Is there demand for more sleeper services?

[Energy]

But you'd likely need different window arrangements, and the fire regulations for sleepers are very strict, so compartment partitions have to be pretty solid. This requires things like completely different aircon arrangements, and at the very least, you'd need to provide for sinks. If you look at a Mark 3 sleeper and a Mark 3 day coach, they're only superficially similar. Structure-wise, they're very different.

Ahh ok, thought you would only need thin dividers for the walls between windows.

The reliability of that would have to be bang on. If one is late you are in a world of pain.

Yeah it seems to complicated to work, it would also be quite hard to get the halves to split, move platform and then rejoin in the same station.

 

[Journeyman]

Ahh ok, thought you would only need thin dividers for the walls between windows.

This is all fallout from the Taunton Sleeper fire, which happened while the Mark 3 sleepers were at the design and development stage. The design was changed quite a bit as a result.

On a few occasions, attempts were made to convert redundant Mark 3 sleepers to day coaches, but the partitions are structural, and I believe they have to be to achieve a one-hour fire rating.

 

[SussexLad]

Yeah it seems to complicated to work, it would also be quite hard to get the halves to split, move platform and then rejoin in the same station.

Crewe could do it. Not familiar with the points layouts but platform 5 and 6 have 4 tracks between them. So could leave the rear portions against a platform (so they can evacuate encase of emergency) and play dancing game with the 2 sections with loco's. Could get a small shunter to help if needed. A lot easier if all 4 sections had DVTs like the TPE Nova 3 but with gamgways

 

[PauloDavesi]

The proposals are becoming more complex, and expensive, trying to provide a service that is not required, or wanted in any numbers that would make them even slightly financially viable.

Most people would rather fly on the day, even if it was a long day, or travel the evening before, and have a good nights sleep in a hotel room, with a choice of food options, and the ability have have a good shower before work the next day.

 

[Journeyman]

Crewe could do it. Not familiar with the points layouts but platform 5 and 6 have 4 tracks between them. So could leave the rear portions against a platform (so they can evacuate encase of emergency) and play dancing game with the 2 sections with loco's. Could get a small shunter to help if needed. A lot easier if all 4 sections had DVTs like the TPE Nova 3 but with gamgways

So yet another small-build, bespoke vehicle type? Throw a few million more for developing that...

 

[RT4038]

Thats your company, not every company. I know someone that was on a tight schedule that in the past used the sleeper from london, from an office in Hampshire. Because we get paid travel time. Although at the moment you wouldnt catch many doing that as its not a very competitive offering (loud and rocks a lot plus a reputation of breaking).

I am really intrigued by this post. 'I know someone in the past used the sleeper' i.e. not 'lots of people'. The sleeper is not a very competitive offering (loud and rocks a lot plus a reputation of breaking [sic])' This (and other) shortcomings are inherent to Sleeping Car travel, much the same as wave action is when travelling in a ship. I have travelled in Sleeping Cars all over the world, and strangely they all do this, some worse than others.

Further on you propose a complicated shunting operation of Sleeping Cars at Crewe or somewhere, one of the sources of the loud and rocking and braking.

Your comment 'you wouldn't catch many doing that' does not bode well for the demand and therefore profitability of the service! Or are passengers travelling Cross-Country immune from these shortcomings?

 

[daodao]

Is this what you mean?
View attachment 82050

Too complicated. There is no need for a separate South Wales portion. Passengers from South Wales can easily join the train at Bristol Temple Meads.

However, there would need to be a split at Carstairs. I suggested earlier today that in theory, the Glasgow and Edinburgh portions could each be attached to the existing London sleeper trains as far south as Carstairs, and then joined together there to run as a separate train, using the locomotive that had brought in the portions from Edinburgh. I have no personal knowledge of the current layout of Carstairs station to know how feasible this would be, although the Raildar track plan suggests that it is theoretically possible.

On a personal note, I remember waiting at Carstairs for an hour in April 1969 due to delayed arrival of the locomotive required to take forward the Edinburgh portion of the morning Manchester Victoria-Scotland "express" - we didn't reach Edinburgh until 3 pm. Thus my one and only experience at Carstairs does not make me regard splitting trains there as particularly desirable.

However, I was merely commenting on the technical feasibility of how a service could be run. Realistically, as most posters on this thread have clearly stated, this proposal is unlikely to get off the ground.

