Caledonian Sleeper

[Deafdoggie]

The £19 berths relied on two strangers sharing a berth if solo travellers, that's never coming back.

No wonder they did away with it! Two strangers sharing a room was bad enough, but sharing a berth!

 

[AY1975]

No wonder they did away with it! Two strangers sharing a room was bad enough, but sharing a berth!

I think the OP means sharing a room rather than sharing a berth despite referring to it as the latter.

 

[paul1609]

The £19 berths relied on two strangers sharing a berth if solo travellers, that's never coming back. I would like to see more offers though, particularly outside of the summer season and shoulders to them (from about now through September, there's never an issue filling it with tourists) where there are historically empty cabins flying about.

I havent used the sleeper since I retired 5 years ago but even then the Highlander used to stay busy until the scenic bits passed in to the dark. On the West Highlander this was generally about the October Half term School holiday. The train used to go from being fully booked to very quiet when the clocks changed and then stay lightly loaded til Christmas. I suspect that the subsidy is such that you wouldnt want to offer discounts until then and that even then offering discounted tickets in the off peak might actually reduce overall income.

 

[Steve Harris]

I think the OP means sharing a room rather than sharing a berth despite referring to it as the latter.

No wonder they did away with it! Two strangers sharing a room was bad enough, but sharing a berth!

A berth is a room !!

Railway personnel just use the term berth vice room.*
I learned that back in the days of BR when booking sleepers on all line rovers back in the 80's.

(To expand further, it used to be upper berth for the top bunk and lower berth for the lower bunk).*

*And since you can't share with a stranger anymore, you now book a room but the term berth is still used.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

I don't think there was a standalone Birmingham-Glasgow/Edinburgh sleeper service. However, there certainly was a Bristol - Glasgow/Edinburgh sleeper service in 1988 (as I used it). The sleeper cars got added to a West Country (Plymouth/Paignton) - Scotland service at Bristol (Northbound) and of course this service called at Birmingham.

Anyway, getting back on topic, it's nice to see a TOC making their service more readily available to their West Midlands customers.

The historically long standing standalone Birmingham to Edinburgh and Glasgow service was extended to Bristol (where it terminated / started) around the early 1970s (at which time the times at Birmingham were still just about tolerable, circa 23.50 northbound and 06.00 southbound). It was subsequently extended to Plymouth and later also acquired a portion for Poole.

 

[alistairlees]

A compartment is the old term for a room; a berth is the bed (the accommodation unit) within the compartment. A berth is equivalent to a seat.

 

[Deafdoggie]

A berth is a room !!

Railway personnel just use the term berth vice room.
I learned that back in the days of BR when booking sleepers on all line rovers back in the 80's.

(To expand further, it used to be upper berth for the top bunk and lower berth for the lower bunk).

Not on the reservation system it isn't! You're allocated a berth, not a room

 

[Krokodil]

Not on the reservation system it isn't! You're allocated a berth, not a room

Yes, you're allocated a berth (and if you're booking solo you effectively pay a supplement to block off the other berth from sale). Five years ago someone would be allocated the other berth too.

 

[gingerheid]

The £19 berths relied on two strangers sharing a berth if solo travellers, that's never coming back. I would like to see more offers though, particularly outside of the summer season and shoulders to them (from about now through September, there's never an issue filling it with tourists) where there are historically empty cabins flying about.

If they has a few rooms charged £38 (uprated for inflation) for the whole room that would be good enough for me

I find it strange that there are never offers, at any time of year, on any day of the week. The accountant within me would love to see the numbers for the service. I feel that there are two or perhaps three possibilities:

a) there should be
b) if demand and capacity is such that there shouldn't be, then given what I imagine the role of fixed costs to be in the cost structure, they should order more trains and double the lengths of the services to Glasgow and Edinburgh. I feel that this is the most likely option. Every time I search for a journey (even midweek) the train is full at least one direction.
c) if neither of the above apply then the service really is a basket case, but in that case I think a) would surely apply even more

Just checked the website... You can now see just how fully booked the service is. There's 7 cabins available between London and Edinburgh in the whole of June, and only 2 are classic. That seems to me like there's a capacity problem!

