacle. CAF's performance really is all the more shameful in the light of all this info.

Given the Scottish government is building quite the portfolio of loss making airports, shipyards, fabricators etc, I'd imagine they will do pretty much anything they can to keep Serco going as the operators ....

Yes, indeed. One only needs to look at the Scotrail HST refurb debacle to see similar issues. The wording on the contracts would be very interesting as to how much the manufacturer is actually liable to financially reimburse TOCs for delayed/ flawed delivery.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Surely something must be wrong here the way we procure and commission rolling stock?

Obviously. We are excessively optimistic about time scales, the franchising system means contractual time frames which are part of the competition. In addition franchising means new rolling stock is ordered in big batches, different from the last batch too which means acceptance and training are hugely time consuming even if it goes well. It means going to new makers with no UK experience. We don't prototype any more. The industry isn't as customer focussed as it should be. Deadlines are driven artifically by political aspirations. Some dealines, like PRM mods, are low priority if the deadline or most of the disruption will affect the next franchise so will either be someone else's problem or mitigated in a franchise bid. Testing seems to exclude some obvious things like the doors, SDO and the complex interface of new kit and new people working it. Finally we don't specify for flexibility of useage enough, so we end up with vehicles that may be well suited to some duties but impossible or difficult to use elsewhere. Look at finding a home for 185s or the inefficiency of 170s on slower routes. We tolerate routes that demand special rolling stock and are not cleared for many vehicles - Maryport and Carlisle for eg.

All of this adds up to delayed introductions and difficulties in early service.

Summary: We do things profitably, not properly.

 

[Bassman]

Serco’s bid was for the “hotel on wheels” with associated marketing and target market(s).

That’s the bid Transport Scotland (TS) selected and awarded the Franchise (and hence taxpayers’ money) to - and indeed have a grant of £60m towards the new “hotel” stock.

And public money given to a 'nice idea' which is now flawed in terms of complexity, expense, reliability and not in tune with the public's interest in economic greener travel. We as travellers do have a view about this . It is another failure of the bidding/franchising system, placing the customers interest secondary to hype and marketing.

 

[Bassman]

Obviously. We are excessively optimistic about time scales, the franchising system means contractual time frames which are part of the competition. In addition franchising means new rolling stock is ordered in big batches, different from the last batch too which means acceptance and training are hugely time consuming even if it goes well. It means going to new makers with no UK experience. We don't prototype any more. The industry isn't as customer focussed as it should be. Deadlines are driven artifically by political aspirations. Some dealines, like PRM mods, are low priority if the deadline or most of the disruption will affect the next franchise so will either be someone else's problem or mitigated in a franchise bid. Testing seems to exclude some obvious things like the doors, SDO and the complex interface of new kit and new people working it. Finally we don't specify for flexibility of useage enough, so we end up with vehicles that may be well suited to some duties but impossible or difficult to use elsewhere. Look at finding a home for 185s or the inefficiency of 170s on slower routes. We tolerate routes that demand special rolling stock and are not cleared for many vehicles - Maryport and Carlisle for eg.

All of this adds up to delayed introductions and difficulties in early service.

Summary: We do things profitably, not properly.

Absolutely spot on, apart from the fact that we waste huge amounts of money and so neither properly or profitably.

There is a business truism. that you focus on the main purpose of your business, and strip out interesting but wasteful distractions and build up quality around the main purpose - in this case an overnight train service which is robust, reliable and fit for purpose.

 

[hwl]

Does anyone on this thread really know why the mk5s are so delayed and ropey though? We're blaming CAF, and no doubt CAF will have a lot to do with it, but the stock's been built to a brief that may well have been flawed, or perhaps the customer changed the specification on items during the build.

I don't know any better than anyone else, but using the Ferguson Shipbuilders analogy suggests to me that there may be multiple causes, only a proportion of which have been created by the manufacturer, and many of which could be disputed between the two parties.

For what it's worth, sixth hand onboard gossip passed on to me by regular passengers is that the design was created without adequate regard to the experience of existing staff, making the trains difficult to operate, and Serco's inexperience in rail operations led to build errors not being picked up early enough to prevent serious delays. This has been compounded by a raft of technical issues on introduction, mainly related to plumbing and software, and indeed often the software that controls the plumbing, you've got to laugh, which have led to the very public incidents during May and June.

