Waterloo to be new Sleeper train hub?

[HSTEd]

Why not use bi-mode?

Im not entirely convinced by Bi-mode DEMUs for sleeper services, unless we were to get something like a Cl210 or a Thumper.

 

[philjo]

They would need to use separate locos/power cars away from the sleeping areas as otherwise the noise will defeat the object of being a "sleeper" service! (more so than at present)

 

[IanXC]

Since FSR and FGW don't run any locos* (apart from one Fife Circle "peak extra" on FSR), there's no interworking with FSR/FGW trains.

But aren't the FGW locos dedicated to the sleeper anyway?

FGW run their own Class 57 locos, which provide their thunderbird locos during the day.

 

[Yew]

-the sleepers (both) have suffered from years of "not really being bothered" treatment from Intercity and First. That First Rail has never produced any joint marketing of the services speaks volumes.

Ill agree with that point, before I joined here, I didnt know they had sleeper trains, and whenever ive spoken to anyone about it, they have said, 'oh that sounds cool, Id like to do that' maybe the caledonian sleeper refurbishment could have a little advertising campaign attatched?

 

[Nym]

Ill agree with that point, before I joined here, I didnt know they had sleeper trains, and whenever ive spoken to anyone about it, they have said, 'oh that sounds cool, Id like to do that' maybe the caledonian sleeper refurbishment could have a little advertising campaign attatched?

But then they'd need more sleepers if it became a lot more popular, but hang on, that means it could make money...

Four Scottish Sleepers instead of Two, then we'd be using all of Waterloo International, and would need to have some new Loco Haulable EMUs that could be fitted out for sleeping...

 

[EltonRoad]

According to the latest Railway Magazine, passenger numbers on the Caledonian Sleepers have risen by 31% over the last 5 years. 274,000 were carried over 2010/11. It also says the £100million made available by Scottish+English Governments is for new carriages and hints at the lack of ensuite facilities in the UK compared to say Germany.

 

[Zoe]

£100million made available by Scottish+English Governments

Scottish and UK governments.

 

[LE Greys]

According to the latest Railway Magazine, passenger numbers on the Caledonian Sleepers have risen by 31% over the last 5 years. 274,000 were carried over 2010/11. It also says the £100million made available by Scottish+English Governments is for new carriages and hints at the lack of ensuite facilities in the UK compared to say Germany.

Is that to buy the Nightstar coaches back from Via Rail? Ideally, any new stock would be based on them. I know from experience that they are very comfortable and has en suite in all compartments.

I don't suppose there's any chance of the East Coast sleepers coming back? (We can but hope) I also like the idea of an extra route to Oban for the islands, and possibly changing the Orkney ferry times so that it runs during the day instead of overnight, to connect with the sleeper at Aberdeen.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

Given my previous Weymouth proposal was a bad idea, what would be the usability if services went down to Southampton and Bournemouth, reversed to possibly re-serve Southampton Airport for pickup from other planes, up through Birmingham, Manchester, Preston, up the WCML to Edinburgh and from there...well you get the idea. Would that be good because it also adds more sleeping time?

Or a possible ECML service up to Bradford via NXEA/Greater Anglia territory or would that be unusable too?

 

[EltonRoad]

I also like the idea of an extra route to Oban for the islands,

Ways to improve the Fort William Sleeper would be to a) to do the shunting at somewhere like Carstairs instead of Edinburgh, thus speeding up the journey by about 90 mins, b) improve connections to Mallaig (currently 2¼ hours off the down Sleeper; 1½ hours into the Sunday night up Sleeper), c) provide a connection to Oban from Crianlarich (currently none in either direction unless you want to wait up to 2½ hours), and given Oban has similar footfall to Fort William with only 3 trains a day (source: Wiki usage stats) there must be demand even if seasonal. Detach a portion for Oban if the new stock is DMU (personally, though, I hope it isn't!). And above all, market it better. Anyone arriving at Euston would hardly know there's a Sleeper service to Scotland. There are posters up around Scottish stations, so that's one good thing. However, as I said in my response to Transport Scotland, don't replace Fort William with Oban, as for one thing you'd lose the not inconsiderable patronage that Bridge of Orchy, Rannoch and Corrour generate from locals, walkers, hostelers and the like.

