Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
It would be interesting what are the occupancy figures for the direct Summer Eurostar services.
If the French night trains are anything to go by, the Nice sleeper can be well packed in 2nd class berths in summer times (probably because you can find a 2nd berth for 20-40 bucks).
The south-west region (to Lourdes), being quite poorly connected, has its sleeper have a capacity struggle during most bank holidays.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The main issues with a through sleeper would be that you would need paths to run on both LGV and classic lines (there is no way to avoid Paris without using the LGV (or you would need to run on RER tracks)) which could be massively expensive to build, especially if ETCS+TVM430 is required. Class 92s don't have KVB (classic line signalling) sadly.
Great points. For UK to Europe services, my instinct is major cities, London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow…to major cities in southern Europe would be a massive hit. With less services in the winter months.
A mix of high end comfort and appealing strongly priced economy tickets would work well.
Having seen how Serco as a company works I am not surprised they failed with the Scottish sleeper service. Being relatively close they needed to weave in some romance and make it a fun proposition. Serco, a government outsourcing company, lack any panache to develop such a package. All be it a hard franchise to run.
It would be interesting to learn what the tariffs are for using the tunnel, French and uk rail etc. The greatest barrier to entry is the sheer complexity. And there is no doubt a political heavy weight/s would be required to get anything off the ground.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
How far could a sleeper service from existing blue-Eurostar destinations reasonably get? What would the issues be with an overnight service from Lille to Ljubljana (~860 miles avoiding high-speed lines) or Brussels to Bordeaux (600 miles)?
There's only so many destinations it would be possible for and from, and there'd be the issue of getting to ports, but maybe restoring some international ferries would help. I think Hull to Hamburg would be ~22 hours, so a 21:00 departure would get to Hamburg at 20:00 the following day, leaving enough time to connect to the sleeper to Stockholm (or Zürich, but that's a long diversion to get there), although leaving earlier might be preferable.
Great points. For UK to Europe services, my instinct is major cities, London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow…to major cities in southern Europe would be a massive hit. With less services in the winter months.
Great points. For UK to Europe services, my instinct is major cities, London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow…to major cities in southern Europe would be a massive hit. With less services in the winter months.
A mix of high end comfort and appealing strongly priced economy tickets would work well.
Having seen how Serco as a company works I am not surprised they failed with the Scottish sleeper service. Being relatively close they needed to weave in some romance and make it a fun proposition. Serco, a government outsourcing company, lack any panache to develop such a package. All be it a hard franchise to run.
It would be interesting to learn what the tattoos are for using the tunnel, French and uk rail etc. The greatest barrier to entry is the sheer complexity. And there is no doubt a political heavy weight/s would be required to get anything off the ground.
There was an article in the June edition of Today's Railways Europe about the difficulty of starting Sleeper train services in continential Europe, without bringing in the additional complexities of the Channel Tunnel and the UK including its railway loading gauge.
I should imagine a London-Barcelona ticket average price would be about £500, and that for a standard train with a modicum of pre-packed food/drink without any additional staff to provide romance, panache etc. For every ';strongly priced economy' ticket there is going to have to be some very high end prices (and that assuming the high end passengers are not taking much more room/sleeping space than the economy). I really don't think this is going to work financially.
It is indicative that there are very few VSOE / Blue Train type operations around the world (which are really the closest to the model you are suggesting), presumably suggesting that this type of luxury train only has a very niche market in order to be profitable.
Why can't passport checks take place on the train? With some other initial checks on departure and ticket purchase. It could be made to work if there is enough political determination and buy-in.
It would require a technological solution for a start; it is not just a check of the passport but also the logging of entries and verification of right to enter once ETIAS comes in. It’s unlikely this could be done on the move without a physical terminal as you would get at a normal border, but in any case there’s a good reason why even now, Eurostar services have checks prior to boarding. It’s simply much quicker and doesn’t involve a risk to delaying the train or removing passengers who are ineligible to enter. Where would you do this? This isn’t a normal land border; there’s a tunnel involved, so which station are you designating as the kick off point? Again, if this is a sleeper train - where and when are people getting asked for their passports? While they sleep? The political realities trump the easiest solutions here unfortunately.
