Is there demand for more sleeper services?

[SussexLad]

This is what I mean by efficencies! Your looking at major cost savings with this. Not to mention a quieter ride for anyone in the coach over from the dvt. At least £10 million a year saved by reducing the number of locos.

These kind of efficencies are enough to make a South West to Scotland and South Wales to scotland sleeper viable when done in conjunction with each other. Eg Cardiff to Bristol and Penzance to Bristol which then split to form bristol to glassgow and bristol to edinbrugh.

TOC would probably get well over £35 million a year for both services. Plus revenue from emergency hire of the locos and money from their share of the general revenue pot. Costs easily covered, hello profit!

Considering I was being called a dreamer I find this ironic

 

[BigCj34]

There was a Bristol to Glasgow / Edinburgh sleeper which had run for decades until finally being withdrawn in (I think) the late 90's / early noughties. It variously conveyed through portions from Plymouth and even Poole. I think it relied on a base load of service personnel, with full fare tickets paid for by the Government (i.e. the taxpayer). I used it on numerous occasions in the 80s.
I'm not convinced the same basic demand exists now. I'd use it occasionally, but I'm in the minority. Who do you think currently travels from South Wales to Scotland in such volumes as to make a sleeper service viable (i.e. high fare paying and time sensitive)?

Scotland to the SW would surely be better served by services going via the WCML. Edinburgh/Glasgow to Bristol would take around 5h30, but would require existing services to be rerouted away from Newcastle if the paths at Birmingham New Street are not there for new services.

 

[Energy]

Like the Mark 5A Driving Trailers, perchance?

Yes but with a gangway on the front.

Even if they could be bought (which I would imagine they could) I still doubt there would be any more sleeper services. The crossing borders into the EU issue makes international ones undesirable compared to just staying in a hotel or changing to a sleeper train in Europe and there isn't the demand in the UK, or that many routes as London to Scotland and London to the West Country have already got a sleeper, surprised no one has mentioned London to Wales yet but that doesn't really have the demand. Also remember that lots of engineering works happen at night which sleeper trains make more difficult to find the time for.

 

[popeter45]

bit off topic but in terms of making both sleepers less loss-making i would consider consolidation to an extent
make the cally sleeper franchise a UK wide sleeper franchise with shared staff and coaching stock/loco's
move the Night Rivera to Euston making use of the West London line to GWML curve so both sleepers can share some staff and ECS loco's as well as facilitates

 

[43096]

Maybe they missed a trick when designing the Mk5 coaches? If they included a cab at one end they could have propelled in the ECS, saving about 3 locos in total.

The sleepers are not fixed formation sets, so that complicates it for a start.

No doubt the professionals running the operation considered this when placing the Mark 5 order and came to the conclusion that it was not practical. But of course the forum knows more...

"About 3 locos" saved. Try two. One off Wembley and one off Polmadie.

 

[43096]

This is what I mean by efficencies! Your looking at major cost savings with this. Not to mention a quieter ride for anyone in the coach over from the dvt. At least £10 million a year saved by reducing the number of locos.

Where do you get the £10 million figure from? Do you know how much GBRf are charging?

 

[Energy]

bit off topic but in terms of making both sleepers less loss-making i would consider consolidation to an extent
make the cally sleeper franchise a UK wide sleeper franchise with shared staff and coaching stock/loco's
move the Night Rivera to Euston making use of the West London line to GWML curve so both sleepers can share some staff and ECS loco's as well as facilitates

Could help but the locos are in different places, GWRs 57s and CS's 92s may be in the same place but they are different locos, CS could use 57s but there wouldn't be much advantage as their diesel locos are far away in Scotland. Could help with staff but CS gets drivers from GBRf and there is enough onboard staff that it wouldn't make too much of a difference IMO. Night Riviera uses the large amount of GWR staff so there wouldn't be any advantages there.

This is what I mean by efficencies! Your looking at major cost savings with this. Not to mention a quieter ride for anyone in the coach over from the dvt. At least £10 million a year saved by reducing the number of locos.

These kind of efficencies are enough to make a South West to Scotland and South Wales to scotland sleeper viable when done in conjunction with each other. Eg Cardiff to Bristol and Penzance to Bristol which then split to form bristol to glassgow and bristol to edinbrugh.

TOC would probably get well over £35 million a year for both services. Plus revenue from emergency hire of the locos and money from their share of the general revenue pot. Costs easily covered, hello profit!