 

[LE Greys]

Ways to improve the Fort William Sleeper would be to a) to do the shunting at somewhere like Carstairs instead of Edinburgh, thus speeding up the journey by about 90 mins, b) improve connections to Mallaig (currently 2¼ hours off the down Sleeper; 1½ hours into the Sunday night up Sleeper), c) provide a connection to Oban from Crianlarich (currently none in either direction unless you want to wait up to 2½ hours), and given Oban has similar footfall to Fort William with only 3 trains a day (source: Wiki usage stats) there must be demand even if seasonal. Detach a portion for Oban if the new stock is DMU (personally, though, I hope it isn't!). And above all, market it better. Anyone arriving at Euston would hardly know there's a Sleeper service to Scotland. There are posters up around Scottish stations, so that's one good thing. However, as I said in my response to Transport Scotland, don't replace Fort William with Oban, as for one thing you'd lose the not inconsiderable patronage that Bridge of Orchy, Rannoch and Corrour generate from locals, walkers, hostelers and the like.

Ideally, I'd have both. The Fort William portion would go to Edinburgh, then couple to the back of the Aberdonian and run via the ECML. The Oban portion would go to Carstairs (Dunblane if they ever rebuild the Callander section) and couple to the back of the Inverness train, running via the WCML. However, that might have something to do with wishing that the Aberdeen sleeper called at Stevenage so that I could go home at the weekend without needing to worry about getting my work in early on Friday.

 

[Nym]

If you where to do that, how about having four sleepers... Two lowland and two highland.

One splitting for Aberdeen and Inverness, and one for Ft William and Oban?

 

[LE Greys]

If you where to do that, how about having four sleepers... Two lowland and two highland.

One splitting for Aberdeen and Inverness, and one for Ft William and Oban?

The Aberdonian, Aberdeen via ECML with a portion to Fort William
The Highland Sleeper, Inverness via WCML with a portion to Oban
The Night Scotsman, Glasgow via ECML and Edinburgh
The Night Scot, Glasgow and Edinburgh via WCML, splitting at Carstairs

That's a bit complicated, but it gives the ECML a sleeper service once again, probably calling at Newcastle, York, Peterborough and Stevenage (for the same reason the current one calls at Watford Junction).

 

[tbtc]

According to the latest Railway Magazine, passenger numbers on the Caledonian Sleepers have risen by 31% over the last 5 years. 274,000 were carried over 2010/11

To put that into context:

274,000/ year = 5,269/ week = 878/ night = 219/train (two northbound a night, two southbound a night, six days a week).

It'd be interesting to see how those passenger numbers are split between the "Lowland" and "Highland" services (e.g. do Edinburgh/Glasgow services take a higher share due to their bigger population, or a lower share due to the airline competition?).

How does summer versus winter compare? Are the midweek services comparable to the Friday night northbound services?

Do these figures include the "day" traffic on the Fort William - Edinburgh service?

(I'm asking hypothetical questions as I appreciate that we won't get answers to all of these questions, just trying to get some context on the figures)

 

[EltonRoad]

Agreed, the East Coast is a potential market for Sleepers.

How about improving the Carlisle Sleeper a bit more, by re-examining the calling times. For instance I'm sure not many want to board at 0141 or get off at 0516. But then again I guess portion working is not cost effective (didn't they used to detach a portion at Carlisle? And Preston?) This could be a chance for a new Sleeper franchise holder.

Another idea would be to route one of the Highland Sleepers via Birmingham and/or Manchester. These must be sizeable untapped markets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As well as the usage figures quoted above, it would be interesting to know the revenue split from 1st Class and Standard. For instance, on a Friday night, a single-occupany First Class cabin (cost £214.50 single which all goes to ScotRail) is bound to generate more revenue than two in a standard cabin, both on an off peak return (£145.50 return, most of which will go to Virgin/East Coast?) with a berth supplement (£40.20). I have noticed, when travelling on the Fort William portion, First Class is often fully booked whereas Standard has berths available.

 

[HSTEd]

Agreed, the East Coast is a potential market for Sleepers.

How about improving the Carlisle Sleeper a bit more, by re-examining the calling times. For instance I'm sure not many want to board at 0141 or get off at 0516. But then again I guess portion working is not cost effective (didn't they used to detach a portion at Carlisle? And Preston?) This could be a chance for a new Sleeper franchise holder.