Note to moderators - I suggest that this thread is locked, as the discussion is exhausted and posters are now merely reiterating their entrenched positions.

 

[popeter45]

Too complicated. There is no need for a separate South Wales portion. Passengers from South Wales can easily join the train at Bristol Temple Meads.

However, there would need to be a split at Carstairs. I suggested earlier today that the Glasgow and Edinburgh portions could each be attached to the existing London sleeper trains as far south as Carstairs, and then joined together there to run as a separate train, using the locomotive that had brought in the portions from Edinburgh. However, I was merely commenting on the technical of how a service could be run. Realistically, as most others on this forum have clearly stated, this proposal is unlikely to get off the ground.

Note to moderators - I suggest that this thread is locked, as the discussion is exhausted and posters are now merely reiterating their entrenched positions.

i personally agree with locking now, the conversation has run its course and is now at risk of turning to a shouting match

While Personally i would love to see a return of sleeper services like the West coast, NightStar and potentally smaller services via small DMU/EMU's i see there just isnt the economics to do so at present/if ever
my input is more how you could run such a service instead of arguing for a return

 

[Energy]

Too complicated. There is no need for a separate South Wales portion. Passengers from South Wales can easily join the train at Bristol Temple Meads.

Yeah it is too complicated and if delayed (which would be easy) could affect normal day services.

Note to moderators - I suggest that this thread is locked, as the discussion is exhausted and posters are now merely reiterating their entrenched positions.

Soon I think, most agree that it just isn't economically viable.

 

[The Planner]

Crewe could do it. Not familiar with the points layouts but platform 5 and 6 have 4 tracks between them. So could leave the rear portions against a platform (so they can evacuate encase of emergency) and play dancing game with the 2 sections with loco's. Could get a small shunter to help if needed. A lot easier if all 4 sections had DVTs like the TPE Nova 3 but with gamgways

4 tracks in total you mean, the platform lines and the two "fast" lines inbetween, nothing else.

 

[SussexLad]

4 tracks in total you mean, the platform lines and the two "fast" lines inbetween, nothing else.

OK now I agree its too expensive to make it work. Way beyond reason to pay for any track changes for 2 services each way on top of a speacial dvt.

Still believe there's demand their to make an operating sleeper profitable, maybe a use post hs2?

Are their any international routes that justify a sleeper? Technically the Eurostar ski trains are overnight trains but by no means a sleeper service.

 

[Bald Rick]

So to summarise this thread. This is the only potentially viable route in terms of demand within the UK. Big debate around the price points business's are willing to pay.

And thats your opinion. Which has been sufficiently debated and I think its fair to say their is still an argument for this service.

Earlier there is the maths for the market size this service would compete in and a business strategy similar to eurostar. Not cheap but would create a profitable service.

Still believe there's demand their to make an operating sleeper profitable, maybe a use post hs2?

It doesn’t matter how many time you say “it’s viable” or variations thereof, the facts presented in this thread show that it isn’t. I’m afraid you haven’t presented any facts to demonstrate viability despite several requests.

Someone has to be tue first to try it. And given the just trust us mentality I am not surprised industry havent done it.

Go for it then. Be prepared to lose everything you own.

#10000

Welcome to the club, comrade!

Are their any international routes that justify a sleeper? Technically the Eurostar ski trains are overnight trains but by no means a sleeper service.

Technically the overnight ski trains are positioning moves to get the stock in the right place for the (very) lucrative day trains. This is a perfect example of the economics.

The revenue from 700 punters paying around £200 a ticket for a 7 hour day journey is, obviously, substantial. The train is then used a second time in the same 24hour period, and earns, at a guess, about half as much again (reduced loadings and lower fares). Then the rest of the week the train works on London - Paris / Brussels trips.

Now work out how much you’d have to charge for a sleeper train to earn the same revenue, bearing in mind a sleeper train carries less than a third of the people (at best), costs a lot more per trip to service, and can only work once every 24 hours. It will be at least a factor of 6 higher for a similar length journey.

 

[SussexLad]

It doesn’t matter how many time you say “it’s viable” or variations thereof, the facts presented in this thread show that it isn’t. I’m afraid you haven’t presented any facts to demonstrate viability despite several requests.



Go for it then. Be prepared to lose everything you own.



Welcome to the club, comrade!




Technically the overnight ski trains are positioning moves to get the stock in the right place for the (very) lucrative day trains. This is a perfect example of the economics.