Considering I was being called a dreamer I find this ironic

Sorry but you are still dreaming, mk5 dvts with gangways would help a little with efficiencies but wouldn't make the service profitable without subsidy. If you think you can really get that much money from a sleeper then I think Serco Rail/CS and the Scottish Government would be very interested in your calculations, as well as the rest of us as 10 million a year is rather a lot, considering it requires such a high subsidy right now.

How much demand is there for south west to Scotland? I don't think many go on the XC service and I doubt the demand for airlines would have enough people willing to use the sleeper for it to turn a profit.

The sleepers are not fixed formation sets, so that complicates it for a start.

No doubt the professionals running the operation considered this when placing the Mark 5 order and came to the conclusion that it was not practical. But of course the forum knows more...

"About 3 locos" saved. Try two. One off Wembley and one off Polmadie.

3 locos saved would be impossible anyway, there are currently 6 at CS, 2 for the Inverness service, 1 for the Fort William service, 1 for the Aberdeen service and include 1 for a maintenance spare (they have to certain equipment installed to work with mk5s so not any 73/9 would work). Thats 5 locos so only a saving of 1, not really much. For electric services I have my doubts that 1 92 could pull the whole 16 carriage train so you wouldn't get any savings.

 

[Energy]

Would NR give the paths for new sleepers anyway? Lots of engineering work happens at night so I doubt NR would be too happy to now have to work around more sleepers. Sometimes the CS will get diverted via the ECML if the WCML has engineering works, would a diversion route be possible (and reasonable) for the proposed routes?

 

[CW2]

<snip>
For electric services I have my doubts that 1 92 could pull the whole 16 carriage train so you wouldn't get any savings.

Pardon? They do so every night, and were designed to work sleepers or freight through the Channel Tunnel, so 16 Mk 5s is well within their capability.

 

[Journeyman]

I have my doubts that 1 92 could pull the whole 16 carriage train so you wouldn't get any savings.

The 16 car trains are indeed handled by one Class 92. They've only ever needed one loco, and in the past one 86, 87 or 90 was sufficient. The 92 was designed for very heavy trains, so it handles the sleepers with ease.

 

[Bald Rick]

This is what I mean by efficencies! Your looking at major cost savings with this. Not to mention a quieter ride for anyone in the coach over from the dvt. At least £10 million a year saved by reducing the number of locos.

These kind of efficencies are enough to make a South West to Scotland and South Wales to scotland sleeper viable when done in conjunction with each other. Eg Cardiff to Bristol and Penzance to Bristol which then split to form bristol to Glasgow and Bristol to edinbrugh.

TOC would probably get well over £35 million a year for both services. Plus revenue from emergency hire of the locos and money from their share of the general revenue pot. Costs easily covered, hello profit!

Considering I was being called a dreamer I find this ironic

This is now becoming quite funny. Let’s use some facts.

The entire Caledonian sleeper operation generates passenger revenue of £25m per year.

To assess the size of the market, a good comparison is air travel between London and Glasgow / Edinburgh, and the South West / South Wales to Glasgow / Edinburgh. In 2019 five main London airports generated very nearly 6m air passengers. Bristol, Cardiff, Exeter and Newquay between them generated 935,000, or 15.6% of the London market. I can’t reveal detail of the Rail markets on the same corridor, but from memory I’m reasonably sure the rail flow comparison is a lower percentage for the SW / Wales to Scotland than air.

The entire CS sleeper operation carries about 300,000 passengers a year, of which a little less than half are on the lowlander, but let’s assume it’s half.

Assuming the market for a prospective SW/ Wales to Glasgow / Edinburgh sleeper is in the same proportion as the air market (a very optimistic assumption), that means 24,000 people would use it annually.

To make £35 million from 24,000 passengers would need an average fare of nearly £1500 one way.


If you don’t think this is the case, please help me understand how.

 

[The Planner]

Would NR give the paths for new sleepers anyway? Lots of engineering work happens at night so I doubt NR would be too happy to now have to work around more sleepers. Sometimes the CS will get diverted via the ECML if the WCML has engineering works, would a diversion route be possible (and reasonable) for the proposed routes?

Would need a fair bit of route conducting as retention might be fun, especially for a block north of Cheltenham.

 

[Energy]

Pardon? They do so every night, and were designed to work sleepers or freight through the Channel Tunnel, so 16 Mk 5s is well within their capability.

The 16 car trains are indeed handled by one Class 92. They've only ever needed one loco, and in the past one 86, 87 or 90 was sufficient. The 92 was designed for very heavy trains, so it handles the sleepers with ease.

Whoops, I thought they had a 92 at each end, I guess the rear one get detached then either in Euston or soon after.

