Caledonian Sleeper discussion

[Scotrail84]

1B26 was cancelled because 1S26 was only running with one brakevan. I think this actually goes back to the failure of 47749 in Aberdeen earlier this week, as it had been intended to run its set from Aberdeen to Carstairs to attach to 1B26 on Tuesday but it had to run to Polmadie instead because the sidings at Carstairs were blocked by a grinder. Things have been out of position ever since.

The plan was to shunt a brake van in at Carstairs, until they realised they couldn't do it without poxing the station and mainline for ages.

 

[scotrail170407]

87002 tends to work 5S96 from Wembley to Euston (the stock for the lowlander) in the evening and 5M11 from Euston to Wembley in the morning (the stock ex the Lowlander). At the moment 86101 is the other ACLG loco at the Euston end but is out of service at the moment. 86401 is the ACLG loco at the Scottish end and it tends to work 5M11 from Polmadie to Glasgow Central in the evening and 5S26 from Glasgow Central to Polmadie in the morning.

All of these workings can of course be substituted for CS Class 92s or hired in FL Class 90s. The ACLG machines very rarely work passenger, generally being confined to ECS. Best bet for any passenger use is the Edinburgh-Carstairs portion of the lowlander.

Thank you

 

[Highlandspring]

The plan was to shunt a brake van in at Carstairs, until they realised they couldn't do it without poxing the station and mainline for ages.

I’ve found that CS/GBRf sometimes have a tendency to come up with elaborate plans without seeking the input of Network Rail at an early stage then get upset when it turns out that the available infrastructure cannot support what they hope to do, either in terms of there not being signalled moves for weird and wonderful shunts, possessions blocking routes for last minute VSTP coach swaps from one side of the country to the other, or being unable to accept vehicles being stabled on running lines or in stations for hours on end. In that respect things have gone downhill since the new franchise took over; things that appear simple when looking at a Quail Map in an office in Peterborough aren’t quite so easy to do in real life. The fleet being moved from cyclic maintenance at Inverness to a seemingly more ad hoc arrangement at Polmadie (with the requirement to swap coaches in and out at the Waverley) hasn’t helped matters. Everyone is working towards the same goal but it can be a frustrating situation for both sides.

 

[fgwrich]

87002 tends to work 5S96 from Wembley to Euston (the stock for the lowlander) in the evening and 5M11 from Euston to Wembley in the morning (the stock ex the Lowlander). At the moment 86101 is the other ACLG loco at the Euston end but is out of service at the moment. 86401 is the ACLG loco at the Scottish end and it tends to work 5M11 from Polmadie to Glasgow Central in the evening and 5S26 from Glasgow Central to Polmadie in the morning.

All of these workings can of course be substituted for CS Class 92s or hired in FL Class 90s. The ACLG machines very rarely work passenger, generally being confined to ECS. Best bet for any passenger use is the Edinburgh-Carstairs portion of the lowlander.

If your lucky enough, you can catch one of the ACLG Electrics (usually 87002) on passenger duties when the sleepers are on diversion via East Coast. The 92 will work it from Edinburgh Waverley to Wembley via the East Coast and North London Line, where another loco will then tag onto the end and haul the Sleeper back down into Euston. I was lucky enough to have this with 87002 back in August.

 

[swaldman]

Surely the dramatic escalation in pricing has something to do with this.

I used the sleeper quite a lot about 10 years ago and think it’s such a brilliant way to travel.

I’d love to do it more often but, assuming you want a solo cabin, you aren’t able to book weeks ahead and you don’t have the luxury of flexibility on dates, it is just so expensive now. The berth supplement I used to purchase, the Caledonian Solo was £50. For a few dates I checked recently it’s now £100.

I used to be able to make the case at work (where the standard travel policy is to refund an standard off peak ticket) that the small extra cost was better than a cheap hotel room or a red eye flight to London, and it was always my preferred way to arrive for a day’s work in London feeling refreshed. CS’ pricing makes that harder and harder to argue. I can’t be the only one ...

