Caledonian Sleeper

[marks87]

Actually I wonder if the Lowlander might be a better bet for going via Birmingham. It is a shorter journey so leaves London later than the Highlander. Therefore adding an extra stop near to London would not make the London departure time too early. Mind you Bald Rick's point below that many Lowlander passengers might be going beyond the central belt to otherwise Highlander destinations might be because they use the Lowlander for its later departure time from London ?.

And/or the more sociable arrival time.

On the Highlander, anywhere south of Dunkeld or Dundee (i.e. pre-6am) might well be pushing it for some people, regardless of being able to get to bed earlier.

Whereas a 7am alarm for 7.30 at Edinburgh is much closer to many people's normal getting-up time.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Taxes on flying are peanuts compared to the damage caused.

Remember that (1) aviation fuel doesn't carry a fuel tax; fuel for other transport does; and (2) under EU law the one and only thing that has to be zero-rated for VAT purposes in all member states [and in many states it's virtually the only thing that's zero-rated] is ... air travel.

All signs that those in charge aren't taking the environmental crisis seriously.

I don’t know about trains, but buses and coaches running on a passenger service route have their fuel tax refunded by government, so aviation isn’t unique.

 

[Crepello]

Taxes on flying are peanuts compared to the damage caused.

...

All signs that those in charge aren't taking the environmental crisis seriously.

Knowing the difference between opinions and facts remains important as ever - as I recently had the pleasure of discussing with fellow travelers on the Caledonian Sleeper!

 

[Altnabreac]

Would it be worth the Highlander going via Birmingham with a pick up at New Street? It would need to leave London half hour or so earlier but I don’t think that would be a problem for most people?
Maybe more difficult southbound with limited paths in the rush hour so perhaps not such a good idea?

I think there could be potential for an extra stop somewhere in the Midlands between Watford and Crewe. Unlikely to ever be Birmingham or anywhere else needing a diversion. I'd suggest Rugby and Milton Keynes to be the two possible candidate stations although platform lengths might be an issue without grandfather rights?

 

[Altnabreac]

If I was redesigning the Caledonian Sleeper specification from scratch to simplify operations and better adapt to the post HS2 environment my proposal for TS to tender in the next franchise period would be:

The first 16 coach sleeper would serve Fort William and Inverness splitting 8/8 somewhere around Glasgow. Could remain at Carstairs initially and then move to the new Eurocentral station.

Eurocentral would have dedicated lounge facilities for Glasgow passengers waiting to join the service. Allow guests to have a shower and/or breakfast after alighting in the morning.

You lose the dedicated Glasgow service but if done right with excellent quality facilities at the new station it could work as well as it does from Glasgow Central. You'd also lose the Falkirk Grahamston call but could replace it with Larbert if required.

The second 16 coach sleeper would be for Aberdeen and Edinburgh. It would split at Edinburgh with a usual 8/8 split but the flexibility to split 10/6 or 11/5 during busier periods for Edinburgh (festival etc) as Aberdeen seems to be the current weakest demand sector.

Split would be at Edinburgh Waverley and initially you'd probably reverse a Diesel loco onto the back of the train to drive off with the Aberdeen portion. Post electrification to Aberdeen you could just detach the rear coaches for Edinburgh and run round the South Sub on your way to Aberdeen.

Edinburgh arrival time would obviously be quite early but you'd just leave the stock in a platform until a reasonable hour.

A specification like this would increase capacity on higher demand sections, simplify operations and reduce loco requirements. Still a high subsidy level needed but possibly slightly lower than otherwise.

 

[InOban]

Surely you would run round the Sub on your way into Edinburgh, and then drop off the Edinburgh coaches?

 

[Altnabreac]

Surely you would run round the Sub on your way into Edinburgh, and then drop off the Edinburgh coaches?

Yes you probably would. Flexibility to do it either way.

 

[d9009alycidon]

Eurocentral station seems to be part of a "pie in the sky project", unlikely that I will see it in my lifetime

 

[Speed43125]

Last nights southbounds Inverness portion, had a 66 and 73 on the head, any ideas why that was?

 

[adrock1976]

If I was redesigning the Caledonian Sleeper specification from scratch to simplify operations and better adapt to the post HS2 environment my proposal for TS to tender in the next franchise period would be:

The first 16 coach sleeper would serve Fort William and Inverness splitting 8/8 somewhere around Glasgow. Could remain at Carstairs initially and then move to the new Eurocentral station.

Eurocentral would have dedicated lounge facilities for Glasgow passengers waiting to join the service. Allow guests to have a shower and/or breakfast after alighting in the morning.

