Could a Sleeper service run to Wick?

[BRX]

Alright, interesting if true, on the costs.

But you've got 10 passengers in Wick, 5 in Thurso, 2 in Tain, 1 in Invergordon, and 15 in Inverness. About half of them want to get to Glasgow, a couple want to get to Perth, and the rest want to get to Edinburgh. They all want to get to their destinations around the beginning of the day. Meanwhile there are similar numbers wanting to go the other way, with a different scattering of origins/destinations and they also want to arrive at the beginning of the day.

You have to do all this with 2 fancy helicopters with 9 seats each.

So how does that work?

 

[BRX]

Also - what are the workings to arrive at the £4M cost for the sleeper operation?

 

[johnnychips]

But you've got 10 passengers in Wick, 5 in Thurso, 2 in Tain, 1 in Invergordon, and 15 in Inverness.

I hardly think that justifies a train! Chauffeur driven Bentleys would be cheaper.

 

[Bald Rick]

Alright, interesting if true, on the costs.

But you've got 10 passengers in Wick, 5 in Thurso, 2 in Tain, 1 in Invergordon, and 15 in Inverness. About half of them want to get to Glasgow, a couple want to get to Perth, and the rest want to get to Edinburgh. They all want to get to their destinations around the beginning of the day. Meanwhile there are similar numbers wanting to go the other way, with a different scattering of origins/destinations and they also want to arrive at the beginning of the day.

You have to do all this with 2 fancy helicopters with 9 seats each.

So how does that work?

They book, like they would with the sleeper.

 

[Bald Rick]

Also - what are the workings to arrive at the £4M cost for the sleeper operation?

Staff: Given the length of the journey, and ECS either end it would need two drivers for each train each way. Same for the guards. 4 of each, every night. Standard cover ratio is 2. So 8 of each. On board customer service crew - given the train formation proposed, 2 for each service, lodging every other night. Cover ratio may not be 2, but not far off. Another 8. All on permanent nights. Cleaners / bed making / linen washing etc at either end. Easily another 4 people. A couple of supervisors and/or a manager to run it each night. That’s 30 people already, and assumes that all the operational tasks are covered by these guys - shunting, cleaning, stocking up, welcoming, station duties etc. Also salary is only around 60-70% of staff cost; you have to add employers NI, pension, and other benefits. That’s at least £1.5m on staff costs, almost certainly more.

Rolling stock. Let’s assume someone gets the coaches for free (They won’t). They will need maintenance (where?), and daily tanking / emptying. Given the fleet size, a self contained maintenance operation wouldn’t be sensible, so you need to hire in. Easily £0.4m, to include parts and consumables.

Haulage. Will need to hire & maintain locos, or buy at least 3. Either way you won’t get much change out of £300kpa per loco including maintenance, but let’s be optimistic and say £0.8m for the 3.

Fuel. This sort of train will be lucky to do 1mpg (rather less than the helicopter, incidentally). Central belt to Wick via Aberdeen will use over £1000 worth each way (at the costs rail companies pay for diesel). £0.6m.

Track access costs. There would be a fixed charge per train, plus a variable charge per vehicle mile. Given the type of train I’d expect the former to be in the range of £1000-£1500per train, and the latter to be about £2/mile. Let’s go low, and call it £1500 / train total. Another £1m.

That’s £4.3m on optimistic assumptions, one of which is the the rolling stock is free.

Oh, but then there’s lots of other costs in running a rail service. How do you buy a ticket? Who decides on pricing? Marketing? Who staffs control and on call? Who does a customer call if there’s a problem? Safety management systems? Contract management? Insurance? Finance? HR? Who runs the whole thing? Of course this could all be subsumed within CS or Scotrail if they got the contract. If it’s wasn’t Scotrail, there would have to be arrangements made and paid for to access the stations. They would know that and price accordingly. All of this is another half million or so for this size of operation. And finally, why would any operator want to do this if there wasn’t a little profit at the end? Let’s say a very modest 4%.