If a system of flight credits or tracking of an individuals flights per year takes place, it will create huge demand overnight for effective train travel to Europe. People might save up credits for longer haul flights, and take a sleeper train to Southern Europe, for example.
In reality flying takes most of the day, arriving at the airport 2 hour before and transfers. If flights cost more than a sleeper things would change. People also have a conscience and want to reduce carbon footprints. And families actually love travelling by train. It’s less stressful. You can get up and walk along the train. Visit the restaurant and crucially, have a private space to change babies or put kids to sleep. Far more civilised and comfortable all be it much longer. But that is where the sleeper comes in. You essentially shrink the journey time by sleeping through it. Getting on a train at 10 at night, you only spend 2-3 waking hours on the train!
And you arrive with the whole day ahead of you, relatively fresh. Compared with the indignity of many airports and cramped planes, i personally feel far more refined stepping off a train than the rigmarole of waiting for bags, security, transfer from the airport.
Factor in the saving on two nights hotel / extra two days, and the prospect is even stronger for families.
That people do not have this option now, whilst technically possible, whilst the planet heats up, is terrible. I get the barriers and complexity, but if there was some will from people and politicians the technology is available right now. Unlike clean flying of which there is no prospect on the horizon.
signal.eu.org/osm says Paris to Málaga avoiding high-speed lines is 20 hours (2100 km / 1300 miles via Poitiers, Bordeaux and Valladolid, or 2370 km / 1470 miles via Lyon and Barcelona). Using high-speed sleeper trains – which I think is only Hong Kong to Beijing right now, and which would have the issue of constructing suitable trains – it would be 2190 km / 1370 miles; I'd guess eleven to thirteen hours.
While the UK wasn't in Schengen, it was in the EU (streamlining the controls of most people using the Eurostar) and it was in the Customs Union (streamlining all customs procedure)
Since Brexit, the border controls had to tighten causing the lines we know now. EES will likely streamline that process back to the before-Brexit lines.
The simple answer is that for the types of journey you are proposing, business class recliners don't really exist because of the journey time.
But as an example - to the South of France (Nice), looking in September:
A first class berth from. Paris to Nice alone is €134. If you were to add the cost of traveling from Manchester on the same train, passport control and the tunnel I would expect the fare to be at least double to triple that amount.
Meanwhile easyJet offer a direct 2hr15m flight for £41. A night in a 4 star hotel with facilities such as a pool and spa (and a bed that doesn't wobble around) comes in around £100. Anyone who wants luxury is honestly going to take this option. Even if you add in taxis to/from airports and the waiting time you're still saving money and time by flying.
There was an article in the June edition of Today's Railways Europe about the difficulty of starting Sleeper train services in continential Europe, without bringing in the additional complexities of the Channel Tunnel and the UK including its railway loading gauge.
I should imagine a London-Barcelona ticket average price would be about £500, and that for a standard train with a modicum of pre-packed food/drink without any additional staff to provide romance, panache etc. For every ';strongly priced economy' ticket there is going to have to be some very high end prices (and that assuming the high end passengers are not taking much more room/sleeping space than the economy). I really don't think this is going to work financially.
It is indicative that there are very few VSOE / Blue Train type operations around the world (which are really the closest to the model you are suggesting), presumably suggesting that this type of luxury train only has a very niche market in order to be profitable.
I get it. I appreciate the reality. A big preface is increased regulation of flying and polluting. It has to happen. Idk when or how exactly, but unless the technology leaps forward extremely quickly to allow clean flights, there is an opening for trans-national train travel to deliver a lot more.
Sleepers will never be the full answer. Just part of the answer. They are limited in all manner of ways. Yet the rail infrastructure is there now. In a ‘war-like’ scenario where we had to have these services running next year, the human race, politicians, engineers, business people and publicists could get a service working right now. If the will was there.