 

[SussexLad]

The sleepers are not fixed formation sets, so that complicates it for a start.

No doubt the professionals running the operation considered this when placing the Mark 5 order and came to the conclusion that it was not practical. But of course the forum knows more...

"About 3 locos" saved. Try two. One off Wembley and one off Polmadie.

If there not in fixed formation, surely that makes is easier to manage as you can move them around? The more likely reason they didn't order them is because it would have been Serco paying for the extras so better to just pass on the inefficiencies to the tax payer.

Get real with the locos. They have 13 assigned to them and realistically they could operate with 9. 4 for london section to spliting points (maybe reduced to 2 if they did smart scheduling but really not sure). 3 for the highlander and 2 for the low lander.

Assuming an average of £4,000 inc VAT fee per loco per trip (optimistic I think), 6 days a week, 50 weeks a year (not at Christmas and some major engineering), makes at least 5 million a year. Plus things like track access charges saved etc.

This is now becoming quite funny. Let’s use some facts.

The entire Caledonian sleeper operation generates passenger revenue of £25m per year.

To assess the size of the market, a good comparison is air travel between London and Glasgow / Edinburgh, and the South West / South Wales to Glasgow / Edinburgh. In 2019 five main London airports generated very nearly 6m air passengers. Bristol, Cardiff, Exeter and Newquay between them generated 935,000, or 15.6% of the London market. I can’t reveal detail of the Rail markets on the same corridor, but from memory I’m reasonably sure the rail flow comparison is a lower percentage for the SW / Wales to Scotland than air.

The entire CS sleeper operation carries about 300,000 passengers a year, of which a little less than half are on the lowlander, but let’s assume it’s half.

Assuming the market for a prospective SW/ Wales to Glasgow / Edinburgh sleeper is in the same proportion as the air market (a very optimistic assumption), that means 47,000 people would use it annually.

To make £35 million from 47,000 passengers would need an average fare of £750 one way.


If you don’t think this is the case, please help me understand how.

If you think about what eurostar did to The Paris Market a similar effect could happen although to a less extent as some air travelers would switch to road. So your maths is completely off. Not to mention the amount of people that drive and would switch to a sleeper.

Further, the reason the calidonia sleeper only has a small market share as it is capped by the physical capacity of the service. This means many air services still operate which means its harder for the sleeper to dominate the market.

 

[Journeyman]

If there not in fixed formation, surely that makes is easier to manage as you can move them around? The more likely reason they didn't order them is because it would have been Serco paying for the extras so better to just pass on the inefficiencies to the tax payer.

Get real with the locos. They have 13 assigned to them and realistically they could operate with 9. 4 for london section to spliting points (maybe reduced to 2 if they did smart scheduling but really not sure). 3 for the highlander and 2 for the low lander.

Assuming an average of £4,000 inc VAT fee per loco per trip (optimistic I think), 6 days a week, 50 weeks a year (not at Christmas and some major engineering), makes at least 5 million a year. Plus things like track access charges saved etc.



If you think about what eurostar did to The Paris Market a similar effect could happen although to a less extent as some air travelers would switch to road. So your maths is completely off. Not to mention the amount of people that drive and would switch to a sleeper.

Further, the reason the calidonia sleeper only has a small market share as it is capped by the physical capacity of the service. This means many air services still operate which means its harder for the sleeper to dominate the market.

Honestly, as someone who has done work for Caledonian Sleeper and has seen a lot of how it operates, and the size of the market, I think you really need to stop...

 

[Journeyman]

Whoops, I thought they had a 92 at each end, I guess the rear one get detached then either in Euston or soon after.

Yeah, the stock is brought in by one loco, and taken out by another.

 

[Energy]

Get real with the locos. They have 13 assigned to them and realistically they could operate with 9. 4 for london section to spliting points (maybe reduced to 2 if they did smart scheduling but really not sure). 3 for the highlander and 2 for the low lander.

The highlander requires 4 diesel locomotives for the diesel section minimum, there is also a either 1 92s if the northbound and southbound arrive at the same time at Edinburgh or 2 92s if they don't. Then there is the 2 required for the lowlander and some are required to pull the train out or into the terminus stations. CS have got the number of locos they need, the mk5s require certain equipment installed on the locos so they can't just have any 92 or 73 which GBRf have if one breaks down.

 

[Bald Rick]

Get real with the locos. They have 13 assigned to them and realistically they could operate with 9. 4 for london section to spliting points (maybe reduced to 2 if they did smart scheduling but really not sure). 3 for the highlander and 2 for the low lander.

What happens when one needs maintenance? Or fails? Or double heading over Drumochter?

