FGW considers expanding sleeper service

[Railjet]

From the BBC.

Not much detail, but FGW to add more coaches to the Night Riviera, and "is considering expanding the service further".

 

[Dai.]

I've never used the service but it must be pretty busy and liked if they are making this move, but is it the wisest?

Surely they should focus on the services during the day that are cramped more than the night services?

 

[Oliver]

From the BBC.

Not much detail, but FGW to add more coaches to the Night Riviera, and "is considering expanding the service further".

Interesting that the BBC states that it required an annual subsidy of £5M per year. The trains runs roughly times 312 per year in each direction. If it carries 60 sleeping passengers per night the subsidy per person is around £130 each. (I know it carries seated passengers too, but you can see why there aren't many sleeper services left.)

 

[Dennis]

Time for a little maths, figures from the article,

£5 million per year subsidy needed to run about 600 trains per year = £8300 subsidy per sleeper train being run. If each really does only carry the cited 60-75 passengers, that's well over £100 subsidy for each journey on the beds. Is that value for taxpayers money?

Hmmm....the £/passenger km subsidy is not actually that far off what Northern recieves for it's normal MU services IIRC, so perhaps not such bad value after all.

 

[moonrakerz]

Damn' ! I thought you meant bigger beds.............:roll::roll:

 

[rail-britain]

Note that FGW are only quoting for the number of sleeper passengers carried
The next question is, where do you get extra sleeper coaches from?
If the service does increase by 2 coaches (ie one coach per train or 25% per train) then the service susbidy would reduce to about £4m
Finally, FGW have eight sleeper coaches and typically use them all at all times

*cough, there are actually spare sleepers, but a serious amount of money would need to be spent getting them back into public service
However, with there being such a shortage of suitable bogies it may be that "new" bogies are built

 

[bnm]

Making a direct comparison with subsidy versus berth prices is a little too simple. There's also the revenue from the fares to consider.

You also have to factor in other economic benefits - such as getting people where they need to be at a reasonable hour to do a days work for example.

 

[Oliver]

Time for a little maths, figures from the article,

£5 million per year subsidy needed to run about 600 trains per year = £8300 subsidy per sleeper train being run. If each really does only carry the cited 60-75 passengers, that's well over £100 subsidy for each journey on the beds. Is that value for taxpayers money?

Hmmm....the £/passenger km subsidy is not actually that far off what Northern recieves for it's normal MU services IIRC, so perhaps not such bad value after all.

Let's assume that the subsidy is £100 per passenger trip, and they all go the full 305 miles from Paddington to Penzance, then that's 32p per passenger mile subsidy. I don't have any recent data to hand, but some years ago FGW received an average subsidy of around 5p/mile.

I think that's a fairer comparison than with Northern. I agree there are other factors and I am not anti-sleeper, I am just pointing out that they are very expensive to run, which explains why so few such services remain.

 

[EltonRoad]

Interesting they're thinking of expanding it, but let's not forget they cut it a while back by stopping the separate Plymouth portion. How about bringing Motorail back?

 

[Dennis]

Making a direct comparison with subsidy versus berth prices is a little too simple. There's also the revenue from the fares to consider.

You also have to factor in other economic benefits - such as getting people where they need to be at a reasonable hour to do a days work for example.

Yes, I know it's simple, it's £5m subsidy being provided by the taxpayer for the beds plus the farebox revenue FGW get from running these trains; just trying to point out that these trains seem to be very expensive to run and questioning their value for money (like what Mr Cameron has asked us all to do!). It's a lot of taxpayers cash to benefit very few people.

 

[rail-britain]

How about bringing Motorail back?

Virtually no chance now, as that adds operational issues and costs, the revenue it generates is of little benefit

 

[87015]

Yes, I know it's simple, it's £5m subsidy being provided by the taxpayer for the beds plus the farebox revenue FGW get from running these trains; just trying to point out that these trains seem to be very expensive to run and questioning their value for money (like what Mr Cameron has asked us all to do!). It's a lot of taxpayers cash to benefit very few people.

Its a very inefficient operation. On the continent where its a joined up railway only the sleeper coaches themselves sit around all day, the locos and day coaches tend to be used 24/7. No silly fleets of four rubbish engines for two trains a day either.

 

[Greenback]

I want to know why it's expensive to run? Is it anything to do with the leasing charges for the sleeping cars themselves, or the track access charges?

£5m a year seems an awful lot of subsidy, so I am approaching this from the other angle and trying to find out why the service costs so much to run.

 

[rail-britain]

I want to know why it's expensive to run? Is it anything to do with the leasing charges for the sleeping cars themselves, or the track access charges?

Common question that I have replied to a few times now
Train maintenance and operational costs are almost double
The train then sits for at least 12 hours each day, not making money

 

[Oliver]

I want to know why it's expensive to run? Is it anything to do with the leasing charges for the sleeping cars themselves, or the track access charges?

£5m a year seems an awful lot of subsidy, so I am approaching this from the other angle and trying to find out why the service costs so much to run.

Rail-britain is right. It's not just that the sleeper coaches only do one trip per day, it's that even when full a sleeper coach carries a maximum of 24 passengers (assuming all cabins are using both berths). The equivalent Mk III in an HST would carry about 80, and will typically do two complete round trips per day.