That now adds up to a round £5m.

 

[Clayton]

A few orders of magnitude more of speculation compared to the Thurso sleeper
Just like a bridge to Ireland. But you'll always find idiots to support that kind of idea:
https://www.irishpost.com/news/boris-johnson-backs-northern-ireland-scotland-bridge-168622

Johnson is a complete idiot, as we know. A bridge or tunnel to Northern Ireland would be political dynamite and unacceptable to half the population of the area.

 

[BRX]

They book, like they would with the sleeper.

What do you mean - under your system it's only possible for 9 people per day to travel in each direction, if they want a morning arrival? It's not providing the same thing. You'd actually need something like 6 or 8 helicopters which would completely blow your budget, and unlike a sleeper train if the service became more popular, the costs would go up pretty much linearly with passenger capacity.

 

[BRX]

But you've got 10 passengers in Wick, 5 in Thurso, 2 in Tain, 1 in Invergordon, and 15 in Inverness.

I hardly think that justifies a train! Chauffeur driven Bentleys would be cheaper.

Bald Rick proposed two 9-seat helicopters each doing three return flights a day, which would give a maximum capacity of 54 seats per day in each direction. My numbers, plucked out of the air, are simply to demonstrate that even with smaller numbers, you can't actually provide that capacity if all your passengers want to arrive at their destination with a full day ahead, and if they don't all have the same start/finish points.

Even with your 54 passengers packed neatly into 9-person groups at 6 different locations, and each group wanting the same destination, in order to provide the take-off at 7am and land at 9am service, you are going to need 6 helicopters in each direction. So 12 helicopters. So that adds about £10M to the bill.

While the helicopter-on-demand idea would certainly provide an attractive service for certain scenarios, it doesn't provide what a sleeper train can provide, and neither could chauffeur-driven Bentleys.

 

[Clip]

,SNIP>

That now adds up to a round £5m.

Well as it happens, I’ve been making a few enquiries. And have some answers, albeit approximate.
<Snip>

Pretty impressive answers

What do you mean - under your system it's only possible for 9 people per day to travel in each direction, if they want a morning arrival

Bald Rick proposed two 9-seat helicopters each doing three return flights a day, which would give a maximum capacity of 54 seats per day in each direction.

Think you have just contradicted yourself there.

At the end of the day deep down you know its not feasible and whilst as nice as it sounds to have do you not think the money would be better spent elsewhere up in the far north of scotland?

 

[47271]

Well, I'll give this thread something - and to be clear I'm not being at all sarcastic when I write this, I'm genuinely impressed.

Most of what's written in the main Caledonian Sleeper area is ill informed opinion based on the previous poster's equally ill informed opinion, whether on the subject of haggis supplies running critically low or wakeup calls coming too early.

That we're able to have a properly informed discussion about the costs of a seemingly crackpot scheme using old mk3 sleepers versus its preposterous alternative, the use of helicopters on demand, is a great tribute to the quality of this forum.

Keep up the good work.

 

[BRX]

Pretty impressive answers




Think you have just contradicted yourself there.

At the end of the day deep down you know its not feasible and whilst as nice as it sounds to have do you not think the money would be better spent elsewhere up in the far north of scotland?

I don't see any contradiction.

I don't know if the sleeper idea is feasible and it seems unlikely it'll happen.

What I'm pretty sure of is that the helicopter idea is not capable of delivering something similar at a lower cost. The particular things that an overnight train can provide, can't realistically be provided by the alternatives that are being suggested.

 

[Bald Rick]

What do you mean - under your system it's only possible for 9 people per day to travel in each direction, if they want a morning arrival? It's not providing the same thing. You'd actually need something like 6 or 8 helicopters which would completely blow your budget, and unlike a sleeper train if the service became more popular, the costs would go up pretty much linearly with passenger capacity.