 

[jagardner1984]

If they has a few rooms charged £38 (uprated for inflation) for the whole room that would be good enough for me

I find it strange that there are never offers, at any time of year, on any day of the week. The accountant within me would love to see the numbers for the service. I feel that there are two or perhaps three possibilities:

a) there should be
b) if demand and capacity is such that there shouldn't be, then given what I imagine the role of fixed costs to be in the cost structure, they should order more trains and double the lengths of the services to Glasgow and Edinburgh
c) if neither of the above apply then the service really is a basket case, but in that case I think a) would surely apply even more

The common response on here is that because of the subsidy of the service, any kind of offer at any time merely increases that subsidy, and because each berth is subsidised, increasing the number of berths (e.g. more rolling stock) merely increases that subsidy.

It has always seemed to me when in year 5 or 6 of new rolling stock they presumably hope will be going in 20-30 years time, that largely sold out, no opportunity for any change, improvement or expansion of what is at face value a very successful (in terms of tickets sold as a % of tickets available) service for all that time, and all we can do is hike prices above inflation in order to further suppress suppress demand and manage the inadequate capacity we do have .... , is a rather sorry state of affairs, but that has been discussed ad infinitum in other Speculative Discussion topics.

As a interesting comparison (and ignoring any change in the service quality between the Classic Room in the Mk3 and the Classic Room in the Mk5, which I would suggest is quite limited from the customer perspective), I believe Bargain Berths were still available until the end of First Scotrail operation in 2015 (albeit, very few of them). Being charitable and accounting for solo occuopancy, £38 then would be £50.59 now, adjusting for inflation.

Perhaps more comparably, the Classic Flexipass equates to £200/ticket now. There is a thread on here from 2012, which suggests the price then was £119.40 per ticket

Caledonian Sleeper Flexipass

I might think of buying one of these - they give you 10 first class journeys on the sleeper for £119.40 and given that the cheapest single is £138 I might be tempted. I will be going on the Fort William line in Oct and also to my parents in Aberdeen twice so seems a good investment. My...

www.railforums.co.uk

Adjusting for Inflation, £119.40 then would equate to £173.01 now, so the ticket has increased 15.6% above inflation over those 12 years.

Who knows what the next 12 years will bring .... !

 

[BRX]

Keeping the service fully booked while (successfully) gradually hiking the prices isn't really "supressing demand".

Certainly it would be interesting to know how much higher the prices would need to go in order for it to no longer need a subsidy. At that point then certainly you'd hope an expansion of the service might be considered...and perhaps then some economies of scale could kick in.

Of course it all looks different if it's viewed as a public service, subsidised to allow affordable travel...but that's not really what it is now, and not what the current trains were designed around.

 

[Krokodil]

The common response on here is that because of the subsidy of the service, any kind of offer at any time merely increases that subsidy, and because each berth is subsidised, increasing the number of berths (e.g. more rolling stock) merely increases that subsidy.

It's not going to be a linear relationship though. Most of the costs on CS are step costs - add another carriage and you need extra locomotive and driver diagrams because it means an extra train. Add a further 15 carriages however and you can haul them with that same locomotive, so there's no further increase in the leasing or driver cost. Expansion may actually reduce some costs, partially countering the increase in the others. For example splitting the Glasgow and Edinburgh portions into entirely seperate trains (so that they can be lengthened) would obviously increase many costs, but the elimination of the Carstairs shunt does mitigate this by reducing certain staffing costs and saving time.

Keeping the service fully booked while (successfully) gradually hiking the prices isn't really "supressing demand".