The “really not sure” does tend to give it away...

If you think about what eurostar did to The Paris Market a similar effect could happen although to a less extent as some air travelers would switch to road. So your maths is completely off. Not to mention the amount of people that drive and would switch to a sleeper.

Further, the reason the calidonia sleeper only has a small market share as it is capped by the physical capacity of the service. This means many air services still operate which means its harder for the sleeper to dominate the market.

When Eurostar started, London - Paris was the busiest international air route in the world, with no realistic alternative. Bristol to Scotland.... isn’t, and has realistic alternatives, ie a day train every hour or the M5 / M6.

The London - Scotland sleepers are full of tourists, particularly long haul foreign tourists (North America, Japan, China)who have flown in to London, done sightseeing there, and then want to see the Scotland as per the tourist brochures. How many of those are in Bristol or Cardiff?

Why would people who drive switch to the sleeper? Wouldn’t they just switch to the day trains if they didn’t like to drive? Or fly if they want to save time?

So... Please explain how my maths is ‘off’? Perhaps show us some of your maths? Probably best to start with the expected market size, and average fare to be charged. Then the costs of leasing, maintaining, servicing and crewing the rolling stock.

 

[Journeyman]

What happens when one needs maintenance? Or fails? Or double heading over Drumochter?

The “really not sure” does tend to give it away...



When Eurostar started, London - Paris was the busiest international air route in the world, with no realistic alternative. Bristol to Scotland.... isn’t, and has realistic alternatives, ie a day train every hour or the M5 / M6.

The London - Scotland sleepers are full of tourists, particularly long haul foreign tourists (North America, Japan, China)who have flown in to London, done sightseeing there, and then want to see the Scotland as per the tourist brochures. How many of those are in Bristol or Cardiff?

Why would people who drive switch to the sleeper? Wouldn’t they just switch to the day trains if they didn’t like to drive? Or fly if they want to save time?

So... Please explain how my maths is ‘off’? Perhaps sho us some of your maths? Probably best to start with the expected market size, and average fare to be charged. Then the costs of leasing, maintaining, servicing and crewing the rolling stock.

I live in Edinburgh, and I've regularly travelled for business to both Bristol and London. The flights to Bristol are always busy, because they're quick and cheap, and I've never seriously considered doing it any other way.

I've occasionally used the sleeper for travel to London when I've needed to be there early, but generally plane or day trains work better.

Honestly, Sleepers are a nice idea, but I honestly think they're rapidly becoming a luxury we can't afford, and it wouldn't surprise me if they end up getting cut back or axed completely in the next few years.

 

[Bald Rick]

Honestly, Sleepers are a nice idea, but I honestly think they're rapidly becoming a luxury we can't afford, and it wouldn't surprise me if they end up getting cut back or axed completely in the next few years.

The Scottish government would lose a lot of face (if not votes) if they canned them, and it would be an open goal for whoever is in power at Westminster to make political hay. HS2 will probably see off the lowlander, but the Highlander will stay, due to its role in bringing in lucrative tourist traffic.

However for exactly the same reasons, the Scottish Government won’t pay for a sleeper to SW England. Spending an extra few tens of millions a year so that a privileged few can avoid using the day train or plane like everyone else.

To paraphrase Branson, if you want to be a millionaire, start with a billion and run a sleeper operation.

 

[daodao]

What happens when one needs maintenance? Or fails? Or double heading over Drumochter?

When Eurostar started, London - Paris was the busiest international air route in the world, with no realistic alternative. Bristol to Scotland.... isn’t, and has realistic alternatives, ie a day train every hour or the M5 / M6.

The London - Scotland sleepers are full of tourists, particularly long haul foreign tourists (North America, Japan, China)who have flown in to London, done sightseeing there, and then want to see the Scotland as per the tourist brochures. How many of those are in Bristol or Cardiff?

Why would people who drive switch to the sleeper? Wouldn’t they just switch to the day trains if they didn’t like to drive? Or fly if they want to save time?

So... Please explain how my maths is ‘off’? Perhaps show us some of your maths? Probably best to start with the expected market size, and average fare to be charged. Then the costs of leasing, maintaining, servicing and crewing the rolling stock.

In the early 1990s, I used the Bristol-Glasgow sleeper on 3 occasions when travelling between Cardiff and the West of Scotland. I was able to leave after work and arrive at my destination by 10am. It was a useful link. Air services between SW England/South Wales and the West of Scotland are poor or non-existent (just Bristol to Glasgow by Easyjet) and a sleeper service from SW England (Penzance/Plymouth/Bristol) to Glasgow/Edinburgh would be a useful option if one doesn't want to drive or spend 6 hours plus on a daytime train.