Just so we’re clear, I am not seriously suggesting a Helicopter taxi service. I am just bringing some numbers to the discussion to show how alternatives can be better - and must be considered. A far, far cheaper alternative would be a luxury overnight coach service - like the sort bands have on tour. You could comfortably do that for well under £1m a year, including free food and unlimited Champagne. Another alternative which would also be cheaper, and far more convenient (being door to door), would be chauffeur driven exec limos.

Anyway, for the helicopter, it would be quite feasible for there to be two morning arrivals at each end, because there are two choppers both doing return trips. It is highly unlikely that everyone using it would need to be at origin / destination at the same time. And this is the point - being a taxi type service it can be flexible. It only needs to stop where passengers are going, and (within reason) can operate at times the customers want. (My suggestion was that the choppers were configured for 8 passengers, so that is 16 potential morning arrivals, and 16 potential evening departures each day)

And of course, it has a finite capacity, but then so does the sleeper. Given that (AIUI) the imaginary Wick proposal is for only one sleeper coach north of Inverness, that’s going to be 12 people at best, unless some of them are travelling together and are happy to share. What happens if 14 individual travellers turn up wanting a berth? The helicopter could cope, because it is much more flexible.

My point is that for the travelling public who need to make this journey (as opposed to doing it for the journey itself) - if they were offered a 12 hour sleeper trip from the far north to the central belt at a daily fixed time from fixed locations, or a sub 2 hour helicopter trip at flexible times and more flexible locations, at the same price, the vast majority would choose the latter.

 

[stepho]

Well, I'll give this thread something - and to be clear I'm not being at all sarcastic when I write this, I'm genuinely impressed.

Most of what's written in the main Caledonian Sleeper area is ill informed opinion based on the previous poster's equally ill informed opinion, whether on the subject of haggis supplies running critically low or wakeup calls coming too early.

That we're able to have a properly informed discussion about the costs of a seemingly crackpot scheme using old mk3 sleepers versus its preposterous alternative, the use of helicopters on demand, is a great tribute to the quality of this forum.

Keep up the good work.

In that case, maybe it's time to elaborate on my Wick to Weymouth Harbour sleeper vision......

 

[alistairlees]

In that case, maybe it's time to elaborate on my Wick to Weymouth Harbour sleeper vision......

With a portion from Bradford Interchange to Penzance I assume?

 

[BRX]

Just so we’re clear, I am not seriously suggesting a Helicopter taxi service. I am just bringing some numbers to the discussion to show how alternatives can be better - and must be considered. A far, far cheaper alternative would be a luxury overnight coach service - like the sort bands have on tour. You could comfortably do that for well under £1m a year, including free food and unlimited Champagne. Another alternative which would also be cheaper, and far more convenient (being door to door), would be chauffeur driven exec limos.

Anyway, for the helicopter, it would be quite feasible for there to be two morning arrivals at each end, because there are two choppers both doing return trips. It is highly unlikely that everyone using it would need to be at origin / destination at the same time. And this is the point - being a taxi type service it can be flexible. It only needs to stop where passengers are going, and (within reason) can operate at times the customers want. (My suggestion was that the choppers were configured for 8 passengers, so that is 16 potential morning arrivals, and 16 potential evening departures each day)

And of course, it has a finite capacity, but then so does the sleeper. Given that (AIUI) the imaginary Wick proposal is for only one sleeper coach north of Inverness, that’s going to be 12 people at best, unless some of them are travelling together and are happy to share. What happens if 14 individual travellers turn up wanting a berth? The helicopter could cope, because it is much more flexible.

My point is that for the travelling public who need to make this journey (as opposed to doing it for the journey itself) - if they were offered a 12 hour sleeper trip from the far north to the central belt at a daily fixed time from fixed locations, or a sub 2 hour helicopter trip at flexible times and more flexible locations, at the same price, the vast majority would choose the latter.

I get it that you're not seriously suggesting it.

However - what you're doing is proposing something that sounds preposterous, and then saying, well, actually it's less preposterous than the sleeper proposal. And in order to do that, you are making out that it is in some way something that could provide what the sleeper service would. But it's not. Much of the criticism of the sleeper proposal raises the practicalities of timetabling, stock servicing and so on, so it seems fair to subject your hypothetical proposal to the same level of detailed questioning.