There's not really any need to suppress demand on an operation with compulsory reservations. No capacity? You just don't sell any more tickets. It's not like conventional services where you get the bad publicity and operational issues associated with overcrowding. The only issue that might surface is if the Highland MPs struggle to book because everything is sold out long in advance.

 

[Flying Snail]

The common response on here is that because of the subsidy of the service, any kind of offer at any time merely increases that subsidy, and because each berth is subsidised, increasing the number of berths (e.g. more rolling stock) merely increases that subsidy.

It has always seemed to me when in year 5 or 6 of new rolling stock they presumably hope will be going in 20-30 years time, that largely sold out, no opportunity for any change, improvement or expansion of what is at face value a very successful (in terms of tickets sold as a % of tickets available) service for all that time, and all we can do is hike prices above inflation in order to further suppress suppress demand and manage the inadequate capacity we do have .... , is a rather sorry state of affairs, but that has been discussed ad infinitum in other Speculative Discussion topics.

As a interesting comparison (and ignoring any change in the service quality between the Classic Room in the Mk3 and the Classic Room in the Mk5, which I would suggest is quite limited from the customer perspective), I believe Bargain Berths were still available until the end of First Scotrail operation in 2015 (albeit, very few of them). Being charitable and accounting for solo occuopancy, £38 then would be £50.59 now, adjusting for inflation.

Perhaps more comparably, the Classic Flexipass equates to £200/ticket now. There is a thread on here from 2012, which suggests the price then was £119.40 per ticket

Caledonian Sleeper Flexipass

I might think of buying one of these - they give you 10 first class journeys on the sleeper for £119.40 and given that the cheapest single is £138 I might be tempted. I will be going on the Fort William line in Oct and also to my parents in Aberdeen twice so seems a good investment. My...

www.railforums.co.uk

Adjusting for Inflation, £119.40 then would equate to £173.01 now, so the ticket has increased 15.6% above inflation over those 12 years.

Who knows what the next 12 years will bring .... !

You are missing out a key number in your calculations; the beds per train.

A Mk3 half set had 150 beds, the Mk5 has 112.

 

[jagardner1984]

Of course it all looks different if it's viewed as a public service, subsidised to allow affordable travel...but that's not really what it is now, and not what the current trains were designed around.

However, this is surely where it gets tricky ? Some parts of government spend are transparently part of the tourism strategy and therefore have little relevance to the permanent inhabitants of a place (aside from the economic spend of said tourism) - the funding for Visit Scotland Tourist Information Centres, website etc.

However most rail spend is at least significantly orientated around the inhabitants of a place - for example the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Programme, the Thameslink Programme, where most of the spend is tied directly in providing additional capacity for commuters and the busiest trains, and the cost / benefit looked at in that way.

The Sleeper upgrade has led to An overall downgrade in the available capacity (without relitigating that whole discussion) and therefore more focussed marketing sees the trains and an advertised improvement in the provided service (en suite etc) means most trains are now full or close to full. Where previously they were not and short notice reservations, in my experience, were normally possible. They are now, in my experience, normally not. That is a limitation on one form of social benefit to the service, particularly as some of those passengers will take domestic flights instead.

So maybe it is ok to look at the sleeper as a tourist product, and perhaps is quite an effective way of delivering £100 of economic support directly to local businesses in Aviemore, Crianlarich or Arbroath, enabling far far more spend in the local economy and associated tax income, but there is still some market for people who want to be standing on Princes Street at 2315 one night and be standing in Trafalgar Square at 0745 the following morning. Those people do not always know of their need to travel weeks or months in advance. And those people drive economic activity too. There is currently no other transport service which allows for the above journey to happen (or many others from many other points in Scotland, and vice versa).

So this isn’t particularly a moan about the service, I think it’s great. It’s just an observation in its success in one area of its business has significantly downgraded its offer in another.

 

[Bald Rick]

Certainly it would be interesting to know how much higher the prices would need to go in order for it to no longer need a subsidy.

Broadly double.