The revenue from 700 punters paying around £200 a ticket for a 7 hour day journey is, obviously, substantial. The train is then used a second time in the same 24hour period, and earns, at a guess, about half as much again (reduced loadings and lower fares). Then the rest of the week the train works on London - Paris / Brussels trips.

Now work out how much you’d have to charge for a sleeper train to earn the same revenue, bearing in mind a sleeper train carries less than a third of the people (at best), costs a lot more per trip to service, and can only work once every 24 hours. It will be at least a factor of 6 higher for a similar length journey.

I did provide repeatedly statistics on the amount of travel between the airports. You just seem to ignore everything that goes against your infinite wisdom.

Innovation doesn't happen without challenges.

If you try it is possible to make the economics work. Through eurotunnel is virtually impossible because of safety regs, aware of that. Should have stated if their was an exemption to those regulations as suggested by the times a few days ago.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

If you try it is possible to make the economics work.

I give up.

This is worse than that idiot from Goring who didn't understand how electricity worked.

 

[Clayton]

Meh, I’m going to fly and stay over! I fear that the sleeper would be cramped and stuffy, apart from anything else.

 

[Energy]

I did provide repeatedly statistics on the amount of travel between the airports. You just seem to ignore everything that goes against your infinite wisdom.

We also provided statistics between airports, a lot more people go from London to Edinburgh alone yet the CS still requires high subsidy.

If you try it is possible to make the economics work.

It really isn't, the demand is not there and the CS has proven that even if there is demand (lots of tourism from London, not many tourists will be on the SW to Scotland proposed service) it is unlikely to turn a profit.

This is worse than that idiot from Goring who didn't understand how electricity worked.

Do you have a link or roughly what the title of the thread was? I'm not actually quite interested.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Manchester to Prague took two full travelling days, was enormously expensive at several times the price of flights available at the time, and was plagued by delays which resulted in missed connections. I enjoyed it, but it was stressful and if I didn't know a little about how railways worked I would have found it impossibly anxiety-inducing.

The best value long distance international train journey I've ever had was Berlin to London at €69. That price has increased now significantly because through ticketing is no longer possible. And journey time is still approx 9 hours and 2 changes of train are required.

Admittedly I was starting from London not Manchester - but I left London in the morning and was in Prague the next morning (less than 24 hours): London - via Paris - Zurich (with time to grab something to eat in both Paris and Zurich); sleeper to Prague. So just 2 changes, and by booking well ahead it came to - I think - a smidgen over £100 door to door.

 

[SussexLad]

We also provided statistics between airports, a lot more people go from London to Edinburgh alone yet the CS still requires high subsidy.

It really isn't, the demand is not there and the CS has proven that even if there is demand (lots of tourism from London, not many tourists will be on the SW to Scotland proposed service) it is unlikely to turn a profit.

Do you have a link or roughly what the title of the thread was? I'm not actually quite interested.

As I stated at the time. The market is to big for the calidoniab sleeper to remove the economies of scale that airlines need to offer cheap airfares.

With a geographically spread market and an aggressive introduction you can eliminate the competition. As eurostar did.

 

[Bald Rick]

I did provide repeatedly statistics on the amount of travel between the airports. You just seem to ignore everything that goes against your infinite wisdom.

Indeed you did, but you missed the point that all that demonstrates isthat the market is 15% of the size of London-Scotland, which has two sleepers that are not economically viable by a long, long way. So how and why does a much smaller market become viable?

I am the first to admit that my wisdom is not infinite. However it does come with the experience of having worked on the sleeper operation (including the market / revenue side), and knowing some of the people who run it today.

Through eurotunnel is virtually impossible because of safety regs, aware of that

The safety regs don’t make that much of a difference, certainly not enough to tip the balance on viability. Why do you think that? The issue is partly the border control, but mostly the absence of any viable market of a sufficient size.

If you try it is possible to make the economics work.

There you go again. It doesn’t become true if you keep saying it!

 

[Bald Rick]

As I stated at the time. The market is to big for the calidoniab sleeper to remove the economies of scale that airlines need to offer cheap airfares

But that is rubbish. Low cost airlines offer cheap airfares to all sorts of tiny markets. Not least the South West to Scotland. I can fly, today, from Bristol to Inverness for less than £90, or Thursday for £48. That market supports about 125 people a day each way.

