Caledonian Sleeper discussion

[47271]

Plan was to split the Highlander, AIUI.

Correct, what I'd heard was that they're looking at running the Inverness as a standalone service. That's just what I've heard mind.

I may have posted this before, but one solution to the lack of demand on the Aberdeen section would be to start it out from Inverness. This would open up a whole new market from intermediate stations like Elgin and Inverurie, provide a safety valve for the Inverness train when it's very full, and allow all maintenance to be focused on Inverness. I daresay a few pathing issues on the single line north of Aberdeen, but it's an idea...

 

[Chris999999]

Correct, what I'd heard was that they're looking at running the Inverness as a standalone service. That's just what I've heard mind.

.

Interesting, particularly with more capacity being added to FW.

With the new sleeper stock, does anyone know if there are options for an add on order? If someone can produce a loco that can run all the way to Scotland and back a few times without breaking down, then demand could really increase in a few years.

 

[BRX]

Let's wait and see whether the new stock is going to bring more ticket price increases with it.

Aside from that I wonder if the new stock will result in any increase in demand.

 

[Drumtochty]

With regards to the home location of offshore workers that tended to be for senior staff who may have to go offshore at short notice if their back to back took ill.

We are talking about say four or five people on the platform here. These days there is usually a person of that seniority and technical background in the Aberdeen office that can be out there within 24 hours.

 

[InOban]

I'm a bit surprised by the discussion about the transfer of a vehicle from Aberdeen to FW. I understood that happens every year.

The main issue is the declining need for the Lowlander. When I thought would need to get from Oban to London it was cheaper to go to Glasgow rather than Crianlarich.

 

[Clansman]

I'm a bit surprised by the discussion about the transfer of a vehicle from Aberdeen to FW. I understood that happens every year.

The main issue is the declining need for the Lowlander. When I thought would need to get from Oban to London it was cheaper to go to Glasgow rather than Crianlarich.

It happens every year in the context of the Aberdeen set being reduced from 4 to 3 sleepers, so the Fort William can have 3 sleepers also. However, this time it's the Fort William with 4 sleepers, and Aberdeen with 2 - which hasn't happened previously (I think), and just emphasises the decline of the Aberdeen sleeper.

 

[43096]

Never knew the sleeper is going to permanently travel on the ECML. What's the details for that?

Has been rumoured for a while. The trigger is HS2 construction disrupting Euston. There is also a view that Kings Cross offers better passenger environment/facilities than Euston. They would need to run 3 trains, though, due to platform lengths at KX.

 

[Clansman]

Has been rumoured for a while. The trigger is HS2 construction disrupting Euston. There is also a view that Kings Cross offers better passenger environment/facilities than Euston. They would need to run 3 trains, though, due to platform lengths at KX.

I take it this is where the Inverness sleeper rumours are based from in terms of it running as it's own service all the way to London?

 

[marks87]

Even allowing for the reduced platform length, will/would splitting the Highlander allow the Fort William seats and lounge to go all the way to London?

Speaking of which - what are the seated loadings like for Aberdeen vs. Fort William? With the latter getting four sleepers, is there a chance it could get Aberdeen's seats and lounge as well (with Aberdeen picking up/dropping off at Waverley)?

 

[TimboM]

Are we expecting Leeds to York to be electrified soonish? (We could well be. I don't pay enough attention to that part of the world. )

Yes - soonish, depending on your definition of "soon"!! Also believe there's
plans for a high-speed chord between the two at some point in the grand HS2/3/whatever plans, but that's probably decades away!

I'd of thought that calling at Donny or Leeds would milk some patronage from the Midlands and Manchester. Missed opportunity if they don't in my opinion as York just seems too far to travel if you're coming from the Midlands and Manchester. Leeds would be ideal for a call should the Sleeper run regularly via the East Coast.

The issue with Leeds as it stands (prior to any Leeds-York electrification) is that it's effectively a branch from the ECML (departing the 'main' line at Donny); so a bit of a dead-end really for an electric loco-hauled train at the current time.