No, you're definitely not. I used to do London to/from Inverness and Aberdeen a few times a year back in about 2010-12ish. Now, every time I look at it, it's cheaper to fly down and book a luxury hotel overnight[1] - so there's no way I can justify it to anybody. It makes me very sad, as I dislike unnecessary air travel for a whole host of reasons.
The fare increases are a large part of the difference, but equally important is that you can't book a bunk in a shared cabin any more - which for a solo traveller who was willing to do that, effectively means another 50% or more onto the cost. Seems very odd to me that when the disadvantage of a sleeper train is already that one can't get many people on it, it runs with a load of berths empty because of this...

[1] Not that I do - but it demonstrates the absurdity.

 

[swaldman]

Actually I'd disagree, for the West Highland line the fact that it brings in so many tourists it is a lifeline and its kind of an indication that London does care and does regard particularly Lochaber as something that belongs to the UK and is worth supporting. Id think that would be the case for all the Highlander services to one degree or another and probably so to a lessor extent for the lowlanders.

Hmm. The charitable way of looking at things is that by subsidising a service used mostly by tourists, the government(s) are aiding Scottish tourism, possibly to quite a good return on their investment.

The cynical view is that the sleeper is the favoured way for many Scottish MPs to get to and from their constituencies... and so it will always get the subsidy that it needs to run, but it doesn't matter how much the tickets cost as they go on expenses anyway.

Either way I find it absurd that we subsidise a service and yet it's still too expensive for most local people to use.

 

[TimboM]

Hmm. The charitable way of looking at things is that by subsidising a service used mostly by tourists, the government(s) are aiding Scottish tourism, possibly to quite a good return on their investment.

The cynical view is that the sleeper is the favoured way for many Scottish MPs to get to and from their constituencies... and so it will always get the subsidy that it needs to run, but it doesn't matter how much the tickets cost as they go on expenses anyway.

Either way I find it absurd that we subsidise a service and yet it's still too expensive for most local people to use.

Good summary of the subsidy rationale...!

In terms of the final point, the other way of looking at it is even with a multi-million pound annual subsidy, the prices are still high and Serco still make a loss - which gives an indication of how costly (or cost inefficient) a Sleeper train is to run - and quite how much the tickets would be without the subsidy.

A logical progression maybe that the subsidy should be even bigger to make the fares affordable...?? Can’t see that happening though, nor anyone suggesting it...!

With all the specialised stock, crew, locos, drivers, shunters, track access, cleaning/prep etc etc for trains which can only work once every 24 hours and can carry comparatively few passengers the Sleeper inherently has a high cost per passenger.

It’d be interestring to know what that real cost was and compare that to what people think they should pay for it, as there appears to be a big disconnect between the two.

 

[swaldman]

Good summary of the subsidy rationale...!

In terms of the final point, the other way of looking at it is even with a multi-million pound annual subsidy, the prices are still high and Serco still make a loss - which gives an indication of how costly (or cost inefficient) a Sleeper train is to run - and quite how much the tickets would be without the subsidy.

A logical progression maybe that the subsidy should be even bigger to make the fares affordable...?? Can’t see that happening though, nor anyone suggesting it...!

With all the specialised stock, crew, locos, drivers, shunters, track access, cleaning/prep etc etc for trains which can only work once every 24 hours and can carry comparatively few passengers the Sleeper inherently has a high cost per passenger.

It’d be interestring to know what that real cost was and compare that to what people think they should pay for it, as there appears to be a big disconnect between the two.

That's true - and actually, given the low passenger density, I'd be interested to know the energy use per passenger km compared to flying.
However, we need to remember that Scotrail were able to make it work with much, much lower fares! I don't know whether the level of subsidy has reduced? Or whether perhaps First Scotrail were cross-subsidising from their other services? Or whether Serco are just hoping to rake it in...