Having seen how Serco as a company works I am not surprised they failed with the Scottish sleeper service. Being relatively close they needed to weave in some romance and make it a fun proposition.
Did you actually look at their marketing? That is exactly what they tried, selling it as a hotel on wheels, "a journey of a night-time" etc. And it still didn't work.
While the UK wasn't in Schengen, it was in the EU (streamlining the controls of most people using the Eurostar) and it was in the Customs Union (streamlining all customs procedure)
Since Brexit, the border controls had to tighten causing the lines we know now. EES will likely streamline that process back to the before-Brexit lines.
True. And the EU, for all its faults, can provide a means to setup inter-national programmes within Europe. Including better crossboarder rail services.
It's possible to get to Budapest at 12:19 the afternoon after leaving London now, using the Amsterdam – Vienna sleeper and making a 25 minute connection, which is 900 miles (south)east of London.
It's possible to get to Budapest at 12:19 the afternoon after leaving London now, using the Amsterdam – Vienna sleeper and making a 25 minute connection, which is 900 miles (south)east of London.
Did you actually look at their marketing? That is exactly what they tried, selling it as a hotel on wheels, "a journey of a night-time" etc. And it still didn't work.
I didn’t see the marketing. But I have seen how government outsourcing companies work. I don’t think selling romance of the rails is their speciality. And as mentioned it is a tough gig.
But I’m sure American and Chinese tourists would love to enjoy this service. As well as many others. It is an exercise in publicity and marketing and would be a challenge in the winter.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The simple answer is that for the types of journey you are proposing, business class recliners don't really exist because of the journey time.
But as an example - to the South of France (Nice), looking in September:
A first class berth from. Paris to Nice alone is €134. If you were to add the cost of traveling from Manchester on the same train, passport control and the tunnel I would expect the fare to be at least double to triple that amount.
Meanwhile easyJet offer a direct 2hr15m flight for £41. A night in a 4 star hotel with facilities such as a pool and spa (and a bed that doesn't wobble around) comes in around £100. Anyone who wants luxury is honestly going to take this option. Even if you add in taxis to/from airports and the waiting time you're still saving money and time by flying.
My point was simply, the cost equivalence of such facilities when flying for long journeys, makes sleepers look good value. A flight with a bed overnight costs many thousands of pounds.
Of course cheap flights currently obliterate the logic for sleeper services. But once subsiding aviation fuel and increased tax/regulation of pollution occurs, then that reality changes.
I get it. I appreciate the reality. A big preface is increased regulation of flying and polluting. It has to happen. Idk when or how exactly, but unless the technology leaps forward extremely quickly to allow clean flights, there is an opening for trans-national train travel to deliver a lot more.
The technology exists for zero net carbon flights exists now. Indeed the technologies for zero net carbon flights (hydrogen electrolysis, fischer tropsch etc) all predate the arrival of practical jet aircraft.
The problem is noone is particularly concerned with paying for it.
Any of these solutions would be ruinously expensive, as decarbonisation is not a cheap game to play.
However, I think aviations other advantages make the political barriers easier.
If a system of flight credits or tracking of an individuals flights per year takes place, it will create huge demand overnight for effective train travel to Europe. People might save up credits for longer haul flights, and take a sleeper train to Southern Europe, for example.
At the moment but try to envisage a reality where your second flight of the year costs 3 times as much. Then you have an option of driving, coach, a day sitting on a train/s or sleeper to get to southern Europe.
How about doing the same thing for all travel? Is it necessary to travel internationally for holiday (as opposed to visiting family) more than once in a year? Cost isn't necessarily the correct way to ration travel in any case, as it makes travel the thing that more affluent people can afford to do more, which is clearly part of the problem in the first place.
Would using a sleeper train involve higher 'carbon tax' than using a day train given fewer people can be accommodated for the amount of energy being used?