You're ignoring the question of how you deal with passengers starting and finishing in disparate locations.

The capacity of the currently proposed sleeper service is at least one sleeper coach and one 'day' coach. That's a minimum of 12 sleeper places, up to 24 if people are sharing. Many people travel as couples or families and can take advantage of shared cabins. And sharing with strangers, after all, used to be allowed and relatively popular on the CS. Then you have a seated coach which depending on configuration might seat anywhere between 30 and 70 people.

Taking your idea that there are 16 morning arrivals in each direction each day...what does that look like in practice?

Maybe a helicopter takes off from Thurso at 7am. Does it stop at two or three intermediate locations to pick up the passengers who want to start from there? I imagine there's something like a 30 mins time penalty for each. So the theoretical sub-2hr flight time becomes, say, 3 hours. It lands at Edinburgh Airport at 10am. Maybe the (8) passengers make it to central edinburgh by 11, when the sleeper would have had them there before 8. Now it sets off for Glasgow. Or do Glasgow passengers take a taxi to Glasgow? Let's assume they do. Now, it's going to have to take on board the second shift of northbound passengers (assuming the other helicopter has been doing the first shift). Perhaps by some great efficiency of logistics it takes off with them at 10.30, and with an intermediate stop or two makes it to Thurso by 13.30. Meanwhile the other helicopter brings the second shift of southbound passengers and they presumably make it to Edinburgh airport by 1330 and perhaps into town, or to Glasgow, by about 1430, with two and a half hours worth of the working day left.

Of course, the first helicopter could depart Thurso at 5am instead, so you'd have to get up about 3 or 4am for that, and then the second helicopter could make it to Edinburgh or Glasgow by 1230 instead, and those passengers might make it into town in time for lunch.

We've not even started to think about how you go about arranging landing sites at the various intermediate points, and how local residents would feel about the noise of various helicopter departures and arrivals each morning and evening.

But it seems that the helicopter scheme can manage to deliver, in each direction up to 8 people to their destination mid morning, and a further 8 by mid afternoon.

On the other hand the sleeper can deliver, in each direction potentially up to 70 or 80 people to their destination, quite easily before 8am.

(All this ignoring for now the Inverness section of either operation)

One scheme sounds more hair-brained than the other to me.

On-demand helicopters sound like something that you could replace the scheduled flights with, and provide something of equal or greater convenience. They aren't something that can provide what the sleeper could provide though.

As per previous disclaimer - I'm not constructing an argument for the viability of the sleeper idea. I'm rejecting the proposition that these hypothetical alternatives are in any way equivalent in what they offer or in their level of viability.

 

[Struner]

& those heliflights would need helipads?
& those helipads would need planning permission?
& part of the permission would be firebrigade on standby?
Just wondering...

 

[Clayton]

Erm would anyone want such a sleeper? Better to fly to Orkney if you want speed, or take a day train and look at the scenery if you’re not in a hurry.

 

[Struner]

Like I mentioned before, I know of quite a few Orcadians living in the Central Belt, who would like to go over for a weekend. & flying can be quite expensive if you don't plan way beforehand.
But all the same, Serco (yes, them again) would have to oblige with the timetable of the ferry.
Flying from Glasgow next weekend (& that is the sort of timespan people would like to see), whether leaving on Friday (but that means flying at 13:40, so half a day off) or on Saturday, would set you back by some £430...

 

[Clayton]

Like I mentioned before, I know of quite a few Orcadians living in the Central Belt, who would like to go over for a weekend. & flying can be quite expensive if you don't plan way beforehand.
But all the same, Serco (yes, them again) would have to oblige with the timetable of the ferry.
Flying from Glasgow next weekend (& that is the sort of timespan people would like to see), whether leaving on Friday (but that means flying at 13:40, so half a day off) or on Saturday, would set you back by some £430...