 

[Norther Monkey]

Sorry if this is a stupid question but why do the oil workers live so far from Aberdeen - is it the two weeks on/off which makes it worth living down south and commuting for each rotation?

For those that work offshore that's exactly the situation. Aberdeen is the departure point for most helicopter transfers to offshore installations. Although many offshore workers do live in the north of Scotland, if you're on an offshore rotation you can pretty much live where you want with one big commute every 2-3 weeks.

 

[pitdiver]

Somewhere up thread someone mentioned the cost of flying to Aberdeen. I am flying up there next year. £23 Luton-Aberdeen. Aberdeen -Luton £25

 

[paul1609]

For those that work offshore that's exactly the situation. Aberdeen is the departure point for most helicopter transfers to offshore installations. Although many offshore workers do live in the north of Scotland, if you're on an offshore rotation you can pretty much live where you want with one big commute every 2-3 weeks.

Im a bit sceptical that there were ever many offshore workers on the sleeper to be honest.
The offshore helicopters tend to leave in a big cluster before 8 am in the morning, then in dribs and drabs throughout the day and then another cluster in the evening I wouldn't have thought that the sleeper was good for maybe 75% of the flights.
There might well have been more people travelling to the offices of offshore firms in years gone by but I rather think that died out with budget airlines.

 

[Highlandspring]

Exactly, check in at Aberdeen for morning offshore helicopter flights is generally around 0500 - 0600. Most of my family and friends who work offshore (and there are plenty of them, having grown up in the north east) are taxied to the airport. I think the whole ‘offshore workers using the sleeper’ thing is a myth perpetuated by those who don’t understand how the oil industry works.

 

[TimboM]

92014 leading 1S25 tonight with 90045 Dead in Train to get it back to Edinburgh (after it brought the Aberdeen ECS south this morning).
92023 on 5S95/1S26
92033 on 1M11
90047 on 1M16
86401 on 1C11 etc

 

[Sarahs_Railway]

It's more the Lowlanders I'd see as a concern - there are plenty of day trains and flights. The West Highland, despite BR's attempt to kill it off, is probably the most important one as it is the only way for a Londoner (a huge market) to have a weekend away in the area with no time off work at all - all the other options are likely to at least involve leaving a bit early to get a flight to pick up a hire car to arrive at a reasonable hour when your accommodation is still checking people in - or to get to FW on day trains a generous half day holiday and a long Sunday on trains having had to take a bus due to the lack of a morning train on the line.

Of the Highlanders Aberdeen is probably the biggest concern, and I could see, if it keeps getting such low numbers (wasn't it the oil workers who used to bolster it?), it being removed in favour of connections and a much simpler arrangement of two half-trains, one to FW and one to Inverness - which would if nothing else hugely simplify the shunt.

Surely the Aberdeen sections low load is due to the pricing? I for one don't use them anymore. £95 single one year ago and now £160 in the same stock? Dream on Serco.

 

[Sarahs_Railway]

The Ft Bill portion yesterday morning had a pair of 73's and 3xMK3 sleepers, is that due to the extra sleeper or did they need it in Ft William. Also with the continued hire in of the skip and occasional use of a 47 is this an indication that there arnt enough 73's to reliably handle the diagrams or are they still tying one or more up doing MK5 testing?, will tge December timetable change mean anything sleeper changes or will it be as now,timing and motive power wise I know the new coaches are delayed,thanks

This may be interest and other more learned members can add flesh to the bones - 73961 was in Craigentinny around 1700 today in a siding with two DB Cherry red 67's blockng the exit. I think one of the 67's was 014 but I was half asleep so don't take my word on that. Also a Colas 47 with a black nameplate that I presume was "City of Truro"?