The technology exists for zero net carbon flights exists now. Indeed the technologies for zero net carbon flights (hydrogen electrolysis, fischer tropsch etc) all predate the arrival of practical jet aircraft.
No. In real terms these technologies are not able to power flights in any meaningful useful viable way, now. They may well in the future. But it is not imminent.
The problem is noone is particularly concerned with paying for it.
Any of these solutions would be ruinously expensive, as decarbonisation is not a cheap game to play.
There is huge investment into green technologies. Massive.
It does beg the question, why not invest into trains which are viable now. And as you allude, the relative costs of improving transnational rail are relatively small in comparison to developing new forms of propulsion.
How about doing the same thing for all travel? Is it necessary to travel internationally for holiday (as opposed to visiting family) more than once in a year? Cost isn't necessarily the correct way to ration travel in any case, as it makes travel the thing that more affluent people can afford to do more, which is clearly part of the problem in the first place.
Would using a sleeper train involve higher 'carbon tax' than using a day train given fewer people can be accommodated for the amount of energy being used?
You don’t tax an EV car because it is polluting to produce. You improve on internal combustion engine cars with EVs and incentivise them now. Then, improvements are made to EVs and cleaner alternative designs or modes of travel develop.
Just because there is a polluting aspect to train travel now, you don’t ignore the net gain of getting people out of the sky into trains. And making trains run on green fuel is a relatively simple prospect, with them able to effectively be ‘hybrids’ now. Consuming green electricity when available and using fossil fuels when unavailable.
Making trains lighter. Adding solar and wind turbines to stations and tracks are easy to do now.
It does beg the question, why not invest into trains which are viable now. And as you allude, the relative costs of improving transnational rail are relatively small in comparison to developing new forms of propulsion.
Because most people don’t want to spend 22 hours getting to Malaga when it’s a 3 hour flight. I mean, I’d take the sleeper - probably - once. But who has two extra days to spend each end of their holiday?
The idea that people will get a flight allowance is a total pipe dream I’m afraid. It’s an unworkable policy which doesn’t look reality in the face.
New forms of propulsion will revolutionise global travel and open a huge amount of human potential. There’s a lot of money in it. Tinkering with crossborder trains isn’t going to do that to the same extent.
Cheap fuel has to be a massive element. I’m surprised you didn’t mention this, why?
“Under current arrangements, fuel for passenger aircraft is exempt from tax whereas rail companies have seen levies on electricity to power trains more than double in the past four years. Taxes now make up almost 40% of the total electricity costs for train operators.”
Cheap fuel has to be a massive element. I’m surprised you didn’t mention this, why?
“Under current arrangements, fuel for passenger aircraft is exempt from tax whereas rail companies have seen levies on electricity to power trains more than double in the past four years. Taxes now make up almost 40% of the total electricity costs for train operators.”
Because it is not the main reason. Even if airlines paid tax on fuel (and they should) it would still end up with fares being a lot cheaper than by rail. It’s the very nature of the infrastructure which is key.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Quite a lot greener, but also much less green than taking day trains. It’s the equivalent of flying first class versus economy in terms of the real estate a passenger occupies and the low capacity they provide.
Because most people don’t want to spend 22 hours getting to Malaga when it’s a 3 hour flight. I mean, I’d take the sleeper - probably - once. But who has two extra days to spend each end of their holiday?
This is where new thinking and paradigms are needed.
It’s not an extra day, it’s a free day without hotel costs. It genuinely is. The only issue is a late check out or how you manage leaving late. I’ve done it. Arriving in the morning fresh is an extra day.
And if you use ‘waking hours travel time’ it isn’t 22 hours. That is the magic. Arguably you have similar waking travel hours to flying, and certainly less stress and pollution.
New forms of propulsion will revolutionise global travel and open a huge amount of human potential. There’s a lot of money in it. Tinkering with crossborder trains isn’t going to do that to the same extent.
