Caledonian Sleeper

[Krokodil]

Didn’t BR withdraw that sleeper route, due to poor patronage?

I thought that it was a privatisation casualty. It finished in 1995.

In any case, the resurgance of sleeper services in Europe is an indication that the market may be more favourable than it was in the 1990s.

 

[Meerkat]

The Scottish government obviously sees that the subsidy enables wider economic and social benefits.

Or its just politics - it’s always been ludicrously disproportionately politically damaging to kill it.
Cynically I think the SNP wanted Westminster to kill it, so they could make a ‘anti-Scotland Westminster’ song and dance…..but Osborne called their bluff offering to pay half(?) for the new trains.

 

[side effect]

Liked it so much the me and my son went and came back the same night once. Rail replacement between Avimore and Inverness which made the trip more memorable. Coming back the train manager was so good to my son and we gave the experience and 10.

Would only use for pleasure though.

 

[35B]

Is that not partly why Serco got removed? The wanted to renegotiate the franchise to get more subsidy. Gov said no, see you later. Now they are under SRH they have to make money pretty much on their own. Thats why everything is overpriced. The markup they must make on food and drink will be astonishing.

Nothing I've not seen elsewhere, and lacking the extra costs associated with on train catering. As for Serco, they wanted more subsidy and the Scottish Government decided that they weren't going to pay it to Serco. I've not seen any suggestion that bringing it into government control has made any serious difference to the cost base or the subsidy requirement.

 

[sh24]

I thought that it was a privatisation casualty. It finished in 1995.

The closure of Rosyth dockyard took away a lot of traffic, privatisation did the rest

 

[Scotrail84]

My inclination would be to simplify the operation by dropping the Aberdeen portion entirely and just running it as two halves, one to Inverness and one to Fort William, and removing the awkward Edinburgh shunt. I don't agree about Oban, its tourist allure is much smaller than FW.

Can't drop it, thats franchise requirement to run it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2024 ==

High is relative. At about 12 people per coach, if it was a day train you'd fit everyone in a 2-car Class 158.

The need for it I think varies substantially between the Highlander and the Lowlander (and I'd lump Penzance in with the former). If HS2 is ever fully built, an 0500ish southbound from Glasgow/Edinburgh and a 2200ish northbound from Euston would probably serve most people on the Lowlander better - very few people don't sleep better in their own bed, and 0900 meetings are not that common because the host needs time to prepare for people arriving, 0930-1000 start is much more common.

Agree, a sold out sleeper is only about 150 odd folk give or take on and 8 car rake. easily fit them into a 158.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2024 ==

Didn’t BR withdraw that sleeper route, due to poor patronage?

They did, back in 1992 or something. Speak to staff who worked them, they will tell you they were a waste of time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2024 ==

My inclination would be to simplify the operation by dropping the Aberdeen portion entirely and just running it as two halves, one to Inverness and one to Fort William, and removing the awkward Edinburgh shunt. I don't agree about Oban, its tourist allure is much smaller than FW.

Oban wont happen again after the last debacle, no fuel point, getting the train. cleaned is a non starter as theres no staff, no CET or tanking points either. Staff don't know the route either.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2024 ==

Yes agreed, but 4 members of staff for the lounge car (as observed last month) must be over £500 a night, I think they'd have to sell a lot of haggis and whisky to actually break even, let alone make a profit

The Sleeper has a minimum number of staff required before the lounge closes and if it drops below 2 hosts then the service can't run.

 

[JamesT]

Can't drop it, thats franchise requirement to run it.

No such thing as a franchise any more since it was nationalised.

Transport Scotland | Caledonian Sleeper Franchise

Read about the history of the Caledonian Sleeper franchise and Transport Scotland's ongoing role in its operation.

www.transport.gov.scot

An agreement is in place between the Scottish Ministers and Scottish Rail Holdings (SRH) which sets out the broad framework within which SRH and its subsidiaries will operate.

This is known as the Framework Agreement.

Section 19 on Train Service Specification does explicitly mention the possibility of varying the service.