You lose the dedicated Glasgow service but if done right with excellent quality facilities at the new station it could work as well as it does from Glasgow Central. You'd also lose the Falkirk Grahamston call but could replace it with Larbert if required.

The second 16 coach sleeper would be for Aberdeen and Edinburgh. It would split at Edinburgh with a usual 8/8 split but the flexibility to split 10/6 or 11/5 during busier periods for Edinburgh (festival etc) as Aberdeen seems to be the current weakest demand sector.

Split would be at Edinburgh Waverley and initially you'd probably reverse a Diesel loco onto the back of the train to drive off with the Aberdeen portion. Post electrification to Aberdeen you could just detach the rear coaches for Edinburgh and run round the South Sub on your way to Aberdeen.

Edinburgh arrival time would obviously be quite early but you'd just leave the stock in a platform until a reasonable hour.

A specification like this would increase capacity on higher demand sections, simplify operations and reduce loco requirements. Still a high subsidy level needed but possibly slightly lower than otherwise.

The Fort William/Inverness portions could also couple/uncouple at Mossend Yard. The Inverness portion would simply continue north along the ex Caledonian Main Line to Stirling and onwards to Inverness.

The portion for Fort William can have a myriad of routes depending upon engineering work. For example, it could use the left hand side of the triangle at Gartsherrie and run via Springburn and the Maryhill Park line, the connecting curve west of Coatbridge Sunnyside to run via Glasgow Queen Street low level, Bellshill or the ex Rutherglen & Coatbridge to Rutherglen then via Glasgow Central low level (assuming the stock fits through the tunnels).

 

[JonathanH]

Last nights southbounds Inverness portion, had a 66 and 73 on the head, any ideas why that was?

There appear to be insufficient 73s available due to maintenance requirements.

 

[AlbertBeale]

I don’t know about trains, but buses and coaches running on a passenger service route have their fuel tax refunded by government, so aviation isn’t unique.

I believe that the Bus Services Operators Grant, which replaced Fuel Duty Rebate, only covers part of the tax (and only applies to local buses, ie not longer distance services).

Air transport is uniquely privileged in the way its treated tax-wise, even before taking account of its disastrous environmental impact.

 

[InOban]

Correct. Coaches were never exempt from duty.

 

[paul1609]

Correct. Coaches were never exempt from duty.

Down here on Romney Marsh as a consequence at a remote bus stop near Lydd Army camp the 102 bus from Rye to Lydd (for Dover) suddenly becomes the 102 to Folkestone & Dover and vice-versa. Unfortunately none of the online journey planners can cope with the concept of a bus changing enroute so you are advised to alight and wait an hour for the connection an hour later.
In fairness to the Government imposition of aviation tax for airlines without an international agreement wouldn't reduce the environmental impact, all that would happen is all the international hub business would transfer to Shannon/ Dublin/ Charles de Gaulle/ Schipol/ Frankfurt with the loss of hundreds of thousands of Jobs at Heathrow/Gatwick/Manchester/Edinburgh

 

[Bletchleyite]

Down here on Romney Marsh as a consequence at a remote bus stop near Lydd Army camp the 102 bus from Rye to Lydd (for Dover) suddenly becomes the 102 to Folkestone & Dover and vice-versa. Unfortunately none of the online journey planners can cope with the concept of a bus changing enroute so you are advised to alight and wait an hour for the connection an hour later.

New thread on that particular piece of muppetry here:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-that-arent-really-and-rail-examples.197206/

 

[jellybaby]

In fairness to the Government imposition of aviation tax for airlines without an international agreement wouldn't reduce the environmental impact, all that would happen is all the international hub business would transfer to Shannon/ Dublin/ Charles de Gaulle/ Schipol/ Frankfurt with the loss of hundreds of thousands of Jobs at Heathrow/Gatwick/Manchester/Edinburgh

We should get together with our neighbors and make some kind of joint agreement.

 

[popeter45]

If I was redesigning the Caledonian Sleeper specification from scratch to simplify operations and better adapt to the post HS2 environment my proposal for TS to tender in the next franchise period would be:

The first 16 coach sleeper would serve Fort William and Inverness splitting 8/8 somewhere around Glasgow. Could remain at Carstairs initially and then move to the new Eurocentral station.

Eurocentral would have dedicated lounge facilities for Glasgow passengers waiting to join the service. Allow guests to have a shower and/or breakfast after alighting in the morning.

You lose the dedicated Glasgow service but if done right with excellent quality facilities at the new station it could work as well as it does from Glasgow Central. You'd also lose the Falkirk Grahamston call but could replace it with Larbert if required.

