Do Sleepers make money?

[4SRKT]

Crewe and Preston serve as valuable railheads for North Wales and Northern England, and yes, people do use the Highland Sleeper from them. Manchester would be better for more people though.

 

[IanXC]

Regarding the whole issue of train length, and thinking of how pressure on platform space at Euston is likely to increase, whereas Kings Cross seems to have falling demand what is the maximum platform length available at Kings Cross?

If the sleepers went via the ECML then York would seem to be a sensible place to call, and there certainly are some long platforms there.

Why does one of the older proposals for St Pancras sound really useful at this moment?! Full length of the trainshed a la Eurostar would have been perfect for this situation.

 

[Nym]

Or just all three...

 

[tbtc]

If the sleepers went via the ECML then York would seem to be a sensible place to call, and there certainly are some long platforms there

At least York would connect with the overnight TPE services (as would Manchester Piccadilly, or my spurious suggestion of Manchester Airport). There are no overnight services through Crewe or Preston (apart from the Sleeper), are there?

Hmm, could always extend one overnight TPE Manchester Airport duty to/from Crewe to connect with the sleeper?

 

[Liam]

If the sleepers went via the ECML then York would seem to be a sensible place to call, and there certainly are some long platforms there.

You would also directly serve Newcastle, rather than indirectly serving Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham changing at Preston or Crewe. Although it is debatable which is the better option.

Maybe if Euston is becoming awkward for the sleepers then Waterloo International might come back into use? Haulage might need to be 92's rather than 90's though. Would also increase Waterloo's capacity during the day, although it's the bottleneck outside Waterloo that is the issue there.

 

[ainsworth74]

Maybe if Euston is becoming awkward for the sleepers then Waterloo International might come back into use?

I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to put all the sleepers into Waterloo Int? So you could have the Highland, Lowland and Night Rivera all departing from and arriving into the same London terminus. I would have thought the Night Rivera could run from Waterloo to Reading without too much difficulty, so what about the Cally sleepers and getting access to the WCML?

 

[Zoe]

I would have thought the Night Rivera could run from Waterloo to Reading without too much difficulty

The Night Riviera actually did run from Waterloo for some time in the 1990s.

 

[tbtc]

I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to put all the sleepers into Waterloo Int? So you could have the Highland, Lowland and Night Rivera all departing from and arriving into the same London terminus. I would have thought the Night Rivera could run from Waterloo to Reading without too much difficulty, so what about the Cally sleepers and getting access to the WCML?

Waterloo - Vauxhall - Queenstown Road Battersea - (Clapham Junction avoider curve) - Imperial Wharf - West London Line - Willesden avoider curve - Wembley Central - WCML...

One problem may be the morning arrival - could Waterloo accommodate the Sleepers (And the shunting etc)? Maybe the "Eurostar" platforms?

 

[4SRKT]

Euston is fine. Surely 16 cars is long enough.

 

[HSTEd]

Euston can fit sixteen carriages? That means that a Glasgow supersleeper could potentially have a Pretendilino set with sleeper carriages added on, which would be a rather different proposistion to the current train.

 

[AlterEgo]

Euston can fit sixteen carriages?

Yep. I think they always use Platform 1 for the Highland Sleeper...

 

[stut]

If you wanted to fit more, given it's the middle of the night and not exactly pressured for time, would it be out of the question to have two sets of carriages on adjacent platforms, coupled together on leaving the station?

 

[tbtc]

If you wanted to fit more, given it's the middle of the night and not exactly pressured for time, would it be out of the question to have two sets of carriages on adjacent platforms, coupled together on leaving the station?

I think that the need to haul the service up both Shap and Beattock would impact the length of what the loco could feasibly haul

 

[Zoe]

I think that the need to haul the service up both Shap and Beattock would impact the length of what the loco could feasibly haul

That wouldn't be an issue though if the new stock is EMUs.

 

[Hydro]

One problem may be the morning arrival - could Waterloo accommodate the Sleepers (And the shunting etc)? Maybe the "Eurostar" platforms?

Using the Windsors for access to Waterloo Int, especially from right the way from Clapham practically, could potentially throw up problems.

 

[HSTEd]

Well if you were to commit a Cl92 to it you could go mad and haul god knows how many carriages up Shap with little trouble, but that would limit the trains top speed to 87mph which might remove some of the slack in the timetable.

An EMU is probably a good solution, especially for the relatively long trains and the small number of destinations on the Lowland Sleeper, you could justify two fixed formation trains most likely.
You would have to make sure all the powered axles were in the lounge or seated carriages however.

 

[Hydro]

Well if you were to commit a Cl92 to it you could go mad and haul god knows how many carriages up Shap with little trouble, but that would limit the trains top speed to 87mph which might remove some of the slack in the timetable.

Plus only a small handful of 92's have UK compatible ETS.

I don't think it'd be too much of a bother to eke out another 3mph from a 92, with software mods. Anyway, the sleepers aren't exactly timed to fly, I doubt it'd make much difference.

 

[tbtc]

That wouldn't be an issue though if the new stock is EMUs.

But then if they are two separate EMUs running from adjacent platforms, why bother combining them? You could run them as separate services and therefore avoid the complication of joining/splitting.

(not that the Sleepers will ever see a new build of EMU)

 

[HSTEd]

(not that the Sleepers will ever see a new build of EMU)

Well that depends if the renewal actually takes place, if it does I could see the order for sleeper vehicles simply being added onto the next convenient stock order, which would probably be for EMUs of some sort.