 

[Scotrail84]

Are you really trying to compare the likes of Amsterdam to Zurich with London to Fort William?

The second thing is, have you seen the prices of the Nightjet sleepers since the move to more dynamic pricing?

Compartment for one passenger (so single, no sharing) from Amsterdam to Zurich is somewhere between €335 and €545.

Sharing in a double (with a stranger) is between €195 and €285.

The newly revived night trains are extremely expensive - unless you opt to share a couchette in a room of 6 (€50-€135) or slum it on the seats.

They still sell out at those price points.

Caledonian Sleeper cannot add capacity to their trains, then can't add extra seats or add couchette coaches - because the train is already at the maximum length the infrastructure can support.

The Aberdeen portion of the sleeper is declining in popularity since the oil industry has started to decline. I'd extend this to Inverness and call at some of the stations via Dyce. I'd obviously keep the other Inverness portion.

The Fort William portion runs all year round despite having some very, very quiet periods out of season. In Europe, this would probably be a seasonal through carriage hooked onto the back of something else in the quieter months, if it ran at all. Personally think this should be diverted to Oban.

When Caledonian Sleeper start running and picking up via Birmingham International, the economics probably improve slightly.

I personally think Birmingham International is a disastrous idea. Patronage at Crewe is generally very good all year round both picking up and dropping off. By dropping Crewe and replacing it with Birmingham International (which was the plan), will lose a hell of a lot of passengers. Crewe is the hub of Northwest and it has to still call there anyway for a driver change. At least it used to change drivers there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2024 ==

No such thing as a franchise any more since it was nationalised.

Transport Scotland | Caledonian Sleeper Franchise

Read about the history of the Caledonian Sleeper franchise and Transport Scotland's ongoing role in its operation.

www.transport.gov.scot

Section 19 on Train Service Specification does explicitly mention the possibility of varying the service.

They can't just drop a service, if they could they would have binned the Inverness being a day service, as well as the FTW picking up/dropping off on route. There are certain requirements the sleeper needs to meet for their service.

 

[ABB125]

Most of NightJet is commercial, isn't it?

That's a very interesting question. In theory, yes*, but how much "hidden" subsidy there is is another matter!

*Apart from the ones which are subsidised. Wien-Bregenz for one, I believe, as it links the western end of Austria with the more populous east through some of the more remote areas. And excellent value on an Interrail pass too, can be had for eur6 in the seats, and about eur25 in one of the new mini cabins! (Unless prices have changed since this summer.)

It roughly breaks even, I think. Routes like Hamburg to Zurich are definitely profitable, the Austrian government aren't in the business of subsidising services which wholly serve other countries. But it does benefit from being able to use national operators' traincrew efficiently in a way that hasn't really existed in the UK since privatisation (or at least since Virgin stopped running LHCS along the same route). For that matter, there's no need to employ a small team of shunters when you already have them at places like Salzburg for joining an splitting Railjets. There are certainly economies of scale at work, hence the suggestion someone else made of adding in a NE-SW sleeper.

The economics of continental operations are very different to the UK. They still have "national" freight operators, who may (or may not) be notionally independent from the passenger side of the business, which immediately makes things easier in terms of contracting your sleeper haulage. Then, many (most?) electric locomotives have the necessary electricity supply kit for passenger stock. There are staff at key points who do shunting for freight, who can just pop over to the station for the sleeper then go back to freight in the yard etc.
Sleeper traffic is almost interchangeable with freight - simply hook up whatever locomotive you have spare at the start, and away you go. No need for expensive dedicated sleeper locomotives, which sit idle during the day.
Other advantages over on the continent are the different approach to route knowledge, and as alluded to above pretty much any driver who signs a suitable locomotive type can in theory drive the service (freight last night, sleeper tonight, freight again tomorrow, etc). Much simpler

Oban wont happen again after the last debacle, no fuel point, getting the train. cleaned is a non starter as theres no staff, no CET or tanking points either. Staff don't know the route either.