 

[rail-britain]

Other costs include retention tank emptying, berth reset, and having at least two members of staff on the sleepers (at least one attendant per 60 passengers)

 

[Shrub Hill]

ok so the sleeper service needs to be subsidised, in the business world it is not uncommon for companies to take on contracts where they actually loose money, as daft as it sounds it keep the work force operational, and the loss of one part can be offset quite easily against more profitable parts, actually earning the big companies more money on the revenue earning contracts, The fact it is being subsidised might be irrelevant compared to the revenue FGW bring to the coffers across the whole franchise. i will admit that i have not researched the figures to back this up , but i think looking at the sleeper service as a single entity does not paint a true picture, it also adds to the overall service that FGW provide

 

[First class]

Personally I'd like to see a London-South Wales sleeper, the WAG may even be able to sort some funding out, arriving about 6am, allowed to stay on until 7am.

I then think the sleeper should be used for a return working around 8am, allowing people to 'reserve' a private compartment for their journey back to London. As it coveys normal seating options - gives people a few options.

 

[paul1609]

ok so the sleeper service needs to be subsidised, in the business world it is not uncommon for companies to take on contracts where they actually loose money, as daft as it sounds it keep the work force operational, and the loss of one part can be offset quite easily against more profitable parts, actually earning the big companies more money on the revenue earning contracts, The fact it is being subsidised might be irrelevant compared to the revenue FGW bring to the coffers across the whole franchise. i will admit that i have not researched the figures to back this up , but i think looking at the sleeper service as a single entity does not paint a true picture, it also adds to the overall service that FGW provide

The last time I got the Night Riveira a Sunday in November from Paddington i counted 8 passengers getting on!

 

[rail-britain]

ok so the sleeper service needs to be subsidised, in the business world it is not uncommon for companies to take on contracts where they actually loose money

The service loses money, but FGW don't lose money on this service hence the subsidy (same applies to FSR with their sleepers)
So no matter what happens they make money from it
However as subsidies reduce it is in their business interest to make such an operation "less costly"
This was the whole point of privitisation to identify and convert costly and non-profitable operations within the railway...

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I believe this is just the BBC picking up a month late about the recent increase from three to four Sleeper cars each night?

 

[rail-britain]

I suspect you may be right, as I have not received any such press release from FGW on this, neither is there anything on the DfT website

However the BBC do normally check the validity of such "stories"

I have now submitted a confirmation request about this to my contact at FGW

 

[bnm]

I think the BBC story is, as Peter Mugridge said, just a rehash of a FGW press release some 3 weeks ago.

http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/NewsItem.aspx?id=671

Also noticed a story about Peter's recent fund raising journey on the FGW website. Top work fella!

 

[Oliver]

Personally I'd like to see a London-South Wales sleeper, the WAG may even be able to sort some funding out, arriving about 6am, allowed to stay on until 7am.

I then think the sleeper should be used for a return working around 8am, allowing people to 'reserve' a private compartment for their journey back to London. As it coveys normal seating options - gives people a few options.

It's three hours by train from London to Swansea, and only two hours to Cardiff, by far the biggest town in South Wales. Three trains from Swansea currently arrive in London before 09:00. Why would anyone spend good money to lose a night in their own bed and spend it snoozing intermittently on a train? If they want extra space and comfort they can buy a first class ticket.

 

[Railjet]

In practical terms, what could "expanding the service" mean, apart from adding extra carriages? Two trains a day in peak season - unlikely.

It's not as if there are obvious GW routes crying out for sleeper services. One thing is certain - this government will insist that there's no more money (subsidy) on the table.

The only possibility I could think of would be dropping a portion at Plymouth for Plymouth and Newquay once or twice a week in the summer, although I doubt if the logistics would allow this. (Can engines run round at Newquay?). Otherwise maybe Scotrail and FGW could collaborate on reinstating the Scotland - West Country sleeper, although I would have thought that the extra costs involved would not make this a viable option.

 

[gordonthemoron]

German Night Train seated coaches are not used during the daytime, nor are couchettes which can be converted into seats. The entire train rake will be left in the sidings until the evening when it will be used on the return service. The only exception I've come across are the 3 IC coaches which are added at Stuttgart to the Paris-Munich night train, however these are not night train seated coaches and also run when the sleeper doesn't.

 

[hello]

i think you might find fgw, dont get any subsidy for the sleeper service. the service wasnt part of the great western franchise, there was an option to include the service, but would not get subsidy for it. similar to the xc franchise, an option to carry on running trains to gatwick and brighton, but no subsidy for it, and arriva didnt want to pay for it, so dumped it

 

[EltonRoad]

Right: the BBC article does say it required £5m a year before 2006, but doesn't say whether that continued into the new franchise.

 

[richw]

Interesting that the BBC states that it required an annual subsidy of £5M per year. The trains runs roughly times 312 per year in each direction. If it carries 60 sleeping passengers per night the subsidy per person is around £130 each. (I know it carries seated passengers too, but you can see why there aren't many sleeper services left.)

note the use of the past tense in articles referring to the subsidy, which as in past tense suggests that the subsidy is no longer applicable, having tried to book on several occasions recently you can often struggle to get a booking unless well in advance!

 

[Oliver]

note the use of the past tense in articles referring to the subsidy, which as in past tense suggests that the subsidy is no longer applicable, having tried to book on several occasions recently you can often struggle to get a booking unless well in advance!

Well let's assume that in the fairly recent past the subsidy required was £130 per passenger trip (ref earlier posts). The costs probably haven't changed much (same stock, similar locos, same staff), so to break even either they have to sell more berths or charge much more. The train was always fairly well patronised, so the scope to sell more berths is limited, though the recent adding of another coach does help this. I don't think the average fare has increased much, therefore I think it's highly probable that the train still requires a very significant subsidy.