I'd also expect that post any electrification a somewhat circuitous route of Doncaster-Leeds-York would add a fair bit on to the journey time and that probably wouldn't be worth the potential extra passengers that could be picked up - particularly as they could quite easily hop on a TPE/Northern service from Leeds to York and join the Sleeper there.

 

[Clansman]

Even allowing for the reduced platform length, will/would splitting the Highlander allow the Fort William seats and lounge to go all the way to London?

Speaking of which - what are the seated loadings like for Aberdeen vs. Fort William? With the latter getting four sleepers, is there a chance it could get Aberdeen's seats and lounge as well (with Aberdeen picking up/dropping off at Waverley)?

Just what I was thinking also - it'd be daft not to run the Fort William lounge and seated coaches all the way to London if the Inverness gets it's own service.

The seating loadings for both are generally quite good, about half full on average I'd say. I don't see where you're coming from with Fort William getting the Aberdeen seated and lounge etc - whereas you could just run it as a 10 car from Edinburgh anyway.

 

[marks87]

Just what I was thinking also - it'd be daft not to run the Fort William lounge and seated coaches all the way to London if the Inverness gets it's own service.

The seating loadings for both are generally quite good, about half full on average I'd say. I don't see where you're coming from with Fort William getting the Aberdeen seated and lounge etc - whereas you could just run it as a 10 car from Edinburgh anyway.

I didn't phrase that very well, and it made worse by appending it to a post about the move to the ECML.

What I meant was, in terms of the current operation, now that Fort William is getting four sleepers for the summer, what chance of it also getting seats and a lounge all the way through, with Aberdeen attaching/detaching at Waverley?

 

[TimboM]

Has been rumoured for a while. The trigger is HS2 construction disrupting Euston. There is also a view that Kings Cross offers better passenger environment/facilities than Euston. They would need to run 3 trains, though, due to platform lengths at KX.

So presumably the Lowlander would be shortened to fit if it was permanently switched to ECML?

Sounds like if it happens it'll be a challenge sorting the sets out each night as you'd have (say) 6+6 sets on the Lowlanders, an 8(?) on the Inverness-only and 5/6+5/6 on the Aberdeen/Fort Bill? (I guess you could have separate Lowlander/Highlander sets, rather than the rotational basis they have now.) On the Lowlander, logic would suggest the 'dropped' coaches would be sleeper cars (as you need a lounge and the seats) - but aren't the beds (particularly the new fancy ones) where the money is made - and after all the crux of a sleeper!?

Also requires two extra locos (and sets of drivers) on a main North-South run every night, which would pretty much stretch GBRf's operational 92 fleet to the max (although I'm guessing that a 90 could cope with the ETS demand of a shortened Inverness/Aberdeen + Fort Bill set)...

I'm assuming the sleeper stock and locos would still be based at Wembley/Willesden too. It's clearly perfectly feasible to get the trains from there to Kings Cross, but much more of a faff than a short hop down the WCML to Euston. Any possibility (or space!) that they'd relocate to Bounds Green?

All this is some way off, though, so suspect there'll be plenty of ideas and planning before anything is confirmed.

And when Leeds-Manchester is electrified they could even go East AND West Coast (e.g. via Donny-Leeds-Manchester-Preston)...!

 

[robertclark125]

Here's a possible concept thought for you, if it hasn't already been suggested.

Could the Aberdeen sleeper also combine the Edinburgh sleeper, needing possibly 10 coaches, then the Inverness sleeper runs via Stirling and Motherwell, with the FW sleeper going into Glasgow Central (as it used to in the 1980s) and meeting the Inverness sleeper at either Motherwell or Carstairs?

 

[TimboM]

1S25 delayed due to an air leak. Nothing to do with the loco.

I for one never doubted the loco! The 92s seem pretty reliable these days (or certainly no worse than any other loco) - but appreciate it'll take some time before confidence is restored and they're not the assumed reason for any delay/failure!