All these problems can be solved. Diesel tanker lorry with hose pipe and an inflatable swimming pool (I don't know exactly what the requirements are, but these are found on construction sites where fuelling happens to catch any fuel spillages. And yes, it wouldn't be an actual swimming pool!). Train cleaners can presumably be anyone - making beds, vacuuming, emptying bins shouldn't require any specialist knowledge (and if it does, something has gone wrong). Toilet emptying tanker lorry with hose pipe and suitable attachment sorts the toilet issue. Staff can learn the route, especially if it's going to be a regular journey. Not a big problem.

 

[Steve Harris]

That's a very interesting question. In theory, yes*, but how much "hidden" subsidy there is is another matter!

*Apart from the ones which are subsidised. Wien-Bregenz for one, I believe, as it links the western end of Austria with the more populous east through some of the more remote areas. And excellent value on an Interrail pass too, can be had for eur6 in the seats, and about eur25 in one of the new mini cabins! (Unless prices have changed since this summer.)

The economics of continental operations are very different to the UK. They still have "national" freight operators, who may (or may not) be notionally independent from the passenger side of the business, which immediately makes things easier in terms of contracting your sleeper haulage. Then, many (most?) electric locomotives have the necessary electricity supply kit for passenger stock. There are staff at key points who do shunting for freight, who can just pop over to the station for the sleeper then go back to freight in the yard etc.
Sleeper traffic is almost interchangeable with freight - simply hook up whatever locomotive you have spare at the start, and away you go. No need for expensive dedicated sleeper locomotives, which sit idle during the day.
Other advantages over on the continent are the different approach to route knowledge, and as alluded to above pretty much any driver who signs a suitable locomotive type can in theory drive the service (freight last night, sleeper tonight, freight again tomorrow, etc). Much simpler

All these problems can be solved. Diesel tanker lorry with hose pipe and an inflatable swimming pool (I don't know exactly what the requirements are, but these are found on construction sites where fuelling happens to catch any fuel spillages. And yes, it wouldn't be an actual swimming pool!). Train cleaners can presumably be anyone - making beds, vacuuming, emptying bins shouldn't require any specialist knowledge (and if it does, something has gone wrong). Toilet emptying tanker lorry with hose pipe and suitable attachment sorts the toilet issue. Staff can learn the route, especially if it's going to be a regular journey. Not a big problem.

I think you'll find the terminology used is bund.

 

[RGM654]

Are you really trying to compare the likes of Amsterdam to Zurich with London to Fort William?

The second thing is, have you seen the prices of the Nightjet sleepers since the move to more dynamic pricing?

Compartment for one passenger (so single, no sharing) from Amsterdam to Zurich is somewhere between €335 and €545.

Sharing in a double (with a stranger) is between €195 and €285.

The newly revived night trains are extremely expensive - unless you opt to share a couchette in a room of 6 (€50-€135) or slum it on the seats.

They still sell out at those price points.

Caledonian Sleeper cannot add capacity to their trains, then can't add extra seats or add couchette coaches - because the train is already at the maximum length the infrastructure can support.

The Aberdeen portion of the sleeper is declining in popularity since the oil industry has started to decline. I'd extend this to Inverness and call at some of the stations via Dyce. I'd obviously keep the other Inverness portion.

The Fort William portion runs all year round despite having some very, very quiet periods out of season. In Europe, this would probably be a seasonal through carriage hooked onto the back of something else in the quieter months, if it ran at all. Personally think this should be diverted to Oban.

When Caledonian Sleeper start running and picking up via Birmingham International, the economics probably improve slightly.

Let's say "contrast" rather than "compare". I was enquiring what's different. Subsequent posts have provided some answers.

 

[RT4038]

All these problems can be solved. Diesel tanker lorry with hose pipe and an inflatable swimming pool (I don't know exactly what the requirements are, but these are found on construction sites where fuelling happens to catch any fuel spillages. And yes, it wouldn't be an actual swimming pool!). Train cleaners can presumably be anyone - making beds, vacuuming, emptying bins shouldn't require any specialist knowledge (and if it does, something has gone wrong). Toilet emptying tanker lorry with hose pipe and suitable attachment sorts the toilet issue. Staff can learn the route, especially if it's going to be a regular journey. Not a big problem.