Well we don’t know how much a sleeper would cost! But surely not enough demand

 

[Bald Rick]

I get it that you're not seriously suggesting it.

However - what you're doing is proposing something that sounds preposterous, and then saying, well, actually it's less preposterous than the sleeper proposal. And in order to do that, you are making out that it is in some way something that could provide what the sleeper service would. But it's not. Much of the criticism of the sleeper proposal raises the practicalities of timetabling, stock servicing and so on, so it seems fair to subject your hypothetical proposal to the same level of detailed questioning.

You're ignoring the question of how you deal with passengers starting and finishing in disparate locations.

The capacity of the currently proposed sleeper service is at least one sleeper coach and one 'day' coach. That's a minimum of 12 sleeper places, up to 24 if people are sharing. Many people travel as couples or families and can take advantage of shared cabins. And sharing with strangers, after all, used to be allowed and relatively popular on the CS. Then you have a seated coach which depending on configuration might seat anywhere between 30 and 70 people.

Taking your idea that there are 16 morning arrivals in each direction each day...what does that look like in practice?

Maybe a helicopter takes off from Thurso at 7am. Does it stop at two or three intermediate locations to pick up the passengers who want to start from there? I imagine there's something like a 30 mins time penalty for each. So the theoretical sub-2hr flight time becomes, say, 3 hours. It lands at Edinburgh Airport at 10am. Maybe the (8) passengers make it to central edinburgh by 11, when the sleeper would have had them there before 8. Now it sets off for Glasgow. Or do Glasgow passengers take a taxi to Glasgow? Let's assume they do. Now, it's going to have to take on board the second shift of northbound passengers (assuming the other helicopter has been doing the first shift). Perhaps by some great efficiency of logistics it takes off with them at 10.30, and with an intermediate stop or two makes it to Thurso by 13.30. Meanwhile the other helicopter brings the second shift of southbound passengers and they presumably make it to Edinburgh airport by 1330 and perhaps into town, or to Glasgow, by about 1430, with two and a half hours worth of the working day left.

Of course, the first helicopter could depart Thurso at 5am instead, so you'd have to get up about 3 or 4am for that, and then the second helicopter could make it to Edinburgh or Glasgow by 1230 instead, and those passengers might make it into town in time for lunch.

We've not even started to think about how you go about arranging landing sites at the various intermediate points, and how local residents would feel about the noise of various helicopter departures and arrivals each morning and evening.

But it seems that the helicopter scheme can manage to deliver, in each direction up to 8 people to their destination mid morning, and a further 8 by mid afternoon.

On the other hand the sleeper can deliver, in each direction potentially up to 70 or 80 people to their destination, quite easily before 8am.

(All this ignoring for now the Inverness section of either operation)

One scheme sounds more hair-brained than the other to me.

On-demand helicopters sound like something that you could replace the scheduled flights with, and provide something of equal or greater convenience. They aren't something that can provide what the sleeper could provide though.

As per previous disclaimer - I'm not constructing an argument for the viability of the sleeper idea. I'm rejecting the proposition that these hypothetical alternatives are in any way equivalent in what they offer or in their level of viability.

All fair points! Yes it is hair brained, and full of flaws. I went with it to show what sort of numbers are involved. I probably should have stuck with the chauffeur driven limos or executive coach service!

Just a couple of points - the extra time for a chopper calling en route is relatively small; about 5-10 minutes per stop. However I doubt that there would be that many intermediate calls - with a maximum of 8 on board by definition there can’t be. I’d expect almost all the traffic that would use the sleeper to be between Thurso / Wick / Tain and Glasgow / Edinburgh. I really don’t believe there would be that much between the central belt and Inverness.

You don’t need a heliport as such, just a field or the top of a suitable building. There’s a chap who commutes to an office near where I live by chopper, takes off from his (admittedly large) garden and lands in the field round the corner from the office. No need for fire brigade or any heliport paraphernalia. And no need for check in etc - if it’s picking you up at 0700, get there for 0658, and wake up as late as necessary for that!

