Is there demand for more sleeper services?

[CBlue]

Sleeper services do seem to be rather expensive, and looking at the sort of costings that Bald Rick sets out, it seems pretty clear that a traditional sleeper wouldn't cover its costs.

I have always wondered (and I may well have suggested it before) whether something that is really cut back in terms of cost would be more financially viable, especially on more marginal routes. Or could provide a more affordable alternative to the premium services we have now.

So for example.
Based on converted 155s (or 156s), extended with 153s if there was sufficient demand. Could also do portion working easier than locomotive + carriages.
Strip out all of the seats. And have people sleep in one big open space on the floor. Just like on some Japanese trains and lots of Japanese ferries. Clearly, there is no privacy, but equally, a lot of people would find it less intimidating to be in an open carriage with 50 people than in a shared room with a stranger.

Services on board would be very basic. One toilet per carriage. No seats (or, at best, flip down seats). No Air Conditioning (but openable hopper windows). Minimal bedding. Lights dimmed at fixed times. Earbuds if you want quiet. Automatic vending machine for drinks / light meals. Minimal staffing on the train. Use secondary stations for termination in London, if that makes a useful difference (e.g Finsbury Park, Stratford).

It would seem to that this model would have significantly lower costs that the sort of sleepers we are running now. But would it be low enough so that the price could be attractive to the sort of people who would tolerate such lower levels of comfort?

Or have I allowed myself too much of a flight of fancy?

I love it. Market the ride of a 156 as "purpose-built to gently rock you to sleep"...

I like the idea of converting a pair of 319s and running Sleeper Thameslink through the core Brighton-Edinburgh. Or perhaps use the Forum Favourite 769's and run via Cambridge, Ely and Lincoln on the way?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Congratulations, you have made the ryanair of train travel!

It's not really any different from the seated coaches on a Sleeper in practice and would appeal (to the limited extent it would) to the same market.

I like the idea of converting a pair of 319s and running Sleeper Thameslink through the core Brighton-Edinburgh. Or perhaps use the Forum Favourite 769's and run via Cambridge, Ely and Lincoln on the way?

Now, come on, we have to involve 442s. Weymouth?

 

[Bald Rick]

The ‘basic economics’ of sleeper trains is really simple. All that follows is based on sleepers, ie trains with beds.

Costs:

1) A carriage with beds in it can carry, at best, a third of the number of people in it than a similarly sized carriage with seats in it.

2) a carriage with beds in it can only be used once a day, and spends, at best, half of its time unused

3) carriages with beds in need a much higher level of on board staffing, servicing and maintenance than regular carriages.

Taken together, this makes the cost of running a sleeper train per passenger around 5-6 times that of a similar long distance day train. (Actual figures are around £300 pp for the sleeper, £50pp for Avanti, £60pp for LNER).

Revenues:

1) unusually, sleepers have competition on three fronts: other transport providers (day trains, airlines, coaches, private car); hotels for the overnight stay element; and now the ‘experience’ market. Pricing therefore have to be carefully positioned to take account of all three, but see more below. As a result income per passenger is roughly double that of the long distance operators, and, interestingly, a little more than the airlines on the same route, but rather less than Eurostar.

2) the sleeper market is highly seasonal, and demand varies through the week.

3) the long distance travel market fundamentally changed in this country in the mid 90s: Stelios founded Easyjet in March 95 and Virgin took over ICWC and ICXC 2 years later. Easyjet made low cost domestic flying a reality (which other airlines, notably BA, have now emulated); Virgin brought airline style yield management to the railway (and others swiftly followed). The net effect is that relatively speaking it is now cheaper, much cheaper, to fly to Scotland than get the train, except at the busiest times or at very short notice when rail fares are capped through regulation, partly to cover the public service element of the operation.

4) the hotel market has changed in the same period - Premier Inn, Travelodge and a host of others have entered the ‘low cost overnight stay’ market.

Taken together, in reality, this means that sleeper trains find it difficult to compete for custom with air (either directly or as a + hotel) - they can’t get close on price, except at the busiest times when they are price capped. They can compete more easily with day trains, but, and this is the crux of it, for the lowland destinations the sleeper is a once a day fixed time option; whilst there are over 50 day trains each way between London and the Central belt, including some that will get you into London in the morning not much later than the sleeper. It is only a very small minority of passengers who *need* to leave London or Scotland after 7pm. Most will make their arrangements such that they can travel during the day.