 

[jagardner1984]

You are missing out a key number in your calculations; the beds per train.

A Mk3 half set had 150 beds, the Mk5 has 112.

Don’t disagree and I comment on capacity. But wonder if the bed number is rather irrelevant, and presumably part of CS’ calculation in the spec of the new trains, is on the number of the 150, and of the 112, beds which are typically empty. presumably at some level with the en suites etc, CS believe a greater Raw number will be actually sold and filled, than travel empty. There are still a good number of those 112 which I assume will be empty but less so than on the Mk3 I’d guess. In all the years i travelled in a standard shared compartment, I never shared a room.

 

[alistairlees]

You are missing out a key number in your calculations; the beds per train.

A Mk3 half set had 150 beds, the Mk5 has 112.

This is misleading.

A Mk3 half-set comprised 3 1st class and 3 standard class sleeper coaches (plus the seated coach and the lounge car)

The 6 sleeper coaches were comprised of a mixture of the following:
SLE - 13 compartments (26 beds)
SLEP (pantry) - 12 compartments (24 beds)
SLED (accessible room) - 11 compartments (I think), 22 beds (I think)

However, it was not possible to sell the 13th room in the SLEs because of uncertainty of what the train formation would be.

So that reduces the capacity to 5 coaches of 24 beds, and 1 (the SLED) of 22 beds - 142 in total.

However, 1st class was solo occupancy, and the beds were folded up and the mattresses stored elsewhere. These coaches therefore only had 12 beds in them.

So that makes for
3 * 1st @ 12 = 36
2 * standard @ 24 = 48
1 * standard @ 22 = 22
Total = 106*

In other words, the number of sellable beds has increased (on the new stock, all rooms are twin / double).


* I think some rooms were used for linen carriage too, and there may sometimes have been more than one SLED (or it may have been in the 1st class section), so it may have been less

 

[BRX]

The number of sellable beds has increased (on the new stock, all rooms are twin / double).

But isn't this due to the current policy of leaving top berths folded down? In other words if they'd have pursued the same policy on the old stock, they'd have had 36 extra "sellable beds".

 

[alistairlees]

But isn't this due to the current policy of leaving top berths folded down? In other words if they'd have pursued the same policy on the old stock, they'd have had 36 extra "sellable beds".

No. And even if it was, the point would still stand: there has not been any meaningful reduction in berth capacity from old to new trains, despite the best efforts of some people to say otherwise.

 

[jagardner1984]

No. And even if it was, the point would still stand: there has not been any meaningful reduction in berth capacity from old to new trains, despite the best efforts of some people to say otherwise.

is berth occupancy a data that is available somewhere ? In their annual report perhaps ? Anecdotally I feel like many of the standard passengers are travelling, like me, one person to a room, and in Mk3 days as a standard traveller I never shared a room (despite that being a theoretical possibility) so I’m not sure counting the cabin capacity, either then or now, is a particularly effective measure of comparison.

In simpler terms, I could often buy a berth then at short notice. Now I generally cannot.

That is a credit to the way the new product is being sold and promoted I would say. (If selfishly, sometimes a little frustrating !)

 

[Peter Sarf]

Keeping the service fully booked while (successfully) gradually hiking the prices isn't really "supressing demand".

Certainly it would be interesting to know how much higher the prices would need to go in order for it to no longer need a subsidy. At that point then certainly you'd hope an expansion of the service might be considered...and perhaps then some economies of scale could kick in.

Of course it all looks different if it's viewed as a public service, subsidised to allow affordable travel...but that's not really what it is now, and not what the current trains were designed around.

I agree and it would only be suppressing demand if there was stock lying around for an extra train - but there isn't.

I agree if demand can be proved to be there for an extra service then it could happen *IF* either the full un-subsidised price is achievable or it is deemed that subsidising more people using the sleeper is worth it.