 

[aar0]

Couchettes, I can't see why they wouldn't work. On a back-of-the-envelope estimate, you'd get 32 passengers in one coach, similar to the old LNER third-class sleepers. Put two on a portion, one to replace the seated car and one to soak up the non-tourist traffic, and reduce the luxury sleeping cars from six to five. Sounds like a plan, no?

Funnily enough, having Googled LNER 3rd Class sleepers, I found the following link, showing showers in sleeper coaches in the 30s! https://www.steve-banks.org/modelling/233-lner-66-6-1st-sleeping-car

 

[TimboM]

1B26 was cancelled because 1S26 was only running with one brakevan. I think this actually goes back to the failure of 47749 in Aberdeen earlier this week, as it had been intended to run its set from Aberdeen to Carstairs to attach to 1B26 on Tuesday but it had to run to Polmadie instead because the sidings at Carstairs were blocked by a grinder. Things have been out of position ever since.

Thanks for the info. However, on Tues am, 86401 (on 5Z26 VSTP) ran the stock that had been stranded at Aberdeen on Sunday night after 47749 sat down out to Carstairs from Polmadie in the early hours. 86401 ran back light (0Z26) and 1B26 then ran (90047) - which suggests they were successfully reunited with the rest of the half-set at Carstairs.

1S26 this morning was Load 13 (Aberdeen portion currently Load 5 I believe, so a train with that part missing would be a Load 11). This would suggest 1S26 was light of 3 coaches this morning (including a brake) for some other reasons/failures.

The plan was to shunt a brake van in at Carstairs, until they realised they couldn't do it without poxing the station and mainline for ages.

I take it you're referring to this morning? (as the plan to add on coaches from Polmadie did seem to work Tues morning as above)

...The fleet being moved from cyclic maintenance at Inverness to a seemingly more ad hoc arrangement at Polmadie (with the requirement to swap coaches in and out at the Waverley) hasn’t helped matters...

The maintenance is still cyclical - the sets rotate around the routes so they pass through Polmadie and Wembley at regular intervals. As for the Fort Bill day coaches, these have always come off/on at Edinburgh and just travel between EDB and FTW, so even when the main depot was Inverness, they'd presumably still have had to do the periodic swaps to/from Edinburgh to change the two "day coaches" over for maintenance?

 

[TimboM]

This may be interest and other more learned members can add flesh to the bones - 73961 was in Craigentinny around 1700 today in a siding with two DB Cherry red 67's blockng the exit. I think one of the 67's was 014 but I was half asleep so don't take my word on that. Also a Colas 47 with a black nameplate that I presume was "City of Truro"?

I take it you saw 73971 (961 is currently in Kent). 971 is at EC for attention along with 970 currently.

The 47 was indeed 47749, back at EC after its misbehaviour in Aberdeen on Sunday night.

It'll have been 67004 you saw I think, as 014 is in Crewe IEMD at the moment (and silver!) - 004 is now DB Red (used to be CS Midnight Teal ironically) - it worked 1M16 south last night, but then declared a failure and replaced by 66746 + 73969.

The other DB Red 67 will have been 010.

 

[Sarahs_Railway]

I take it you saw 73971 (961 is currently in Kent). 971 is at EC for attention along with 970 currently.

The 47 was indeed 47749, back at EC after its misbehaviour in Aberdeen on Sunday night.

It'll have been 67004 you saw I think, as 014 is in Crewe IEMD at the moment (and silver!) - 004 is now DB Red (used to be CS Midnight Teal ironically) - it worked 1M16 south last night, but then declared a failure and replaced by 66746 + 73969.

The other DB Red 67 will have been 010.

Thank you Tim. I only noticed it because the 73 was blocked by the 2 67's. As I said I was half asleep and gazing into the middle distance!

 

[Bald Rick]

That's true - and actually, given the low passenger density, I'd be interested to know the energy use per passenger km compared to flying.
However, we need to remember that Scotrail were able to make it work with much, much lower fares! I don't know whether the level of subsidy has reduced? Or whether perhaps First Scotrail were cross-subsidising from their other services? Or whether Serco are just hoping to rake it in...