Another idea would be to route one of the Highland Sleepers via Birmingham and/or Manchester. These must be sizeable untapped markets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As well as the usage figures quoted above, it would be interesting to know the revenue split from 1st Class and Standard. For instance, on a Friday night, a single-occupany First Class cabin (cost £214.50 single which all goes to ScotRail) is bound to generate more revenue than two in a standard cabin, both on an off peak return (£145.50 return, most of which will go to Virgin/East Coast?) with a berth supplement (£40.20). I have noticed, when travelling on the Fort William portion, First Class is often fully booked whereas Standard has berths available.

I assume that once the northern route out of Manchester to the WCML is electrified the sleeper will be diverted via Manchester instead of via its current route.

If we were to attach more sleeper/"pod" coaches to the lowland sleepers can we really justify two seperate runs?

1. London to Edinburgh via WCML
2. London to Glasgow via ECML with them crossing in the middle.

 

[the sniper]

Another idea would be to route one of the Highland Sleepers via Birmingham and/or Manchester. These must be sizeable untapped markets.

I've recommended this before. Personally I see no reason for the Highland not to stop at New Street, though it is about a carriage or two too long for the longest platform at New Street. Still, the rear ones could be locked out I presume and the station isn't too busy at that time, so wouldn't disruption be minimal?

The timing would be good too. Last time I checked it could get into New Street around 12am. Stopping in Birmingham would open up the service to the millions of people who live in the West Midlands.

Why not?

 

[jopsuk]

To put that into context:

274,000/ year = 5,269/ week = 878/ night = 219/train (two northbound a night, two southbound a night, six days a week).

It'd be interesting to see how those passenger numbers are split between the "Lowland" and "Highland" services (e.g. do Edinburgh/Glasgow services take a higher share due to their bigger population, or a lower share due to the airline competition?).

How does summer versus winter compare? Are the midweek services comparable to the Friday night northbound services?

Do these figures include the "day" traffic on the Fort William - Edinburgh service?

(I'm asking hypothetical questions as I appreciate that we won't get answers to all of these questions, just trying to get some context on the figures)

How many seats are there in the seated coach? I calculate that there's 250 beds, assuming a 50:50 split of SLE (26 beds if standard, 13 if 1st) and SLEP (24/12) and four standard/two first class per half-train.

 

[Eagle]

How many seats are there in the seated coach?

It's either 42 or 48, I can't remember (the seating is 2+1 and much of the coach is taken up by the luggage van).

 

[34D]

It's either 42 or 48, I can't remember (the seating is 2+1 and much of the coach is taken up by the luggage van).

Are these the weird coaches that were originally saloons, but had a brake compartment added in the 90s?

Some good points made, especially birmingham/manchester/ECML.

One thing I'd like to see (after very little sleep in the seated coach bodmin-paddington) is a separate seated area for the short journeys bodmin-plymouth, watford-crewe (if the latter could be allowed, presently pick up only I believe) and the people who want to sleep. Pods could be a good way to achieve this. Replicating what we have on planes would be something passengers would relate to. Anyone creative want to mock up an interior layout?

 

[HSTEd]

Perhaps replacing the lounge car with a coach with more conventional seating (albeit all in table layout) woudl be good as if you are going to have short identical rakes the one not serving as the lounge in the longer lowland formations could simply be used as another (half) seated coach.

 

[jopsuk]

It's either 42 or 48, I can't remember (the seating is 2+1 and much of the coach is taken up by the luggage van).

Cheers, so at an average 219 passengers per train, average loading (across all Scotrail sleeper services) is just under 2/3. That's really not shabby- though obviosuly less than 350 is a rather low capactiy for a 16-carriage train

 

[tbtc]

Cheers, so at an average 219 passengers per train, average loading (across all Scotrail sleeper services) is just under 2/3. That's really not shabby- though obviosuly less than 350 is a rather low capactiy for a 16-carriage train

Fourteen people per carriage? Then again there are some lines/ services in the UK which fail to meet that amount.

As for the ECML comments that people have made, I think that'd be a bad thing. For a start, one attraction of the WCML is that there are a lot of alternative electrified routes (via the Northampton loop, via Birmingham, via Walsall IIRC, via Stoke and in a few years time via Manchester). So between Milton Keynes and Preston there will be quite a few permutations, you could go a different route every night of the week. Plus quite a few four track sections, where you could have some lines "out of use" for engineering and still allow a Sleeper to pass on another one.