One way of looking at it is if doubling the service was possible and trains could still be filled but at a higher price such that the subsidy per berth or room was halved would the source of subsidy go for it ?. Effectively meaning the total subsidy was unchanged but twice as many people were using it. Further more would an increased subsidy of say 30% be seen as attractive if it meant twice as many tourists were generated ?.

In reality I suspect the desire was to get rid of the sleeper but it would not quietly go away !.

You are missing out a key number in your calculations; the beds per train.

A Mk3 half set had 150 beds, the Mk5 has 112.

I had forgotten that - the price in terms of capacity of an en-suite !.

However, this is surely where it gets tricky ? Some parts of government spend are transparently part of the tourism strategy and therefore have little relevance to the permanent inhabitants of a place (aside from the economic spend of said tourism) - the funding for Visit Scotland Tourist Information Centres, website etc.

However most rail spend is at least significantly orientated around the inhabitants of a place - for example the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Programme, the Thameslink Programme, where most of the spend is tied directly in providing additional capacity for commuters and the busiest trains, and the cost / benefit looked at in that way.

The Sleeper upgrade has led to An overall downgrade in the available capacity (without relitigating that whole discussion) and therefore more focussed marketing sees the trains and an advertised improvement in the provided service (en suite etc) means most trains are now full or close to full. Where previously they were not and short notice reservations, in my experience, were normally possible. They are now, in my experience, normally not. That is a limitation on one form of social benefit to the service, particularly as some of those passengers will take domestic flights instead.

So maybe it is ok to look at the sleeper as a tourist product, and perhaps is quite an effective way of delivering £100 of economic support directly to local businesses in Aviemore, Crianlarich or Arbroath, enabling far far more spend in the local economy and associated tax income, but there is still some market for people who want to be standing on Princes Street at 2315 one night and be standing in Trafalgar Square at 0745 the following morning. Those people do not always know of their need to travel weeks or months in advance. And those people drive economic activity too. There is currently no other transport service which allows for the above journey to happen (or many others from many other points in Scotland, and vice versa).

So this isn’t particularly a moan about the service, I think it’s great. It’s just an observation in its success in one area of its business has significantly downgraded its offer in another.

Yes - I think the elephant in the room is that the Caledonian sleeper is not serving the same purpose it used to.

This is misleading.

A Mk3 half-set comprised 3 1st class and 3 standard class sleeper coaches (plus the seated coach and the lounge car)

The 6 sleeper coaches were comprised of a mixture of the following:
SLE - 13 compartments (26 beds)
SLEP (pantry) - 12 compartments (24 beds)
SLED (accessible room) - 11 compartments (I think), 22 beds (I think)

However, it was not possible to sell the 13th room in the SLEs because of uncertainty of what the train formation would be.

So that reduces the capacity to 5 coaches of 24 beds, and 1 (the SLED) of 22 beds - 142 in total.

However, 1st class was solo occupancy, and the beds were folded up and the mattresses stored elsewhere. These coaches therefore only had 12 beds in them.

So that makes for
3 * 1st @ 12 = 36
2 * standard @ 24 = 48
1 * standard @ 22 = 22
Total = 106*

In other words, the number of sellable beds has increased (on the new stock, all rooms are twin / double).


* I think some rooms were used for linen carriage too, and there may sometimes have been more than one SLED (or it may have been in the 1st class section), so it may have been less

BUT in that case surely not all berths/rooms are sold on the Mk5s so as to cover for a lower capacity coach substituting for the normal coach ?.

 

[Flying Snail]

No. And even if it was, the point would still stand: there has not been any meaningful reduction in berth capacity from old to new trains, despite the best efforts of some people to say otherwise.

The number of coaches/cabins set up as 1st class single berth was a choice, there was nothing preventing a change of that ratio had there been more demand for doubles.

Your claim that there hasn't been a capacity reduction only holds up under the assumption that every cabin is sold as double occupancy which is ludicrous, I don't know what the ratio of single to double occupancy is these days but single travellers were always a very significant proportion of the market and I see no reason why that has suddenly gone away.