However, I suspect that demand is limited and that any service would have dubious financial viability. Some costs could be reduced by integrating it with the Lowland Sleeper between Edinburgh/Glasgow and Carstairs, and running the service to terminate at Penzance where there is already a base for sleeping cars. In practice, its reinstatement is unlikely.

 

[Bald Rick]

In the early 1990s, I used the Bristol-Glasgow sleeper on 3 occasions when travelling between Cardiff and the West of Scotland. I was able to leave after work and arrive at my destination by 10am. It was a useful link. Air services between SW England/South Wales and the West of Scotland are poor or non-existent (just Bristol to Glasgow by Easyjet) and a sleeper service from SW England (Penzance/Plymouth/Bristol) to Glasgow/Edinburgh would be a useful option if one doesn't want to drive or spend 6 hours plus on a daytime train.

However, I suspect that demand is limited and that any service would have dubious financial viability. Some costs could be reduced by integrating it with the Lowland Sleeper between Edinburgh/Glasgow and Carstairs, and running the service to terminate at Penzance where there is already a base for sleeping cars. In practice, its reinstatement is unlikely.

Easyjet fly Bristol to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Inverness. You can leave work in Cardiff at normal time tomorrow, have a couple of after work drinks, get the train to Temple Meads then the airport bus to the airport, have dinner there, and still be in central Edinburgh for a few drinks by 2230, or Glasgow by 2330, ie whilst you would still be waiting around for a sleeper at Cardiff or Temple Meads. The Air fare is less than £100 at this notice.

There is no way a sleeper can compete with that.

 

[AlbertBeale]

You may well be right, but unfortunately the genie of cheap air travel has been uncorked, and it is not easily going to be put back. Any step change in fares would be seen as 'punitive' taxation, even if it was merely levelling up to other modes. That is not to say the issue shouldn't be tackled, but this is most likely by a gradual real increase in air fares. Lots of people like travelling by air in one hour, rather than travelling by train in 5 times as much, and certainly not in a sleeping car.

Yes - people may like it. But there are lots of things we all like that we can't have for the sake of the wider world. Not everyone will continue to be selfish.

 

[BigCj34]

The only route the sleeper makes logistical sense in the era of cheap flights is Fort William, as there is no airport anywhere near. Getting to London requires going to Glasgow or Inverness.

However the cheap flights era is likely coming go an end, and environmentally that is not a bad thing even if it makes the world bigger again.

 

[AlbertBeale]

It would be better to abolish the West Highland Sleeper, and cut the West Country one back to three months in Summer and use the operating subsidy on some more local trains in the daytime, on Sundays, or on a trial new service. Or spend it tendering dedicated bus services to connect with long distance trains.

Sleepers are simply too expensive - and air travel is simply too cheap. Both have been the case for years. No more than trivial numbers of people will cease flying for £40 and start paying £200 sleeper train fares, for a far worse service, out of the goodness of their hearts.

It's a sad state of affairs if it's really the case that most people would put money before morality.

 

[Energy]

It's a sad state of affairs if it's really the case that most people would put money before morality.

Is it? Sleeper trains are just not desirable to most people today as many would rather stay in a hotel which isn't moving and take a day train or flight. Hotel rooms give a larger amount of space and a hotel + day train/plane is often cheaper than the expensive sleeper. Many would like the experience a sleeper train but it is just too expensive.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Is it? Sleeper trains are just not desirable to most people today as many would rather stay in a hotel which isn't moving and take a day train or flight. Hotel rooms give a larger amount of space and a hotel + day train/plane is often cheaper than the expensive sleeper. Many would like the experience a sleeper train but it is just too expensive.

The morality I was referring to was that of taking a plane rather than a train (whether overnight or daytime).

 

[Starmill]

The morality I was referring to was that of taking a plane rather than a train (whether overnight or daytime).

I think almost everyone is perfectly happy to fly rather than use the train for a 50% saving. Only very, very conscientious people will pay way over the odds. Of course, plenty of people will choose to avoid going at all, but who does that help?

 

[BigCj34]

How are Nightjet at al. able to launch all these new European routes while we can only hope are offerings do not get any worse? Is it mostly down to the loading guage which allows for a larger bed density per carriage?

 

[Bald Rick]

It's a sad state of affairs if it's really the case that most people would put money before morality.

It would be interesting for someone to do the maths, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a diesel hauled cross country sleeper was worse for the environment per passenger than flying.