However, apart from the Hertford loop, there are no alternative electrified routes on the ECML from Kings Cross to Waverley. There will be a Doncaster - Leeds - York route available in a few years time, but that's the only other way of doing it.

Sleepers would be an inefficient way of serving places half way along the route like Manchester, since there wouldn't be time for anyone to sleep - maybe you could try running regular DMUs/EMUs overnight in the way that the TPE services run to/from Manchester Airport though?

 

[LE Greys]

Fourteen people per carriage? Then again there are some lines/ services in the UK which fail to meet that amount.

As for the ECML comments that people have made, I think that'd be a bad thing. For a start, one attraction of the WCML is that there are a lot of alternative electrified routes (via the Northampton loop, via Birmingham, via Walsall IIRC, via Stoke and in a few years time via Manchester). So between Milton Keynes and Preston there will be quite a few permutations, you could go a different route every night of the week. Plus quite a few four track sections, where you could have some lines "out of use" for engineering and still allow a Sleeper to pass on another one.

However, apart from the Hertford loop, there are no alternative electrified routes on the ECML from Kings Cross to Waverley. There will be a Doncaster - Leeds - York route available in a few years time, but that's the only other way of doing it.

Sleepers would be an inefficient way of serving places half way along the route like Manchester, since there wouldn't be time for anyone to sleep - maybe you could try running regular DMUs/EMUs overnight in the way that the TPE services run to/from Manchester Airport though?

We used to have a solid sleeper business before electrification. Once again, thanks a lot Thatcherite penny-pinchers!

 

[HSTEd]

We used to have a solid sleeper business before electrification. Once again, thanks a lot Thatcherite penny-pinchers!

There are no backup routes to electrify really......

WCML just has lines going in every direction

 

[LE Greys]

There are no backup routes to electrify really......

WCML just has lines going in every direction

Hertford Loop
Hitchin-Cambridge-Peterborough
Peterborough-Lincoln-Doncaster
Doncaster-Leeds-York
Shaftholme-Church Fenton
Northallerton-Sunderland-Newcastle
Leamside

 

[RobShipway]

Yes, SWT and E* shared tracks until well into Kent after Farningham Road (I think). I doubt a call that close to London would be needed, certainly not Wimbledon. Via TL would be very impractical, especially at night. Further, you wouldn't have anywhere to 'wait' in the morning - everyone would literally have to be ready to get off at each station, even if it was 0600!

I have to correct you here, as SWT do not serve Kent. Eurostar shared the line with South Eastern Trains and got to the South Eastern Route via a bride from the Waterloo lines which still exists today. I believe this bridge is also how the Eurostar trains got from their depot they had at Old Oak Common into Waterloo, so if the same area was used for stabling the sleeper trains access I believe would not be too much of a problem, would it?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I have to correct you here, as SWT do not serve Kent. Eurostar shared the line with South Eastern Trains and got to the South Eastern Route via a bride from the Waterloo lines which still exists today. I believe this bridge is also how the Eurostar trains got from their depot they had at Old Oak Common into Waterloo, so if the same area was used for stabling the sleeper trains access I believe would not be too much of a problem, would it?

Indeed, meant to correct my post to differentiate between SWT and SE (and SN in South London?) when someone pointed that out before. I was aware of the two different TOCs it shared with, I just didn't say that

 

[Hydro]

I have to correct you here, as SWT do not serve Kent. Eurostar shared the line with South Eastern Trains and got to the South Eastern Route via a bride from the Waterloo lines which still exists today. I believe this bridge is also how the Eurostar trains got from their depot they had at Old Oak Common into Waterloo, so if the same area was used for stabling the sleeper trains access I believe would not be too much of a problem, would it?

Eurostar used to join the South Eastern lines using Stewarts Lane Viaduct at Nine Elms Junction. This isn't the way to get to North Pole depot at all, quite the opposite in fact - Eurostar used to travel via Kensington Olympia to get to North Pole.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The Sleepers are not arriving or departing at this point though are they?

You said there was a 24 hour service. I (and others) pointed out that wasn't true. Whether or not the sleepers could be arriving or departing at that point is immaterial to your statement.