Like I say, I don't know any better than anyone else, but that's what I hear at a distance.

There will be fault all round but most will lie with CAF.

Effectively new to UK as the last products 2 decades ago were designed and built in partnership with Siemens.

CAF is a fairly small Basque firm and very lean on management / design engineer headcount and tend to source locally where possible and offer their own versions of components that everyone else buys off the shelf from well known suppliers.
The 5 UK products launching at the same time is more than they can handle. (MK5 sleeper, MK5 TPE, 195, 331, 397)

CAF have previously sought to aggressively defend their reputation (going legal) when problems have arisen in other countries (ex Spain) but the fragmented nature of the UK rail market and increasing prevalence of social media means that the genie will be out of the bottle in the UK and most global rolling stock buyers will have some one fluent in English...

Worth having a look at the Mexico City metro rolling stock saga from a decade ago (if your Spanish is good) and playing spot the difference with the current litany of UK issues. (You won't find many differences)

CAF's financial state meant that they could actually bid for the lucrative maintenance contract for most of the new stock (Alstom picking up instead in many cases)

 

[47271]

And public money given to a 'nice idea' which is now flawed in terms of complexity, expense, reliability and not in tune with the public's interest in economic greener travel. We as travellers do have a view about this . It is another failure of the bidding/franchising system, placing the customers interest secondary to hype and marketing.

I largely agree with you, and have never been convinced by Serco's business model.

However, to be a little more positive for a moment, in my mind I separate the complexity and technical difficulties with the stock from the strategy to sell the sleeper as an expensive luxury experience.

Assuming that the problems can be ironed out, and other than this morning the Lowlander is showing every sign of settling in now, we will shortly have a complete fleet of comfortable and really quite attractive sleeper trains, paid for with public money. On this forum we think that the current operator doesn't know how to price to serve the market, although they might yet prove us wrong. But with the possible exception of the double beds, there isn't that much about the stock that would prevent someone else running it along the lines of the Scotrail operation up to 2015.

The old stock needed replacement and there are features in the new trains such as ensuites that really were needed to meet modern expectations.

The only really disastrous outcomes we could see are either that the trains prove to be so ill suited, complicated and badly built that they have to be abandoned or sold, or that the Scottish Government takes the decision to cease its subsidy of the operation, or that the first leads to the second.

Any other conclusion to the current saga would mean that the sleeper continues to run, either in line with Serco's strategy, or in a different way that provides for the wider market. It could even be that after their first winter of failed strategy, Serco decide to take a completely different approach to pricing.

 

[paul1609]

Now that the Shotts line electrification is complete wouldn't it make more sense for the whole lowlander to go straight to Waverley and split there. The Glasgow section could then also serve Livingston. Although the Motherwell stop would be lost there appears to be other stations that could be used as a raihead for that area if the business is significant?

 

[Peter0124]

A sleeper was stopped outside Blantyre last night and caused all Hamilton circle trains afterwards to be rerouted.
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G97891/2019/07/31/advanced

Hence I was unable to get home and had to be picked up at cambuslang.

 

[Put Kettle On]

Now that the Shotts line electrification is complete wouldn't it make more sense for the whole lowlander to go straight to Waverley and split there. The Glasgow section could then also serve Livingston. Although the Motherwell stop would be lost there appears to be other stations that could be used as a raihead for that area if the business is significant?

No, it does not make any sense to go that way & take the Glasgow portion on an unnecessary detour, taking the best part of 1 1/2 to 2 hours .
Which Livingston are you considering serving, as neither North or South have capacity for a train of that length .
From the split at Carstairs, each portion takes around 35 to 40 min.

 

[ainsworth74]

We usually allow all discussion relating to Caledonian Sleeper to occur in this single thread on the basis that it's such a small operation that it's hard to justify a wide range of threads.

However, this incident at Edinburgh this morning is serious enough that it does warrant its own thread which can be found here.

Therefore anyone wishing to discuss that incident should do so in the linked thread rather than here. This thread continues to be available to discuss Caledonian Sleeper's other ongoing woes!