The experience market is interesting. This is the concept that using the sleeper is either a ‘luxury’ part of a wider trip, or simply an experience in itself. (I’m willing to bet that a number of people reading this will have used the Caledonian Sleeper not for travel purposes but simply for the sleeper experience.) This is an increasing segment of the market, and is building on the success of similar experience trains elsewhere, notably Australia. Many of these customers are relatively wealthy tourists from abroad. They are less price sensitive, but will usually make the trip as part of a much wider itinerary between tourist locations. Clearly, London, Edinburgh and the Highlands are big international tourist draws. (And, notably, Plymouth and Cardiff aren’t).


So, how do you make it more economically viable? Obviously, reduce costs or increase revenue.

The only way I can see to reduce costs is to reintegrate the operation to either Scotrail, or one of the long distance operators to share crew and management overhead. This could feasibly save a million or two a year, but would come at the risk of a potential loss of focus as it would only ever be a sideshow to the main operation.

Well there is another option, but then I don’t suppose everyone wants a 50% pay cut.


To increase revenue, you can only sell more tickets by filling those empty berths in mid week in winter, or sell tickets at busy times at a higher price. The latter is troublesome because of fares regulation - given how regularly the Highland sleeper sells out at £200-£300 a room one way, it’s probable that they could charge at least 50% more on these services. This would be no different to (economically unregulated) airlines charging astronomical prices to ski destinations at February half term - it’s where they make their profit.

Here endeth the sermon.

 

[Bald Rick]

And so what does the sermon above mean for potential new sleeper operations? (I’ve split this out for future referencing)

Firstly, it will cost a lot to operate, so have deep pockets.

Secondly even with a strong potential demand base that enables you to fill every train (or nearly so), you will have to charge very high fares to make it pay. Even if you could, somehow, knock a third off the operating costs that CS have, you would still need to have fares more than three times the equivalent average day train rate to break even.
(We know from publicly available sources that CS has reasonably good load factors - I estimate 70-80% - and reasonably high fares, and yet loses money hand over fist.)


Finally, and this is the key point, is that London - Scotland is by far and away the largest market For long distance (over 500km) services in this country, and indeed between this country and the near continent. It also has the benefit of strong international tourist traffic, who are willing to pay premium fares for the ‘experience’, which no other long distance route in this country has or can hope to have. There are no other markets that can get close to being able to support a sleeper service at the prices were it can become economically viable.

 

[37424]

And so what does the sermon above mean for potential new sleeper operations? (I’ve split this out for future referencing)

Firstly, it will cost a lot to operate, so have deep pockets.

Secondly even with a strong potential demand base that enables you to fill every train (or nearly so), you will have to charge very high fares to make it pay. Even if you could, somehow, knock a third off the operating costs that CS have, you would still need to have fares more than three times the equivalent average day train rate to break even.
(We know from publicly available sources that CS has reasonably good load factors - I estimate 70-80% - and reasonably high fares, and yet loses money hand over fist.)


Finally, and this is the key point, is that London - Scotland is by far and away the largest market For long distance (over 500km) services in this country, and indeed between this country and the near continent. It also has the benefit of strong international tourist traffic, who are willing to pay premium fares for the ‘experience’, which no other long distance route in this country has or can hope to have. There are no other markets that can get close to being able to support a sleeper service at the prices were it can become economically viable.

You have summed it up very well, end of discussion really. If their were money to be made out of Sleeper trains there would be open access sleepers all over the place but their isn't, and I don't see any justification for subsidised sleepers over and above what we already have in this country.

 

[geordieblue]

Slightly off topic, but could we see an increase in overnight trains on certain routes? The TransPennine core has trains running through the night (infrequently, and with relatively poor loadings) but there appears to be demand there; could a similar service be used as a semi-sleeper (in the sense of a train that runs at night between cities but is effectively no different to normal daytime trains)?

 

[JonathanH]

Slightly off topic, but could we see an increase in overnight trains on certain routes? The TransPennine core has trains running through the night (infrequently, and with relatively poor loadings) but there appears to be demand there; could a similar service be used as a semi-sleeper (in the sense of a train that runs at night between cities but is effectively no different to normal daytime trains)?

TransPennine Express overnight is primarily about Manchester Airport. Thameslink overnight running is about Luton Airport and Gatwick Airport. The demand anywhere else is limited. Some years ago there used to be overnight trains from the North to the South West of England on Friday nights in the summer, perhaps the last vestige of what you suggest but for some time after the sleeper service last ran. They don't run any more. There simply isn't going to be year round demand for these trains and, frankly, it is better served by coach. A 50-60 seat coach much more closely reflects demand for overnight travel than a 250-600 seat train.