Easyjet fly weekly from Luton to Biarritz (perfect sleeper distance) - a route that supports 5000 travellers a year.


The low cost airline economy of scale is not route, but airport base, and even that can be as small as two aircraft as they repeatedly demonstrate.

With a geographically spread market and an aggressive introduction you can eliminate the competition. As eurostar did.

As stated above, Eurostar was introduced as competition in what was the largest international air route city pair in the world. And it hasn’t eliminated the competition. Under normal circumstances there are still nearly 50 daily direct flights between London and Paris daily (total both directions).

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Do you have a link or roughly what the title of the thread was? I'm not actually quite interested.

It was on one of the Great Western threads, poor bloke couldn't understand the need for electrical clearances and what happens when 25kV gets to close to other things like trees or his head.

 

[Starmill]

Admittedly I was starting from London not Manchester - but I left London in the morning and was in Prague the next morning (less than 24 hours): London - via Paris - Zurich (with time to grab something to eat in both Paris and Zurich); sleeper to Prague. So just 2 changes, and by booking well ahead it came to - I think - a smidgen over £100 door to door.

The cheapest round trip on Eurostar is now £78, which is the most economical way to book. They're very difficult to secure though so £89 is much more likely. One can add £30 each way for cheap Manchester to London tickets, noting that it will be more than that if your connections from Eurostar see you dropping into 'peak' times. That brings us to £149 and we've made it only as far as Brussels...

Neither a sleeping car service nor the daytime 'high speed' services can compete on price with airlines in the current regulatory environment for a trip like Manchester to Prague. It's just not possible. Regulation must change.

 

[Journeyman]

It was on one of the Great Western threads, poor bloke couldn't understand the need for electrical clearances and what happens when 25kV gets to close to other things like trees or his head.

How about a new thread for strange things people believe, or not?

I did some work for Edinburgh Trams when their first vehicle was on display in Princes Street. A guy came on board and asked how we managed to fit axles under such a low floor. I explained to him that the vehicles didn't have axles, and that each powered wheel had its own motor. He then told me I was wrong because it was physically impossible for such a setup to work. I actually then opened up a flap outside the vehicle and showed him, at which point he confidently declared "this vehicle will never move", and refused to believe me when I told him it already had, as had countless vehicles of a similar configuration, including the ones in Nottingham.

 

[RT4038]

I did provide repeatedly statistics on the amount of travel between the airports. You just seem to ignore everything that goes against your infinite wisdom.

Innovation doesn't happen without challenges.

If you try it is possible to make the economics work. Through eurotunnel is virtually impossible because of safety regs, aware of that. Should have stated if their was an exemption to those regulations as suggested by the times a few days ago.

The innovation period of sleeping cars was 80-150 years ago. They have been on a downward trajectory post-war. The world has moved on considerably - fast and reliable motor cars and motorways, faster and more frequent daytime trains, fast, reliable and affordable aeroplanes, cheap, easily bookable hotel rooms with en-suite facilities, the increased staff requirement has become (relatively) much more expensive. The railway has irrevocably changed to a gigantic version of the Underground, where bespoke trains requiring special rolling stock, locomotives, shunting etc have become expensive to procure and operate.

Naturally there is nostalgia for the 'La Belle Epoch' period of Sleeping Car trains with dining cars a la Poirot / Agatha Christie. But in truth these were only affordable by the minority rich (like the VSOE and Belmond operations of today), and the less well off went in conditions which are recognisable today and inferior to the current competition. [In those days ordinary hotel rooms would have shared bathrooms etc. Not so today]

I love riding in Sleeping cars, but I recognise them for the anachronism they are, and that few others actually use them (although far more say they would)
Ride while you can!

 

[daodao]

The innovation period of sleeping cars was 80-150 years ago. They have been on a downward trajectory post-war. The world has moved on considerably - fast and reliable motor cars and motorways, faster and more frequent daytime trains, fast, reliable and affordable aeroplanes, cheap, easily bookable hotel rooms with en-suite facilities, the increased staff requirement has become (relatively) much more expensive. The railway has irrevocably changed to a gigantic version of the Underground, where bespoke trains requiring special rolling stock, locomotives, shunting etc have become expensive to procure and operate.

While most of the above is true, I would dispute the timescales. Most of these changes have occurred primarily in the last 20-30 years, rather than since WW2. That does not alter the basic premise that the role and usefulness of sleeping car trains now is minimal.