 

[paul1609]

No, it does not make any sense to go that way & take the Glasgow portion on an unnecessary detour, taking the best part of 1 1/2 to 2 hours .
Which Livingston are you considering serving, as neither North or South have capacity for a train of that length .
From the split at Carstairs, each portion takes around 35 to 40 min.

Im not convinced, the lowlander currently arrives at Carstairs at 06.22, if you assume it was diverted to Waverley (approx 28 miles) I reckon you'd get a pre- 0700 arrival at Waverley. Split the train in 2 and head to Central via Livingston South and you'd have a deficit of around 30 minutes at Central.
There would be major savings from elimination of the shunt at Carstairs and I'd imagine better loco utilisation.
Doesn't the new stock have SDO for shorter platforms?
Ive been a regular on the West highlander for some years and a very occasional user of the lowlander to Glasgow its been apparent that the main lowlander market has been Edinburgh since the West Coast upgrade was complete and that the Glasgow (and Aberdeen sections of the Highlander) are struggling.

 

[Carntyne]

Im not convinced, the lowlander currently arrives at Carstairs at 06.22, if you assume it was diverted to Waverley (approx 28 miles) I reckon you'd get a pre- 0700 arrival at Waverley. Split the train in 2 and head to Central via Livingston South and you'd have a deficit of around 30 minutes at Central.
There would be major savings from elimination of the shunt at Carstairs and I'd imagine better loco utilisation.
Doesn't the new stock have SDO for shorter platforms?
Ive been a regular on the West highlander for some years and a very occasional user of the lowlander to Glasgow its been apparent that the main lowlander market has been Edinburgh since the West Coast upgrade was complete and that the Glasgow (and Aberdeen sections of the Highlander) are struggling.

Is there a path available along the Shotts line, with a stop at Livingston South, which won't wreck the Argyle Line?

Why Livingston South anyway?

 

[paul1609]

Is there a path available along the Shotts line, with a stop at Livingston South, which won't wreck the Argyle Line?

Why Livingston South anyway?

Not sure about the paths but at 07.00 in the morning on fairly sparse service?
Im not an expert on the Central Belt but Livingston appears to be the obvious major population/ industry centre en route?

 

[Bassman]

I largely agree with you, and have never been convinced by Serco's business model.

However, to be a little more positive for a moment, in my mind I separate the complexity and technical difficulties with the stock from the strategy to sell the sleeper as an expensive luxury experience.

Assuming that the problems can be ironed out, and other than this morning the Lowlander is showing every sign of settling in now, we will shortly have a complete fleet of comfortable and really quite attractive sleeper trains, paid for with public money. On this forum we think that the current operator doesn't know how to price to serve the market, although they might yet prove us wrong. But with the possible exception of the double beds, there isn't that much about the stock that would prevent someone else running it along the lines of the Scotrail operation up to 2015.

The old stock needed replacement and there are features in the new trains such as ensuites that really were needed to meet modern expectations.

The only really disastrous outcomes we could see are either that the trains prove to be so ill suited, complicated and badly built that they have to be abandoned or sold, or that the Scottish Government takes the decision to cease its subsidy of the operation, or that the first leads to the second.

Any other conclusion to the current saga would mean that the sleeper continues to run, either in line with Serco's strategy, or in a different way that provides for the wider market. It could even be that after their first winter of failed strategy, Serco decide to take a completely different approach to pricing.

I appreciate and totally agree with your positive turn on this. The fault is not all with SERCO as there has always and still is a failure to gradually build strategic improvements to rail infrastructure. However I will be interested in how Spanish built trains cope with Highland Winters and minus 15 C at Kingussie.

 

[Put Kettle On]

Not sure about the paths but at 07.00 in the morning on fairly sparse service?
Im not an expert on the Central Belt but Livingston appears to be the obvious major population/ industry centre en route?

But it is not en route . It is some hypothetical route you imagine would better serve Livingston, taking those bound for Glasgow off a direct route from Carstairs .
As both portions arrive in Glasgow & Edinburgh, both these terminating points for this sleeper service enable a train directly to Livingston South from Central & a choice of Livingston North & South from Waverley.