I agree that, as a precursor to trying to see if there is a market for a sleeper service, a seated service could be tried but I don't think it would tackle the issues about viability of overnight services that have been expressed in this thread.

 

[Bald Rick]

Slightly off topic, but could we see an increase in overnight trains on certain routes? The TransPennine core has trains running through the night (infrequently, and with relatively poor loadings) but there appears to be demand there; could a similar service be used as a semi-sleeper (in the sense of a train that runs at night between cities but is effectively no different to normal daytime trains)?

If anything, I would expect retrenchment of overnight seated services. The airport demand thstbsupports many of them has largely gone for now.

 

[SussexLad]

If anything, I would expect retrenchment of overnight seated services. The airport demand thstbsupports many of them has largely gone for now.

The drunk people needing to get home are still their. Same with working people. I wouldnt expect any significant change on this in the next few years, certainly thameslink anyway.

 

[gingerheid]

However, conversely a lot of those aircraft would stop being viable to use within a fairly short time and so unless someone is willing to take them on within the next few months then chances are they'll no longer be viable to use.

The other thing to bear in mind is that they are likely to be the older aircraft which are being got rid off and, in the case of a load of BA ones, are things like 747's which are hardly ideal for local flights.

A lot of them, yes. But there has been bit of a boom in aircraft manufacture going on for the last few years, so it wouldn't surprise me to see a lot of not that old really and fairly efficient 737s and even newer A220s looking for things to do! Even before FlyBe went down they spent a long time desperately trying to find roles for their E195s to fill, and / or anyone at all to take them off them!

 

[gingerheid]

So for example.
Based on converted 155s (or 156s), extended with 153s if there was sufficient demand. Could also do portion working easier than locomotive + carriages.
Strip out all of the seats. And have people sleep in one big open space on the floor. Just like on some Japanese trains and lots of Japanese ferries. Clearly, there is no privacy, but equally, a lot of people would find it less intimidating to be in an open carriage with 50 people than in a shared room with a stranger.

Services on board would be very basic. One toilet per carriage. No seats (or, at best, flip down seats). No Air Conditioning (but openable hopper windows). Minimal bedding. Lights dimmed at fixed times. Earbuds if you want quiet. Automatic vending machine for drinks / light meals. Minimal staffing on the train. Use secondary stations for termination in London, if that makes a useful difference (e.g Finsbury Park, Stratford).

It would seem to that this model would have significantly lower costs that the sort of sleepers we are running now. But would it be low enough so that the price could be attractive to the sort of people who would tolerate such lower levels of comfort?

Or have I allowed myself too much of a flight of fancy?

I used to have an 80m commute on a 153 / 156. Even that was so unbearable that I rented a room to stay in most nights during the week! I think we're now at the stage of why wouldn't I get a coach (if it was that cheap), otherwise fly, drive... cycle or... anything.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

A lot of them, yes. But there has been bit of a boom in aircraft manufacture going on for the last few years, so it wouldn't surprise me to see a lot of not that old really and fairly efficient 737s and even newer A220s looking for things to do! Even before FlyBe went down they spent a long time desperately trying to find roles for their E195s to fill, and / or anyone at all to take them off them!

That's because FlyMaybe managed to convince almost all of the British population that disembowelment was a more pleasant experience than flying with FlyBe.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Sleeper services do seem to be rather expensive, and looking at the sort of costings that Bald Rick sets out, it seems pretty clear that a traditional sleeper wouldn't cover its costs.

I have always wondered (and I may well have suggested it before) whether something that is really cut back in terms of cost would be more financially viable, especially on more marginal routes. Or could provide a more affordable alternative to the premium services we have now.

So for example.
Based on converted 155s (or 156s), extended with 153s if there was sufficient demand. Could also do portion working easier than locomotive + carriages.
Strip out all of the seats. And have people sleep in one big open space on the floor. Just like on some Japanese trains and lots of Japanese ferries. Clearly, there is no privacy, but equally, a lot of people would find it less intimidating to be in an open carriage with 50 people than in a shared room with a stranger.

Services on board would be very basic. One toilet per carriage. No seats (or, at best, flip down seats). No Air Conditioning (but openable hopper windows). Minimal bedding. Lights dimmed at fixed times. Earbuds if you want quiet. Automatic vending machine for drinks / light meals. Minimal staffing on the train. Use secondary stations for termination in London, if that makes a useful difference (e.g Finsbury Park, Stratford).