Solved, yes. But at what cost in relation to the likely revenue?

 

[RGM654]

I personally think Birmingham International is a disastrous idea. Patronage at Crewe is generally very good all year round both picking up and dropping off. By dropping Crewe and replacing it with Birmingham International (which was the plan), will lose a hell of a lot of passengers. Crewe is the hub of Northwest and it has to still call there anyway for a driver change. At least it used to change drivers there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2024 ==


They can't just drop a service, if they could they would have binned the Inverness being a day service, as well as the FTW picking up/dropping off on route. There are certain requirements the sleeper needs to meet for their service.

Birmingham is surely more of a hub than Crewe for a large swathe of the country, but anyway why would routeing via Birmingham prevent stopping at Crewe as well? An extra (say) ten minutes on the total journey time is of little significance overnight.

 

[ABB125]

Solved, yes. But at what cost in relation to the likely revenue?

I don't know (or care, really ), just pointing out that they aren't "problems" as such

 

[Scotrail84]

That's a very interesting question. In theory, yes*, but how much "hidden" subsidy there is is another matter!

*Apart from the ones which are subsidised. Wien-Bregenz for one, I believe, as it links the western end of Austria with the more populous east through some of the more remote areas. And excellent value on an Interrail pass too, can be had for eur6 in the seats, and about eur25 in one of the new mini cabins! (Unless prices have changed since this summer.)

The economics of continental operations are very different to the UK. They still have "national" freight operators, who may (or may not) be notionally independent from the passenger side of the business, which immediately makes things easier in terms of contracting your sleeper haulage. Then, many (most?) electric locomotives have the necessary electricity supply kit for passenger stock. There are staff at key points who do shunting for freight, who can just pop over to the station for the sleeper then go back to freight in the yard etc.
Sleeper traffic is almost interchangeable with freight - simply hook up whatever locomotive you have spare at the start, and away you go. No need for expensive dedicated sleeper locomotives, which sit idle during the day.
Other advantages over on the continent are the different approach to route knowledge, and as alluded to above pretty much any driver who signs a suitable locomotive type can in theory drive the service (freight last night, sleeper tonight, freight again tomorrow, etc). Much simpler

All these problems can be solved. Diesel tanker lorry with hose pipe and an inflatable swimming pool (I don't know exactly what the requirements are, but these are found on construction sites where fuelling happens to catch any fuel spillages. And yes, it wouldn't be an actual swimming pool!). Train cleaners can presumably be anyone - making beds, vacuuming, emptying bins shouldn't require any specialist knowledge (and if it does, something has gone wrong). Toilet emptying tanker lorry with hose pipe and suitable attachment sorts the toilet issue. Staff can learn the route, especially if it's going to be a regular journey. Not a big problem.

In actual, fact learning the route is a big problem, real lack of services to get staff learned on, drivers require even more route learning that guards do.

Comparing construction site fuelling processes to getting two locos fuelled on a track with possibly very limited nearby road access is not a good comparison.

Cleaners need trained on MK5s and need specially made keys to access certain areas of the train.

Above all. Who pays for all this? Presumably the travelling public at the expense of even higher fares.

Oban will not happen. They don't have the coaching stock, facilities or staff to do it. They'd need to open a train crew depot at Oban for a kick off, that costs money. Also remember they are a number of coaches down with cracking issues with no fix coming anytime soon. If they lose anymore to cracking then theres a real possibility a service will have to be sacrificed, especially if a cracked coach turns out to be a lounge or a brake coach because the sets must have both in the formation for the train management system to operate correctly. They're already at breakpoint with 100% of their available fleet in use every night. Asking for trouble in the longterm.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2024 ==

Birmingham is surely more of a hub than Crewe for a large swathe of the country, but anyway why would routeing via Birmingham prevent stopping at Crewe as well? An extra (say) ten minutes on the total journey time is of little significance overnight.