 

[TimboM]

Here's a possible concept thought for you, if it hasn't already been suggested.

Could the Aberdeen sleeper also combine the Edinburgh sleeper, needing possibly 10 coaches, then the Inverness sleeper runs via Stirling and Motherwell, with the FW sleeper going into Glasgow Central (as it used to in the 1980s) and meeting the Inverness sleeper at either Motherwell or Carstairs?

Wouldn't this involve passengers being turfed off at Edinburgh (key destination) at a very early time - or would your plan be that the Edinburgh "portion" detaches there and sits in platform until a sociable hour?

I think there's also a benefit/attraction of the Lowlander as it stands now from business users (including politicians!) that you can do a full days work + evening out in London (or Edin/Glasgow going the other way) then get on the sleeper around 11pm and have arrived first thing the next morning. I think this combo would result in an earlier start from London?

 

[Clansman]

Realistically, if there is going to be 3 sleeper services to London then something has to give from at least one of the other sleepers in terms of major schedule changes.
As highlighted, the Edinburgh and Glasgow Sleepers are popular as it allows a late departure from London, whereas the Highlander currently is more about connectivity.
So if the sleeper did split into 3, what would realistically work?

Going by the above, the only solution would be to join the Edinburgh and Aberdeen sleeper at Edinburgh, equating to 12 coaches (assuming the sleeper from Aberdeen runs abbreviated at 4 coaches as apparently planned). This way the Aberdeen portion can leave slightly earlier at night, and arrive later in the morning, meaning folk from Leuchars, Dundee and Fife can be onboard before midnight going to London, and off after 7am the next day - possibly increasing the liklihood of passengers.

The Fort William portion then meets the Glasgow Central portion at Edinburgh, allowing the Fort William schedule to retain the passenger links to Glasgow Queen Street and Edinburgh where the seated sleeper currently serves as a "day train". Then both sets run as 14 coaches, including the Fort William seated and lounge coaches, and into London.

Meanwhile, the Inverness portion can freely run on its own as 8 coaches all the way to and from London.

Overall, the Edinburgh and Glasgow sleepers would be able to maintain their late departures and early starts without too much faffing about with the times, whilst the Fort William sleeper maintains it's day service from Edinburgh to Fort William via Glasgow Queen Street. The only sleeper suffering from time alterations would be the Aberdeen portion, which is already in decline, so earlier departures and later starts could possibly open the door for more regular leisure travellers. However, even none of these "realistic" suggestions seem realisic (if that makes sense), so the most idea solution in the event of a move to Kings Cross would be for Network Rail to invest in the station infrastructure to allow 2 platforms to accommodate 16 coaches - the current sleeper times as a whole are fine as they are, which would only lead to complications if a 3rd sleeper was introduced as a breakaway from either the Highlander or Lowlander alternatively.

 

[Maxfly]

Add in aspirations for Sleepers to Oban, would that be the joining with an Oban service at crianlarich? Plenty to throw into the melting pot and see what comes..

 

[TimboM]

Going by the above, the only solution would be to join the Inverness and Aberdeen sleeper at Edinburgh, equating to 12 coaches (assuming the sleeper from Aberdeen runs abbreviated at 4 coaches as apparently planned). This way the Aberdeen portion can leave slightly earlier at night, and arrive later in the morning, meaning folk from Leuchars, Dundee and Fife can be onboard before midnight going to London, and off after 7am the next day - possibly increasing the liklihood of passengers.

I assume you mean join Aberdeen to the Edinburgh portion at Edinburgh (as below you suggest the Inverness would run stand-alone to London and back)?

The Fort William portion then meets the Glasgow Central portion at Edinburgh, allowing the Fort William schedule to retain the passenger links to Glasgow Queen Street and Edinburgh where the seated sleeper currently serves as a "day train". Then both sets run as 14 coaches, including the Fort William seated and lounge coaches, and into London.

My understanding is Kings Cross as it stands can take 12 coaches plus the 2 locos, so this would still be too long - although plan would still work by detaching the FW lounge/seats at Waverley as currently is the case.