It would seem to that this model would have significantly lower costs that the sort of sleepers we are running now. But would it be low enough so that the price could be attractive to the sort of people who would tolerate such lower levels of comfort?

Or have I allowed myself too much of a flight of fancy?

Heroin or cocaine ?

 

[BigCj34]

In theory London to the continental sleeper services would be great, and would link large enough cities for the market to be there. However passport controls and the UK government unwilling to have mobile or destination passport checks makes that difficult.

As for domestic sleepers, remember there was Megabus Gold from London to Scotland, a cheap bed service that has been discontinued. Shows how difficult making a profit from moving beds is.

 

[AlbertBeale]

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?

Many people I know would never choose a plane over surface transport in order to save money - if they couldn't afford a less damaging means of transport they'd/we'd make fewer such journeys. If what you say applies to "almost everyone" based on your experience, perhaps everyone you know is from a section of society with less moral sense than average. If most people really are like that, and won't act more altruistically, then that reinforces the case for massively high taxes on air travel and subsidies for rail travel.

 

[Peter Kelford]

2) a carriage with beds in it can only be used once a day, and spends, at best, half of its time unused

Hence why couchettes became so popular.

Many people I know would never choose a plane over surface transport in order to save money - if they couldn't afford a less damaging means of transport they'd/we'd make fewer such journeys. If what you say applies to "almost everyone" based on your experience, perhaps everyone you know is from a section of society with less moral sense than average. If most people really are like that, and won't act more altruistically, then that reinforces the case for massively high taxes on air travel and subsidies for rail travel.

Indeed there are a few points that were invalid up until very recently which now form a key part of the potential viability of sleepers:

1] It is far, far, easier to socially distance in one's own cabin and I don't see why mask-wearing would be required, thus being a huge advantage over other forms of transport.
2a] There is a heightened awareness of the environmental damage of flying.
2b] Coronavirus is offering a 'reset point' for many such things.
3] For the foreseeable future air travel will also be heavily subsidised and loss-making thus many governments may elect to prioritise rail.
4] (Ironically) Brexit, or more specifically that more complications in checking in for air travel may make that option even less appealing for time-pressed travellers.

 

[daodao]

Many people I know would never choose a plane over surface transport in order to save money - if they couldn't afford a less damaging means of transport they'd/we'd make fewer such journeys. If what you say applies to "almost everyone" based on your experience, perhaps everyone you know is from a section of society with less moral sense than average. If most people really are like that, and won't act more altruistically, then that reinforces the case for massively high taxes on air travel and subsidies for rail travel.

Other factors that need to be taken into account when considering air travel include its poor timekeeping and thus reliability (e.g. due to fog, technical problems), ease of getting to the airport (whether by car or public transport), frequency of services and seat availability at a reasonable price, lengthy check-in times for enhanced security, and additional taxes/charges/costs (for getting to the airport, car parking, boarding charges, government taxes, baggage fees, high charges for drinks that can't be brought on board). The list is not comprehensive. For short business trips, morning fog is a significant problem, and it is better to be the tortoise than the hare.

Instinctively, these factors militate against air travel for journeys of less than 500 miles, unless sea crossings are required, such that air travel is not so attractive for most journeys on the British mainland. Within these islands, I have only ever flown to Belfast City and Jersey airports; I have even only ever travelled by sea to Eire. Many people are also cautious about unnecessary air travel because of its historic poor safety record, which I accept is less valid today in the UK. When I was a young child, my late parents were particularly upset by the death of friends in the Aquila Airways crash in 1957 and did not travel together in the same plane until 1964, when we all flew as a family to Jersey.

 

[Bald Rick]

Many people I know would never choose a plane over surface transport in order to save money - if they couldn't afford a less damaging means of transport they'd/we'd make fewer such journeys. If what you say applies to "almost everyone" based on your experience, perhaps everyone you know is from a section of society with less moral sense than average. If most people really are like that, and won't act more altruistically, then that reinforces the case for massively high taxes on air travel and subsidies for rail travel.

I think you might live in a particular social bubble. Whilst I have many friends concerned about the environment, I would agree with @Starmill that very few people are that concerned that they won’t fly over surface transport. Environmental concerns may be a factor in their decision if it is close, but given the choice o& fly for £50 or sleeper for £300, or don’t travel, I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t fly.

Hence why couchettes became so popular.