It's not Birmingham New Street though, its Birmingham International Airport station, miles from Birmingham itself ad various other placers that connect at Crewe. At the moment Crewe is a crew change point and will continue to be even if Birmingham stops happen, Crewe will cease to be a passenger call though. It doesn't make sense at all.

 

[Krokodil]

Birmingham is surely more of a hub than Crewe for a large swathe of the country,

Quite a bit of it would have gone to Euston anyway. I don't mind it stopping at Birmingham but if that is instead of Crewe rather than in addition to that will be incredibly inconvenient for me. I've just looked it up and the best case scenario means leaving an hour and a half earlier AND praying that not only will Avanti turn up, but also that they will run to within a couple of minutes of time.

Edit - if it's International then better make it two and a half hours early. International might as well be London for the sort of people who would use Crewe.

 

[Scotrail84]

Quite a bit of it would have gone to Euston anyway. I don't mind it stopping at Birmingham but if that is instead of Crewe rather than in addition to that will be incredibly inconvenient for me. I've just looked it up and the best case scenario means leaving an hour and a half earlier AND praying that not only will Avanti turn up, but also that they will run to within a couple of minutes of time.

Edit - if it's International then better make it two and a half hours early. International might as well be London for the sort of people who would use Crewe.

This is my point, it's massively inconvenient as it's not actually Birmingham itself. It's clear they are looking to try and tap into the market of people flying in/out of Int airport. B/ham airport is more of a holiday package deal place rather than international flights etc. I can't see many families paying thousands for a holiday then paying the additional cost of about £600 for a couple of rooms on the sleeper, it's a needless extra expense.

 

[D6130]

I strongly suspect that the choice of Birmingham International rather than New Street is connected with either (a) a lack of pathways through the latter and/or (b) the frequency of overnight engineering possessions on its approaches. Stopping at International enables the train to be pathed via the Grand Junction line.

 

[Western Gaffer]

It's clear they are looking to try and tap into the market of people flying in/out of Int airport.

Is it? About twice as many passengers fly from Edinburgh and Glasgow airports (combined) as Birmingham, so a lengthy and expensive train journey to/from Scotland from/to Birmingham to connect with a flight seems like a pretty niche market to be targeting....

 

[alistairlees]

This is my point, it's massively inconvenient as it's not actually Birmingham itself. It's clear they are looking to try and tap into the market of people flying in/out of Int airport. B/ham airport is more of a holiday package deal place rather than international flights etc. I can't see many families paying thousands for a holiday then paying the additional cost of about £600 for a couple of rooms on the sleeper, it's a needless extra expense.

International is much more convenient to drive to and from, especially for the leafier bits of Birmingham, than is New Street.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I strongly suspect that the choice of Birmingham International rather than New Street is connected with either (a) a lack of pathways through the latter and/or (b) the frequency of overnight engineering possessions on its approaches. Stopping at International enables the train to be pathed via the Grand Junction line.

Isn't it platform lengths?

 

[Scotrail84]

Is it? About twice as many passengers fly from Edinburgh and Glasgow airports (combined) as Birmingham, so a lengthy and expensive train journey to/from Scotland from/to Birmingham to connect with a flight seems like a pretty niche market to be targeting....

Which is why it makes zero sense to stop there, theres much more uptake from Crewe with a catchment area of Cheshire, North Wales, Merseyside, Lancashire, Staffordshire and even Yorkshire than Birmingham Int will ever be able to pull.

In any case, I wouldn't fancy relying on the sleeper to get me to the Airport in time for an early morning flight out of Birmingham. Even a 60 minute delay could be disastrous.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2024 ==

Isn't it platform lengths?

Theres all sorts of things that need to be considered. Is B/ham Int staffed 24 hours a day? It would need staffed for dispatch purposes and TRTS etc (if required), not to mention passenger assistance as well. The sleeper way too long for Int with 15 or 16 vehs on.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2024 ==

International is much more convenient to drive to and from, especially for the leafier bits of Birmingham, than is New Street.

Is there public parking on site? (Not the ridiculously expensive airport parking). I mean station parking for rail users?

 

[Krokodil]

The sleeper way too long for Int with 15 or 16 vehs on.