The second 16 coach sleeper would be for Aberdeen and Edinburgh. It would split at Edinburgh with a usual 8/8 split but the flexibility to split 10/6 or 11/5 during busier periods for Edinburgh (festival etc) as Aberdeen seems to be the current weakest demand sector.

Split would be at Edinburgh Waverley and initially you'd probably reverse a Diesel loco onto the back of the train to drive off with the Aberdeen portion. Post electrification to Aberdeen you could just detach the rear coaches for Edinburgh and run round the South Sub on your way to Aberdeen.

Edinburgh arrival time would obviously be quite early but you'd just leave the stock in a platform until a reasonable hour.

A specification like this would increase capacity on higher demand sections, simplify operations and reduce loco requirements. Still a high subsidy level needed but possibly slightly lower than otherwise.

i was thinking about this recently and had my own ideas

first either go with bi mode EMU's or at least DVT's (with gangway if needed) to reduce time/complexity of current loco movements
second split the Highlander into two sets:
a Fort Williams/Aberdeen Set Splitting at Calstair with the fort william section going via Glasgow Centeral low level
a Inverness portion that would go via East Coast stopping at York and/or Newcastle

 

[paul1609]

We should get together with our neighbors and make some kind of joint agreement.

The trouble is with the range of modern aircraft it needs to be a global agreement. The fudges needed to even get an internal agreement within the EU on CO2 emissions this month suggest that a global agreement on aviation fuel tax is not on the current horizon.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Down here on Romney Marsh as a consequence at a remote bus stop near Lydd Army camp the 102 bus from Rye to Lydd (for Dover) suddenly becomes the 102 to Folkestone & Dover and vice-versa. Unfortunately none of the online journey planners can cope with the concept of a bus changing enroute so you are advised to alight and wait an hour for the connection an hour later.
In fairness to the Government imposition of aviation tax for airlines without an international agreement wouldn't reduce the environmental impact, all that would happen is all the international hub business would transfer to Shannon/ Dublin/ Charles de Gaulle/ Schipol/ Frankfurt with the loss of hundreds of thousands of Jobs at Heathrow/Gatwick/Manchester/Edinburgh

It depends on what aspects of aviation were taxed...

 

[Deafdoggie]

Down here on Romney Marsh as a consequence at a remote bus stop near Lydd Army camp the 102 bus from Rye to Lydd (for Dover) suddenly becomes the 102 to Folkestone & Dover and vice-versa. Unfortunately none of the online journey planners can cope with the concept of a bus changing enroute so you are advised to alight and wait an hour for the connection an hour later.
In fairness to the Government imposition of aviation tax for airlines without an international agreement wouldn't reduce the environmental impact, all that would happen is all the international hub business would transfer to Shannon/ Dublin/ Charles de Gaulle/ Schipol/ Frankfurt with the loss of hundreds of thousands of Jobs at Heathrow/Gatwick/Manchester/Edinburgh

The splitting of bus routes is down to driving hours, not fuel tax. Long bus routes come under coach driving hours, short bus routes under the more generous (in terms of working and driving time) domestic driving hours

 

[philthetube]

Correct. Coaches were never exempt from duty.

Only partly true, many long distance coach services were run under bus rules with stops frequent enough to call them bus services, all yelloway services for example were stage licenced and recieved fuel subsidy, worth bearing in mind that there were not many motorways in those days.

 

[yorkie]

Just a reminder the thread title is 'Caledonian Sleeper'

 

[Essexman]

Back on topic, I sent this email to CS yesterday:

I would like to make comments on two recent journeys with Caledonian Sleeper, in the hope that they may prompt you to make improvements for passengers. I’m not looking for compensation, just that my comments are read, acknowledged and acted upon.


On 17th November I travelled from Euston to Edinburgh. On arrival at Edinburgh I tried to use the en suite toilet and shower but found there was no power to operate them. I spoke to an attendant who told me that the locomotive is now removed as soon as the train arrives in Edinburgh so there is then no power. I appreciate that this may be operationally necessary but suggest that it would be helpful to advise passengers in advance, so that they know not to rely on the train’s facilities once it has arrived in Edinburgh. I had to pay £5 to use a shower on the station.


On 18th December I travelled from Euston to Fort William, returning on the 19th. There was no hot water in my berth (F5) and the air conditioning did not appear to be working. I reported this to a member of train staff who simply advised me contact Customer Services for compensation. I am not asking for compensation but for improved service in order to reduce instances of such faults. If specific faults reported by customers are not acted on then how will they be rectified? I had booked the same berth for my return journey and the same were faults apparent. Had I realised there were many spare berths I would have asked to be moved but would suggest that had my report of the fault been noted in the morning I should have been offered an alternative berth anyway.