Indeed there are a few points that were invalid up until very recently which now form a key part of the potential viability of sleepers:

1] It is far, far, easier to socially distance in one's own cabin and I don't see why mask-wearing would be required, thus being a huge advantage over other forms of transport.
2a] There is a heightened awareness of the environmental damage of flying.
2b] Coronavirus is offering a 'reset point' for many such things.
3] For the foreseeable future air travel will also be heavily subsidised and loss-making thus many governments may elect to prioritise rail.
4] (Ironically) Brexit, or more specifically that more complications in checking in for air travel may make that option even less appealing for time-pressed travellers.

3) if you mean that Governments are directly subsidising loss making airlines, that isn’t valid in this country (save for a handful of ‘PSO’ routes), and coronavirus has made little difference in that respect.

4) not for domestic travel in the U.K., which is what this thread is about. And for international travellers, any such complications will app,y regardless of mode choice.

Other factors that need to be taken into account when considering air travel include its poor timekeeping and thus reliability (e.g. due to fog, technical problems), ease of getting to the airport (whether by car or public transport), frequency of services and seat availability at a reasonable price, lengthy check-in times for enhanced security, and additional taxes/charges/costs (for getting to the airport, car parking, boarding charges, government taxes, baggage fees, high charges for drinks that can't be brought on board). The list is not comprehensive. For short business trips, morning fog is a significant problem, and it is better to be the tortoise than the hare.

It was ever thus.
Although I would argue that fog is much less of a problem now than it was even 20 years ago, let alone 50.

 

[RT4038]

Other factors that need to be taken into account when considering air travel include its poor timekeeping and thus reliability (e.g. due to fog, technical problems), ease of getting to the airport (whether by car or public transport), frequency of services and seat availability at a reasonable price, lengthy check-in times for enhanced security, and additional taxes/charges/costs (for getting to the airport, car parking, boarding charges, government taxes, baggage fees, high charges for drinks that can't be brought on board). The list is not comprehensive. For short business trips, morning fog is a significant problem, and it is better to be the tortoise than the hare.

Instinctively, these factors militate against air travel for journeys of less than 500 miles, unless sea crossings are required, such that air travel is not so attractive for most journeys on the British mainland. Within these islands, I have only ever flown to Belfast City and Jersey airports; I have even only ever travelled by sea to Eire. Many people are also cautious about unnecessary air travel because of its historic poor safety record, which I accept is less valid today in the UK. When I was a young child, my late parents were particularly upset by the death of friends in the Aquila Airways crash in 1957 and did not travel together in the same plane until 1964, when we all flew as a family to Jersey.

You are looking at this with a 'pro-rail/anti-air' viewpoint, not unsurprisingly on a Railforum! - there are as many factors against Sleeping car trains, including their poor timekeeping and thus reliability (e.g. due to winds bringing down OHLE and heavy rain flooding the tracks, signal failures, track defects, locomotive failures, faults on other trains blocking the line, engineering works, persons struck by train etc. etc. [ there are massive threads on this forum detailing recent woes]), ease of getting to a Sleeping car station (whether by car or public transport), frequency of services and availability of berths at a reasonable price, the additional charges of getting to the Sleeping Car station and car parking (availability and security), security of stations at night, lengthy journey time, poor standard of room (size, showers, bed) compared to a hotel, rocking of train, noise (movement and other passengers/staff), inconsistency of service on the train (will there be food and drink available?). The list is not comprehensive. For short business trips, the amount of time taken up using a Sleeping car is a significant factor, and it is being a hare that will clinch the business deal before the tortoise gets there.

People are voting with their feet between London & Scotland - far more go by air than by Sleeping car train. I travel by Sleeping Car train as often as possible, because I am a rail enthusiast and enjoy the quirky experience. None of my colleagues are, and would not consider using them.
There will always be some people who are frightened to use planes - but then my Mother was particularly upset by the Harrow & Wealdstone crash in 1952 (knowing several of the injured and dead), and didn't much like going on long distance trains because of it!

 

[RT4038]

Hence why couchettes became so popular.


Indeed there are a few points that were invalid up until very recently which now form a key part of the potential viability of sleepers:

1] It is far, far, easier to socially distance in one's own cabin and I don't see why mask-wearing would be required, thus being a huge advantage over other forms of transport.
2a] There is a heightened awareness of the environmental damage of flying.
2b] Coronavirus is offering a 'reset point' for many such things.
3] For the foreseeable future air travel will also be heavily subsidised and loss-making thus many governments may elect to prioritise rail.
4] (Ironically) Brexit, or more specifically that more complications in checking in for air travel may make that option even less appealing for time-pressed travellers.