I don’t think there can be any doubt that FSR cross subsidised. I suspect it was also more efficient with crewing etc for the highlander north of the central belt.

 

[JModulo]

86401 1C11 tonight.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I don’t think there can be any doubt that FSR cross subsidised. I suspect it was also more efficient with crewing etc for the highlander north of the central belt.

Which is clearly why it was left out of the WCML package back in 1994 - 96 or whatever , as well as giving some considerable local control at the time on resources etc. Particularly for workload on vehicle mtc etc ......

 

[Dr Hoo]

Which is clearly why it was left out of the WCML package back in 1994 - 96 or whatever , as well as giving some considerable local control at the time on resources etc. Particularly for workload on vehicle mtc etc ......

This is broadly true although with maintenance and especially servicing split across Wembley, Polmadie, Clayhills (Aberdeen, actually an outbase of Craigentinny) as well as Inverness and Fort William it was inevitably going be a bit of a contractual challenge.

I always struggled with the concept of something being ‘cross subsidised’ within a heavily subsidised ScotRail franchise.

Fundamentally sleepers are never going to make a profit with such low vehicle utilisation and occupancy, especially with very little additional revenue from mail or parcels in the modern era. (Seafood from the WHL noted.)

 

[Journeyman]

HOW much?

I still think they will regret not seeking out a workable option for the flatbeds or some form of couchettes.

A lot of effort went into trying to get the pod flatbeds to work, and it was a serious problem when it couldn't be resolved - that was going to be the low-cost but still reasonably comfortable option that would have high capacity and a decent profit margin. It's rather seriously affected the economics of the new trains now it can't be provided.

Essentially they couldn't come up with a suitable layout that could get safety approval - the best layout for comfort and space would have caused serious problems in a collision, and the safest layout was extremely unattractive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Was something totally different not considered, eg longitudinal couchettes?

 

[Clansman]

Essentially they couldn't come up with a suitable layout that could get safety approval - the best layout for comfort and space would have caused serious problems in a collision, and the safest layout was extremely unattractive.

Any idea as to what this would've looked like?

 

[Journeyman]

Any idea as to what this would've looked like?

I've seen various proposed layouts, but my memory fails me a bit, I'm afraid. Suffice to say a lot of effort went into trying to solve it all, but it just couldn't be done.

 

[jagardner1984]

One quick question. Has anyone been on the service in standard where you have to share with someone travelling from a different station ? (It would seem kind of rubbish if you do). The Lowlander is ludicrously expensive when I need to travel next week, so I’m considering getting the FW to/from Dalmuir, and figuring the number of male travellers on a Tuesday night at 23:07 from Dalmuir is probably quite limited !!

 

[JonathanH]

...the FW to/from Dalmuir, and figuring the number of male travellers on a Tuesday night at 23:07 from Dalmuir is probably quite limited !!

23:07 on a Sunday, 23:52 on weeknights

It isn't so clear how sharing from different stations works now that people choose berths online. It doesn't make sense to turn away custom from one station just because another person has booked a berth at another.

 

[Norther Monkey]

A lot of effort went into trying to get the pod flatbeds to work, and it was a serious problem when it couldn't be resolved - that was going to be the low-cost but still reasonably comfortable option that would have high capacity and a decent profit margin. It's rather seriously affected the economics of the new trains now it can't be provided.

Essentially they couldn't come up with a suitable layout that could get safety approval - the best layout for comfort and space would have caused serious problems in a collision, and the safest layout was extremely unattractive.

I'm curious, as a layperson, how this could be. Trains run every day at 125 mph with no seat belts, people standing, loose luggage, unrestrained catering trolleys etc. etc. Presumably this is considered acceptably safe.
Yet a few dozen basic beds, bolted to the floor, were considered unsafe?