Presumably it's less in the way than it would be at New Street.

Still more in the way than platform 6 at Crewe though.

 

[Scotrail84]

Presumably it's less in the way than it would be at New Street.

Still more in the way than platform 6 at Crewe though.

6 and 12 at Crewe can take the sleeper, 6 is the best platform as its straight. Remember though, if B/ham goes ahead it will still have to call at Crewe to change drivers anyway.

 

[Western Gaffer]

Which is why it makes zero sense to stop there, theres much more uptake from Crewe with a catchment area of Cheshire, North Wales, Merseyside, Lancashire, Staffordshire and even Yorkshire than Birmingham Int will ever be able to pull.

In any case, I wouldn't fancy relying on the sleeper to get me to the Airport in time for an early morning flight out of Birmingham. Even a 60 minute delay could be disastrous.

I'm lost - you said "It's clear they are looking to try and tap into the market of people flying in/out of Int airport" but that doesn't seem clear at all? It seems we agree that it wouldn't be sensible to do that but what makes you believe that it's their rationale?

 

[35B]

Which is why it makes zero sense to stop there, theres much more uptake from Crewe with a catchment area of Cheshire, North Wales, Merseyside, Lancashire, Staffordshire and even Yorkshire than Birmingham Int will ever be able to pull.

Is there? What analysis have you done, both about the catchment and the potential demand? I live in Grantham, and would regard Birmingham International as (just) in range - but wouldn't contemplate Crewe. And I know the roads to both well.

Is there public parking on site? (Not the ridiculously expensive airport parking). I mean station parking for rail users?

A quick look at https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/birmingham-international/ tells me that there are 2000 spaces for rail users. More than at Crewe.

 

[Krokodil]

Is there? What analysis have you done, both about the catchment and the potential demand? I live in Grantham, and would regard Birmingham International as (just) in range - but wouldn't contemplate Crewe. And I know the roads to both well.

I don't think that they've got Grantham in mind somehow. Crewe is handy for Manchester, Liverpool and the West Midlands - if you're in Wolves you're halfway between Crewe and International, time-wise and Crewe is in the direction you actually want to be travelling, unlike doubling back to International.

A quick look at https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/birmingham-international/ tells me that there are 2000 spaces for rail users. More than at Crewe.

Why would someone from almost anywhere bar local villages drive to Crewe in order to catch a train? Anyone from any population centre in the North West would just get a train to Crewe.

 

[jfollows]

Isn't it platform lengths?

per

Caledonian Sleeper

(delete if someone has already said) Caledonian Sleeper has applied for a stop at Birmingham International. https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-and-commercial/information-for-operators/sale-of-access-rights/ 22.05.2024 - Caledonian Sleeper Limited - Section 17 - 9th SA - Closes 22.06.2024...

www.railforums.co.uk

(post 16,117)

Neither has long enough platforms for the full train but presumably less chance of blocking other things at International. As @Krokodil says above in fact.

 

[Scotrail84]

I'm lost - you said "It's clear they are looking to try and tap into the market of people flying in/out of Int airport" but that doesn't seem clear at all? It seems we agree that it wouldn't be sensible to do that but what makes you believe that it's their rationale?

Because if you look at their MD, they came from Thomas Cook after the collapsed. Airline mentality.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2024 ==

I don't think that they've got Grantham in mind somehow. Crewe is handy for Manchester, Liverpool and the West Midlands - if you're in Wolves you're halfway between Crewe and International, time-wise and Crewe is in the direction you actually want to be travelling, unlike doubling back to International.

Why would someone from almost anywhere bar local villages drive to Crewe in order to catch a train? Anyone from any population centre in the North West would just get a train to Crewe.

It makes perfect sense to converge on Crewe as the station is very well served by local services.

 

[paninaro]

In any case, I wouldn't fancy relying on the sleeper to get me to the Airport in time for an early morning flight out of Birmingham. Even a 60 minute delay could be disastrous

I'd assumed from your previous messages you wouldn't catch the Sleeper in a million years, so I'm not sure you're in their target market