I think that Couchettes are no longer an acceptable travel mode for the majority of people, although they copuld probably be convinced if the alternative is unaffordable!

Government may well elect to prioritise rail over air, but I do not think this will lead to any more Sleeping Car services, due to the poor economics already discussed in this thread. At best Air will only be 'de-prioritised', which could mean higher fares. This would not particularly affect the 'higher end traffic', as they would merely pay up. Others will have to take day trains and stay in Travelodges (and other similar) instead.

Not sure how Brexit would affect domestic sleeping car trains, and would likely affect international services in exactly the same way as air travel.

Heightened awareness of the environmental damage of flying is far more likely to result in fewer International journeys being made (due to the expense), rather than Government subsidising holiday rail travel to enable the current level. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[xotGD]

Plenty of people are prepared to do an overnight journey in an economy class seat on a plane.

Overnight trains with reclining seats offer the same level of (dis)comfort and the stock could also be used on day trains.

An overnight doesn't have to mean beds. Overnight seats versus day train plus hotel will be a cheaper option.

 

[43096]

People are voting with their feet between London & Scotland - far more go by air than by Sleeping car train.

Indeed. I have a work colleague who lives and works in London, but is originally from Glasgow. When she goes back to see her family, she flies. Every time. The train really can't compete: she can leave the office (back in the days when we used such things!) at 4pm and be in Glasgow for a late-ish dinner.

 

[PeterC]

Plenty of people are prepared to do an overnight journey in an economy class seat on a plane.

Overnight trains with reclining seats offer the same level of (dis)comfort and the stock could also be used on day trains.

An overnight doesn't have to mean beds. Overnight seats versus day train plus hotel will be a cheaper option.

The "railbeds" used on the Spirit of Queensland look like a good alternative where cabins are impractical

 

[Ianno87]

Plenty of people are prepared to do an overnight journey in an economy class seat on a plane.

Usually because you're travelling from, say, New York to London, or London to Hong Kong.... which don't exactly have practical alternatives.

 

[SussexLad]

I think you all forget that where a business is picking up the cost of the hours spent travelling and their is a reasonably timed sleeper available they would want you to be productive so chose the sleeper.

 

[Energy]

I think you all forget that where a business is picking up the cost of the hours spent travelling and their is a reasonably timed sleeper available they would want you to be productive so chose the sleeper.

Or they want you there quickly so they don't have to pay more for longer spent travelling. The time people would be working is the amount of time you would spend on a day train to the hotel, people do have to sleep so a lot of the time spent on the sleeper train is sleeping not working, no different to a day train and a hotel.

 

[SussexLad]

Or they want you there quickly so they don't have to pay more for longer spent travelling. The time people would be working is the amount of time you would spend on a day train to the hotel, people do have to sleep so a lot of the time spent on the sleeper train is sleeping not working, no different to a day train and a hotel.

There's a massive difference. They don't have to pay you as soon as you get on the train as that is effectively your hotel. So the difference is massive.

The higher paid the individuals are the bigger the difference.

 

[RT4038]

Plenty of people are prepared to do an overnight journey in an economy class seat on a plane.

Overnight trains with reclining seats offer the same level of (dis)comfort and the stock could also be used on day trains.

An overnight doesn't have to mean beds. Overnight seats versus day train plus hotel will be a cheaper option.

The title of this thread is 'Is there demand for more Sleeper services?', so we are specifically talking about trains with Sleeping cars.
Overnight trains with day cars would certainly not be attractive to those paying high end fares, and would probably not be economical to operate with cheap fares only, particularly bearing in mind the additional supervisory staff required to keep them safe and in order. Do not underestimate this.

 

[RT4038]

There's a massive difference. They don't have to pay you as soon as you get on the train as that is effectively your hotel. So the difference is massive.

The higher paid the individuals are the bigger the difference.

A train sleeper cabin is very inferior, in terms of quality, size and likelihood of getting a proper nights' sleep. The difference is massive.
The fact that most business people do not get paid specifically for their travelling time is another good reason not to waste hours travelling in the inconvenience of a Sleeping Car.

If Sleeping Car travel was so good, many more businessmen would use it than now. Most businessmen would not be in the jobs they are without the ability to 'trade off' the various factors already mentioned. Invariably this does not result in the decision to travel by Sleeping Car.

 

[CBlue]

Most business travellers needing to travel long-distance in the UK would just catch a flight that morning, and another back in the evening. Costs less, takes less time.