Cabin numbers: Mk3 70-73, Mk5 56, more than a coach less per half set.

60 less cabins each way every day across the 2 full trains is a significant drop whatever way you try to play with the numbers.

 

[Steve Harris]

Not on the reservation system it isn't! You're allocated a berth, not a room

And since you can't share with a stranger anymore......

Yes, you're allocated a berth (and if you're booking solo you effectively pay a supplement to block off the other berth from sale). Five years ago someone would be allocated the other berth too.

 

[paul1609]

And since you can't share with a stranger anymore......

I had 30 years of using the sleepers on and off from London to Scotland and to a very limited extent the West Country. In all that time I only once shared a sleeper with a stranger and that was on the Aberdeen service. Whilst in theory it happened, in practise in my experience over 100s of trips (admittedly alighting/ joining mostly at intermediate stations) it just didnt happen.

 

[BRX]

My experience is that on the Inverness sleeper it did often happen.

 

[alistairlees]

For people travelling to / from intermediate stations (i.e. not to Inverness, Fort William, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh or London) then the chances of sharing with someone ekse were very slim; both people had to be making exactly the same journey, to avoid one disturbing the other. Travellers on the Fort William route became adept at booking to / from (e.g.) Roy Bridge, but actually boarding / alighting at Fort William, thus getting a solo room for the price of a shared one.

In any case, the number of shared bookings was fewer than 1 in 100.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jun 2024 ==

The number of coaches/cabins set up as 1st class single berth was a choice, there was nothing preventing a change of that ratio had there been more demand for doubles.

A choice based on experience / demand.

Your claim that there hasn't been a capacity reduction only holds up under the assumption that every cabin is sold as double occupancy which is ludicrous,

No it doesn't, the capacty is the number of beds that can be sold. They are roughly the same between the Mk3 and the Mk5 fleets.

I don't know what the ratio of single to double occupancy is these days but single travellers were always a very significant proportion of the market and I see no reason why that has suddenly gone away.

Twin could be sold as solo on the Mk3s too. Also, as I mentioned upthread, quite a few passengers had worked out how to pay for a shared ticket, but get solo use of a room, especially on the more capacity-constrained routes like Fort William.

Cabin numbers: Mk3 70-73, Mk5 56, more than a coach less per half set.

60 less cabins each way every day across the 2 full trains is a significant drop whatever way you try to play with the numbers.

The trains generally carry more people per night than they ever did before; over a 1,000 people a night on some nights.

 

[BRX]

If the question is "how does the number of beds potentially for sale now, vs mk3 days, compare?" then it may be that the answer is "about the same" but this is a different question from "how does the capacity of the mk5s compare to the capacity of the mk3s".

If the mk5s can offer the same capacity as the mk3s could (comparing like with like - that is, comparable proportions of rooms set up for solo occupancy only) then some kind of design miracle must have occurred given that they have also fitted in a bunch of ensuites and several double-bed rooms.

 

[Krokodil]

Travellers on the Fort William route became adept at booking to / from (e.g.) Roy Bridge, but actually boarding / alighting at Fort William, thus getting a solo room for the price of a shared one.

Presumably with the risk that they'd end up joining someone else doing the same thing.

both people had to be making exactly the same journey, to avoid one disturbing the other

On the few sleepers I've taken in Europe (as opposed to more frequent journeys in couchettes, where you would expect more disturbance anyway) there has been no such consideration. If you don't book out the whole compartment you can expect to share with someone else, they'll board and alight wherever they were boarding and alighting.

 

[Statto]

Anyone know what's up with this mornings Northbound Highlander, 86 minutes late having been early, the delay was in the Lancaster area?

 

[swidnod]

Anyone know what's up with this mornings Northbound Highlander, 86 minutes late having been early, the delay was in the Lancaster area?

OHL supply issues