Because it is not the main reason. Even if airlines paid tax on fuel (and they should) it would still end up with fares being a lot cheaper than by rail. It’s the very nature of the infrastructure which is key.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Quite a lot greener, but also much less green than taking day trains. It’s the equivalent of flying first class versus economy in terms of the real estate a passenger occupies and the low capacity they provide.
Madness that we incentivise flying. While cleaner rail has huge levies on semi-green power.
Economies of scale, momentum, innovation are not absolute things you can measure or put a number to. What can be done by governments is to push the dial in the right direction. And then a free market can take over. Atm we push the dial towards flight and under invest in rail.
It’s not an extra day, it’s a free day without hotel costs. It genuinely is. The only issue is a late check out or how you manage leaving late. I’ve done it. Arriving eh morning fresh is an extra day.
I am all for a sleeper, but sadly most people don't see it that way.
I doubt a majority of people actually can have regenerative sleep on a rattly (to take the example of the 40 to 50yo coaches used on French ICN), noisy and moving train. I don't know how good the comfort of the new ÖBB NightJets is, but it could be similiar.
And to that to be worth it it would need to be cheaper than a day train ticket + a mid-level hotel night, which seeing the prices in most sleepers (like the NJ), it is definitely not that
This is where new thinking and paradigms are needed.
It’s not an extra day, it’s a free day without hotel costs. It genuinely is. The only issue is a late check out or how you manage leaving late. I’ve done it. Arriving eh morning fresh is an extra day.
I know this. I’ve done more to promote sleeper trains directly to aviation enthusiasts than perhaps anyone else! But it remains a niche activity - you cannot just demand people think a different way. And no, the long distances you talk about to places like Malaga aren’t a free day without hotel costs. You’ve already paid the hotel cost in the sleeper fare and had to leave a day earlier to get somewhere by noon. That’s not realistic or pragmatic for most people taking budget flights to Europe. It just isn’t.
That is a platitude which does not address the unworkability of a personal flight allowance. Nobody has ever proposed a policy which actually would work, nor would locking people in an island country lead to a healthy, prosperous and successful society. There is one tunnel linking us to the continent; you cannot put many people through it and sleeper trains aren’t a good use of the very limited capacity that asset offers. (Next it’ll be a pivot to “let’s build two or three more” which is unfortunately further crayonista territory in my opinion)
Talking about flights here. Vastly more flexible than railways, operationally, and extremely market-responsive.
I’m afraid there are people here who know quite a bit about how sleepers work and if you took more of them in Europe you would probably have a more realistic way of looking at them.
A plane has the advantage of being able to fly mostly everywhere. You could have the need of a plane somewhere to get stranded passengers for example, if you have the crew, you can do it even if the plane is 1000-2000km away. Go do that with a train.
Except in some specific case, you do not need specific pilot training. A stopped train is dead asset + you need the driver knowledge and the appropriate tracks to run it.
How about doing the same thing for all travel? Is it necessary to travel internationally for holiday (as opposed to visiting family) more than once in a year? Cost isn't necessarily the correct way to ration travel in any case, as it makes travel the thing that more affluent people can afford to do more, which is clearly part of the problem in the first place.
Would using a sleeper train involve higher 'carbon tax' than using a day train given fewer people can be accommodated for the amount of energy being used?
Well yes, is it necessary to travel internationally for holiday or visiting family more than once per year or once every two years? (and internationally is not necessarily the operative word here, it is the length of journey). We only do so much flying because it is available at a certain price. Realistically, price can only be the way to ration travel. The affluent people can afford to do more than the not so affluent, but that is true for anything. It is an incentive to work smarter, take the right choices and become affluent, if you aren't already. (and lets not get sidetracked here). The extra revenue raised by making flying more expensive can be used to improve things generally back home. I don't think trying to replicate existing travel patterns by subsidising a much more expensive means of travel is sensible, or necessary. Uncomfortable as it may be seen.
Go to Greece/Spain/Portugal by air or train for six weeks, once every three years.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