However, even none of these "realistic" suggestions seem realisic (if that makes sense), so the most idea solution in the event of a move to Kings Cross would be for Network Rail to invest in the station infrastructure to allow 2 platforms to accommodate 16 coaches - the current sleeper times as a whole are fine as they are, which would only lead to complications if a 3rd sleeper was introduced as a breakaway from either the Highlander or Lowlander alternatively.

Makes sense to me. As does the 'contractual' situation here in so far as I would expect it to be. Network Rail would be saying to Serco "we're not able to provide you Euston and a Load 16 + 2 locos terminus for many months/years for your service whilst HS2 works are on-going" - so logic suggests NR would be obliged to make alternative provisions, rather than Serco having to completely restructure the way the service is run (bearing in mind this service is no doubt all laid out in the franchise agreement with the DfT).

In the context of a project the size of HS2 costing billions and taking many years to complete, lengthening a couple of platforms at Kings Cross is not (comparatively speaking) a big job.

 

[Scotrail84]

Sleepers have been guaranteed the 2 platforms at Euston (1 and 15) during the rebuild of the station for HS2. A move to kings X with the highlander running as separate services would have to be paid for solely by Serco and they would also have to pay GBRF additional millions to provide the extra locos and drivers. That's a non starter at the moment.

They also don't have enough guards to run these services independently. You'd be surprised at the number of Guards that work between London and Edinburgh/Glasgow, it's not many and they knock their pan in keeping that those services running when there's staff shortages/holidays etc.

Kings X is imo years away unless something drastic happens in the next 12 months. There are many additional routes for the drivers and guards to learn as well, Durham coast, Newcastle to Carlisle, ferryhill to Stockton, round via Lincoln and also via Cambridge, not to mention keeping up competency of the WCML too. It will take a while for that to happen.

Someone mentioned the lowlander not being needed? There's not a bed or a seat to be had on it tonight northbound, same with the highlander. No matter how heavy or lightly booked these trains are they will always run as the Scottish government says they'll run. 13 years of this franchise left, I do expect to see major changes but not right now.

 

[Scotrail84]

Let's wait and see whether the new stock is going to bring more ticket price increases with it.

Aside from that I wonder if the new stock will result in any increase in demand.

You cannot book now for when the new trains are in operation, they have closed bookings. There will most certainly be price increases for the new train. You thinks it's expensive just now.....

 

[Clansman]

I assume you mean join Aberdeen to the Edinburgh portion at Edinburgh (as below you suggest the Inverness would run stand-alone to London and back)?

Apologies, I meant Aberdeen as you pointed out

My understanding is Kings Cross as it stands can take 12 coaches plus the 2 locos, so this would still be too long - although plan would still work by detaching the FW lounge/seats at Waverley as currently is the case.

I initially thought it ran with 14 when the Highlander started from there last year, however a quick squint on YouTube showed it was 12.

I'd of though not running the Fort Willy seated and lounge carriages would be a missed opportunity, as they would definitely fill up in my opinion. Although as you said, platform lengths dictate the sleeper formation. But could a lounge car which initially served 8 coaches cope with an additional 4 sleepers, which are sold out most nights?

Makes sense to me. As does the 'contractual' situation here in so far as I would expect it to be. Network Rail would be saying to Serco "we're not able to provide you Euston and a Load 16 + 2 locos terminus for many months/years for your service whilst HS2 works are on-going" - so logic suggests NR would be obliged to make alternative provisions, rather than Serco having to completely restructure the way the service is run (bearing in mind this service is no doubt all laid out in the franchise agreement with the DfT).

In the context of a project the size of HS2 costing billions and taking many years to complete, lengthening a couple of platforms at Kings Cross is not (comparatively speaking) a big job.

I'd of like to have thought St. Pancras was considered however already you are facing security problems and possibly loading gauge issues (if I'm right with this?).