I appreciate that there will be occasional faults, particularly with new trains, but question how these can be promptly rectified if there is no system for reporting them. May I suggest that a comments card is left in each berth so that passengers can report any faults. This can include things such as annoying rattles that are probably only apparent when the train is in motion.

Obviously I got the standard, we're busy & will respond within 20 working days reply, but I do hope they take note. A lot of the issues recently have been outside of their direct control but they should be able to improve communication and rectification of faults.

 

[Steve Harris]

Essexman that sounds a well written email. Hopefully CS will act on it.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The thing about loss of power at Edinburgh... what used to happen was that one locomotive would couple up to work the ecs before the locomotive which brought the train in was uncoupled, so there was continuity of power. What happens now is that it's the one locomotive being run round, so there will be a loss of power for a few minutes while that happens.

What should happen, of course, would be that there should be a battery supply on the train which is sufficient to provide full hotel power for those few minutes, but there isn't one like that - only the emergency power.

 

[Steve Harris]

The thing about loss of power at Edinburgh... what used to happen was that one locomotive would couple up to work the ecs before the locomotive which brought the train in was uncoupled, so there was continuity of power. What happens now is that it's the one locomotive being run round, so there will be a loss of power for a few minutes while that happens.

What should happen, of course, would be that there should be a battery supply on the train which is sufficient to provide full hotel power for those few minutes, but there isn't one like that - only the emergency power.

Battery power ??

Perhaps a proper shore supply could be installed ?? I can certainly remember there being a proper shore supply at at Inverness in the 80's for the Glasgow- Inverness sleeper. Mind you, that was only 1 or 2 mk III coaches. Im guessing suppling a rake of mk 5's would be far to much £££

 

[PG]

Battery power ??

Perhaps a proper shore supply could be installed ?? I can certainly remember there being a proper shore supply at at Inverness in the 80's for the Glasgow- Inverness sleeper. Mind you, that was only 1 or 2 mk III coaches. Im guessing suppling a rake of mk 5's would be far to much £££

As I've highlighted for you, could, is the operative word.

We've got HSTs left running overnight due to lack of shore supplies and that project has been a good few years in the planning.

While it is a good idea I can't see it happening in a hurry!

 

[snookertam]

If I was redesigning the Caledonian Sleeper specification from scratch to simplify operations and better adapt to the post HS2 environment my proposal for TS to tender in the next franchise period would be:

The first 16 coach sleeper would serve Fort William and Inverness splitting 8/8 somewhere around Glasgow. Could remain at Carstairs initially and then move to the new Eurocentral station.

Eurocentral would have dedicated lounge facilities for Glasgow passengers waiting to join the service. Allow guests to have a shower and/or breakfast after alighting in the morning.

You lose the dedicated Glasgow service but if done right with excellent quality facilities at the new station it could work as well as it does from Glasgow Central. You'd also lose the Falkirk Grahamston call but could replace it with Larbert if required.

The second 16 coach sleeper would be for Aberdeen and Edinburgh. It would split at Edinburgh with a usual 8/8 split but the flexibility to split 10/6 or 11/5 during busier periods for Edinburgh (festival etc) as Aberdeen seems to be the current weakest demand sector.

Split would be at Edinburgh Waverley and initially you'd probably reverse a Diesel loco onto the back of the train to drive off with the Aberdeen portion. Post electrification to Aberdeen you could just detach the rear coaches for Edinburgh and run round the South Sub on your way to Aberdeen.

Edinburgh arrival time would obviously be quite early but you'd just leave the stock in a platform until a reasonable hour.

A specification like this would increase capacity on higher demand sections, simplify operations and reduce loco requirements. Still a high subsidy level needed but possibly slightly lower than otherwise.

I don't think losing a dedicated Glasgow service could ever be done right, under any circumstances. The idea that there would be no service from Glasgow city centre, and forcing people to make their way out to Lanarkshire is a non-starter. Taking services away from the centre of a major city and replacing it with a stop at a location is to do with proximity with the motorway network will make it entirely inconvenient for people and also lose a major advantage that it has over air travel, that is city centre to city centre travel.

 

[Steve Harris]

As I've highlighted for you, could, is the operative word.

We've got HSTs left running overnight due to lack of shore supplies and that project has been a good few years in the planning.

While it is a good idea I can't see it happening in a hurry!

IF you had read my post fully, I did surmise that it probably wouldn't happen due to cost.

I shall not say anymore on the matter as we are going off topic and the Mods have already issued a Reminder.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Losing power without warning is definitely an issue. What if someone had got in the shower and lathered up, then the power went?