Sleeper trains from Scotland and the North of England to Bristol and South West England, which are the subject of this thread, were actually introduced by BR and are not shown in the penultimate timetables produced by the Big Four private companies in 1947.

 

[Checkflaps]

Technically the overnight ski trains are positioning moves to get the stock in the right place for the (very) lucrative day trains. This is a perfect example of the economics.

The revenue from 700 punters paying around £200 a ticket for a 7 hour day journey is, obviously, substantial. The train is then used a second time in the same 24hour period, and earns, at a guess, about half as much again (reduced loadings and lower fares). Then the rest of the week the train works on London - Paris / Brussels trips.

Now work out how much you’d have to charge for a sleeper train to earn the same revenue, bearing in mind a sleeper train carries less than a third of the people (at best), costs a lot more per trip to service, and can only work once every 24 hours. It will be at least a factor of 6 higher for a similar length journey.

This has nicely covered something I was going to ask, but I was too cautious to dip my size 10 into this thorny subject of UK wide sleepers.

I like the idea - ok, romance - of a sleeper service to the Alps, and this would surely be a suitable / potential market to tap into for winter sports fans. But, the simple fact that it has not been done should be seen as good indicator of the viability of a sleeper service from the UK (at this time). Taking regular day stock south overnight (rather than a custom sleeper) just makes, sadly, the best business case I suppose.

Perhaps with more 'flight shaming' and stock suitable for both economically viable numbers (the double deck CNL stock?) and the channel tunnel regs (can someone please allude as to why these are so onerous, and does the same apply to some of the longer tunnels in the Alps?) becoming available, there might be something in the future (maybe 10 years?) - albeit limited to HS1, and maybe HS2 for gauging purposes.

And, as was pointed out previously, just getting some redundant stock and converting it to sleepers is not a 5 minute, back of fag packet exercise, with a bit of kickstarter finance - so the thought of a converted Class373 being saved from the scrapper and 'done up', just because it is HS1 and CT complaint seems like an absolute non-starter.

Off to get some more popcorn for the renewed 'discussion', lol

Many thanks for some of the informed opinions shown on this subject though.

 

[RT4038]

While most of the above is true, I would dispute the timescales. Most of these changes have occurred primarily in the last 20-30 years, rather than since WW2. That does not alter the basic premise that the role and usefulness of sleeping car trains now is minimal.

Sleeper trains from Scotland and the North of England to Bristol and South West England, which are the subject of this thread, were actually introduced by BR and are not shown in the penultimate timetables produced by the Big Four private companies in 1947.

Looking at my timetable collection (by no means complete), it appears that Newcastle - Bristol TM car(s) was added to an already existing day car + mail overnight train sometime between 1957 and 1964. It was still running in 1973, but by 1986 had morphed into a Glasgow/Edinburgh via WCML - Bristol TM service. By 1987 through to 1995 it had been extended to run Glasgow-Edinburgh-Bristol-Plymouth. By 1998 it had gone completely. No doubt others on this forum can give more precise dates.
Whilst this may be looked at as innovation, I suspect it was only possible because of a surplus of sleeping cars, due to overall shrinkage of demand on other routes. Judging by the relatively short periods of operation (Bristol-Newcastle as a route is completely different to Bristol-Glasgow/Edinburgh via the WCML) I guess that it was not particularly successful - finished off by the cessation of mail/parcel carrying on passenger trains? I don't think anyone would have been able to make an investment case for new cars on such a route.

 

[BigCj34]

If sleeper trains are not profitable due to the limited usage of the rolling stock, maybe we need to design carriages that can be used day and night, so seats can be folded away and beds folded out in a couchette style.. CA proper Transformer's train! Space would be limited on the inside so I would only consider this on the continental loading gauge!

 

[SussexLad]

If sleeper trains are not profitable due to the limited usage of the rolling stock, maybe we need to design carriages that can be used day and night, so seats can be folded away and beds folded out in a couchette style.. CA proper Transformer's train! Space would be limited on the inside so I would only consider this on the continental loading gauge!

Better economics sure, but the beds don't sound that comfy to me...

Also to an extent they already exist, I went on one in Thailand. It was a nice experience overall tho

 

[popeter45]

Better economics sure, but the beds don't sound that comfy to me...

its not really that different as the bed is stored the same way the top bunk is currently on UK sleepers