Had a look on Google Earth at Platform 0 at Kings Cross, and it doesn't look too hard or overly expensive to extend the platform to accommodate 14 coaches. Just a case of relaying the curve to align with the shape of the thunderbird sidings and that'd allow an extra coach or 2 worth of platform extension - as you highlighted similarly with Kings X as a whole. But all that for 2 coaches seems far-fetched to say the least unless there was real demand for the Fort Willy to have a seated or lounge car to London.

 

[Marklund]

You cannot book now for when the new trains are in operation, they have closed bookings. There will most certainly be price increases for the new train. You thinks it's expensive just now.....

Will be interesting to see what they do for Priv!

 

[Clansman]

Will be interesting to see what they do for Priv!

They'll probably remain the same, as any changes to PRIV, BR pass and Scotrail Smartcard holders would've been made when Serco took over the Sleeper into it's own franchise.

 

[Scotrail84]

Will be interesting to see what they do for Priv!

Not idea yet, my guess is they will be very restricted as there's less berths per train with the new coaches.

 

[47271]

You cannot book now for when the new trains are in operation, they have closed bookings. There will most certainly be price increases for the new train. You thinks it's expensive just now.....

They'd better be *very* careful with the regular business market, none of whom are looking for Orient Express luxury. The £140/£150 Flexipass is within £20 of a tipping point that could empty the trains out of season. I know quite a few people who are on the sleeper for 60+ single journeys a year and that's what they're telling me. I'm just saying...

 

[Scotrail84]

They'd better be *very* careful with the regular business market, none of whom are looking for Orient Express luxury. The £140/£150 Flexipass is within £20 of a tipping point that could empty the trains out of season. I know quite a few people who are on the sleeper for 60+ single journeys a year and that's what they're telling me. I'm just saying...

Mate, you're preaching to the wrong person with this one.

 

[Norther Monkey]

They'd better be *very* careful with the regular business market, none of whom are looking for Orient Express luxury. The £140/£150 Flexipass is within £20 of a tipping point that could empty the trains out of season. I know quite a few people who are on the sleeper for 60+ single journeys a year and that's what they're telling me. I'm just saying...

From the outset the Scottish Government and Serco produced a franchise that seemed to describe a travelling tin of shortbread. Everything geared towards the tourist market, and the premium end of that.

I have recently started commuting from Aberdeenshire to London, I had hoped to be a regular sleeper user, as it is a hugely civilised way to travel. Sadly it just doesn't add up financially. I fly for less than a third of a flexipass ticket, often significantly more. Perhaps surprisingly Easyjet offer regular customers more flexibility on changing advance fares than the railway.

I had hoped pods were going to offer a comfort/cost halfway house, but they've gone for reasons I don't entirely believe.

Personally I think if prices do rise on the new stock we could be looking at a huge white elephant, and the beginning of the end of this service.

 

[Scotrail84]

From the outset the Scottish Government and Serco produced a franchise that seemed to describe a travelling tin of shortbread. Everything geared towards the tourist market, and the premium end of that.

I have recently started commuting from Aberdeenshire to London, I had hoped to be a regular sleeper user, as it is a hugely civilised way to travel. Sadly it just doesn't add up financially. I fly for less than a third of a flexipass ticket, often significantly more. Perhaps surprisingly Easyjet offer regular customers more flexibility on changing advance fares than the railway.

I had hoped pods were going to offer a comfort/cost halfway house, but they've gone for reasons I don't entirely believe.

Personally I think if prices do rise on the new stock we could be looking at a huge white elephant, and the beginning of the end of this service.

What reasons don't you believe??

That train will run regardless of loadings. Its a parliamentary train so to speak.

 

[43096]

From the outset the Scottish Government and Serco produced a franchise that seemed to describe a travelling tin of shortbread. Everything geared towards the tourist market, and the premium end of that.

That's a very good description. But they need to sort their staff out. Too many surly/borderline rude staff on board. And the less said about sleeper staff smoking on the platform at Aberdeen (and then chucking the fag butts onto the track) the better.