 

[Zoe]

But then if they are two separate EMUs running from adjacent platforms, why bother combining them? You could run them as separate services and therefore avoid the complication of joining/splitting.

To save having to use two drivers north from Euston when once the train has been joined you would only need one. As for saying that there won't be a new build of EMU sleeper stock, if this sleeper is to continue then there would have to be a new build of stock some time and there would be little benefit in ordering loco and stock when EMUs can be used.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well that depends if the renewal actually takes place, if it does I could see the order for sleeper vehicles simply being added onto the next convenient stock order, which would probably be for EMUs of some sort.

Yes, I expect an off the shelf EMU design could be modified for use in a new order of sleeper stock.

 

[Invincibles]

I still think they should use the Chinese style ones that run Beijing to Shanghai and send them around during the day as well (Electric to Birmingham New Street then Diesel from there to Plymouth/Penzance or Cardiff) to another place where they can begin as the next nights train to London.

 

[ainsworth74]

One problem may be the morning arrival - could Waterloo accommodate the Sleepers (And the shunting etc)? Maybe the "Eurostar" platforms?

Well that was my thought, put them into Waterloo International and you no longer have them taking up platform space during the morning peak at Euston and Paddington indeed you could leave them there until the middle of the day if you wanted to. You also centralise the sleepers in one place and could market it as such, you can also put to work a valuable asset that doesn't exactly get up to much these days.

Using the Windsors for access to Waterloo Int, especially from right the way from Clapham practically, could potentially throw up problems.

In terms of getting paths I assume?

 

[4SRKT]

The sleepers arrive pretty early into London, so I doubt finding paths would be too much of an issue. They don't have to run fast anyway.

 

[Hydro]

The sleepers arrive pretty early into London, so I doubt finding paths would be too much of an issue.

Running into possessions could be though. I gather the times between possessions being given up and the first train are fairly tight in that neck of the woods.

 

[Nym]

I mentioned this before about having a 'London Sleepers Terminal' at Waterloo International, especially since at the moment they'd be able to stable there all day, and some rather luxurious surroundings could be put into place in the 'pre board lounges' in the undercroft.

At this moment in time, it could be facilitated by adding ETH to some more 92s to run the Scottish services, no changes needed for the West of England ones.

Longer term, if EMUs are ordered to run sleeper services, if these can be ordered as dual voltage, then there's no issue in running them up the WLL to get to the WCML.

And freeing up space in Paddington and Euston can't be a bad thing, nor can consolidating sleepers and providing special service, making a difference to the experience. It's own terminal can provide this.

Finally, 3 paths in the morning isn't that taxing to find into Waterloo, I know it's tight as it is, but the if the sleepers arrive an hour early, and are timed to do so, then waiting in a siding for a short while while a path is found isn't a major issue.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Running into possessions could be though. I gather the times between possessions being given up and the first train are fairly tight in that neck of the woods.

Fair point on possessions... But still, a 'sleeper terminal' would be nice to have, especially if you can keep some customs there and have the potential to run 'international sleepers' (Via the WLL, NLL and HS1, using converted Eurostars, or repatriated nightstar coaches)

 

[sprinterguy]

Plus only a small handful of 92's have UK compatible ETS.

I thought that all the 92s had the same train supply output? Or is it only the former EPS locos that are fitted with the UK "flavour" of ETS.

If so, GB Railfreight would appear to have bought up most of the former EPS 92s (The EPS locos were 92020/21/32/40 and 92044-46, btw), so there would be a ready source of operational locos for the sleepers if GB and Scotrail were willing to enter negotiations over providing train crews and locos.

A pool of seven ETS fitted 92s (Five of which are currently owned by GB Railfreight) would be sufficient to operate all the electric legs of the Highland and Lowland Caley sleepers.

I certainly like the idea of using Waterloo International as a dedicated, high quality, sleeper terminal.

 

[Hydro]

I believe at least one, maybe a couple more, was converted to handle UK ETS supply.

 

[sprinterguy]

I believe at least one, maybe a couple more, was converted to handle UK ETS supply.

Ahhh so it's the case then that the Nightstar stock would have used European type train supply. It's only just dawned on me that that would be why none of the 92s were initially fitted with the UK type. Previous post rendered obsolete!

 

[kylemore]

Nobody seems interested in the point I made earlier that in the past passenger revenue was just part of the mix with parcels and mail revenue to be included, indeed originally was not passenger/sleeper revenue just not marginal, icing on top so to speak on trains that were primarily run to move mail/parcels?
Could we not go back to this?
In particular I mentioned Fish/Shellfish traffic from the west of Scotland to the huge markets for such high value to weight traffic in London.
5 or 6 modern high speed "reefer" vans unloading their palletised traffic in a slick operation at Euston would boost the finances of the operation - especially when you consider that the contents of these vans would have a wholesale value possibly running over a £1m?

 

[HSTEd]

All you need now is a fourth train to take up the fourth platform at Waterloo Int.
Additionally the platform length issues just became completely moot, which removes the need for the shunting operations on the Highland Sleeper to attach a lounge and seating vehicle to the Fort William Portion.

EDIT:
That sort of traffic has gone over to the roads or even airfreight and I'm not sure rail could compete.
Newspaper Traffic is completely gone thanks to computing and distributed printing and the Royal Mail has its own trains or just uses the roads now.