Re capacity, and the seats - no doubt there would be a lot more capacity when you include the seated coach, but I don’t believe this idea was really conceived as a seated service. If it was, it could have been done years ago. Of course it would be a lot, lot cheaper to put on a luxury road coach overnight for the seats. That there isn’t a night coach tells you about the size of the market for overnight seated travel. There is no way the overnight service would be remotely full except on a handful of nights a year - again if it was going to be even close to being full there would be a night road coach already.

Perhaps we should leave it there. We agree that an on demand(ish) helicopter service is nuts. However it would be cheaper to provide, much quicker than a sleeper, and probably more attractive for people who are going to be spending the sort of money a sleeper would cost. I argue that for the size of the expected market it would probably be enough capacity for most of the year. I think we also agree that the sleeper would have more capacity, and could serve more destinations, but then whether they are need3 is another matter.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well we don’t know how much a sleeper would cost! But surely not enough demand

We don’t. But based on the statement in the HITRANS report that subsidy would be expected to be similar to the Cally Sleeper, you could expect Sleeper fares to be heading to a broadly similar level...

 

[takno]

All fair points! Yes it is hair brained, and full of flaws. I went with it to show what sort of numbers are involved. I probably should have stuck with the chauffeur driven limos or executive coach service!

Just a couple of points - the extra time for a chopper calling en route is relatively small; about 5-10 minutes per stop. However I doubt that there would be that many intermediate calls - with a maximum of 8 on board by definition there can’t be. I’d expect almost all the traffic that would use the sleeper to be between Thurso / Wick / Tain and Glasgow / Edinburgh. I really don’t believe there would be that much between the central belt and Inverness.

You don’t need a heliport as such, just a field or the top of a suitable building. There’s a chap who commutes to an office near where I live by chopper, takes off from his (admittedly large) garden and lands in the field round the corner from the office. No need for fire brigade or any heliport paraphernalia. And no need for check in etc - if it’s picking you up at 0700, get there for 0658, and wake up as late as necessary for that!

Re capacity, and the seats - no doubt there would be a lot more capacity when you include the seated coach, but I don’t believe this idea was really conceived as a seated service. If it was, it could have been done years ago. Of course it would be a lot, lot cheaper to put on a luxury road coach overnight for the seats. That there isn’t a night coach tells you about the size of the market for overnight seated travel. There is no way the overnight service would be remotely full except on a handful of nights a year - again if it was going to be even close to being full there would be a night road coach already.

Perhaps we should leave it there. We agree that an on demand(ish) helicopter service is nuts. However it would be cheaper to provide, much quicker than a sleeper, and probably more attractive for people who are going to be spending the sort of money a sleeper would cost. I argue that for the size of the expected market it would probably be enough capacity for most of the year. I think we also agree that the sleeper would have more capacity, and could serve more destinations, but then whether they are need3 is another matter.

So you dump in some whatabouttery about a helicopter, and then admit that it's all rubbish but finish by claiming that "I'm sure we can all agree" on your original point, on which we don't all agree at all. Have you been taking debating tips from Boris?

The numbers you've come up with for the sleeper costs were fluffed up by a factor of at least two just to get to your original number, and everything you've said about helicopters is literal nonsense. Some guy with a big house may be able to manage a daily commute, but that's because he's signed a private contract with a supplier and uses the service daily. If it was a public service you would have to add in loads of extra time for safety briefings, and a higher level of support for accessibility and when things go wrong. You've also claimed that everybody would prefer it, but frankly the idea sounds absolutely horrific to me.

On other alternatives you've thrown in a sleeper bus as cheaper, but not attempted to cost that at all, or address why this apparently super service can't wash its face on other more apparently-achievable flows like London.

 

[Northhighland]

The air vs overnight rail debate has been gone over ad nauseum. Obviously we'd have different opinions there.

But it's that long journey time that leads to the idea that an overnight service might be worth looking at.

For those of living in Caithness and Orkney it isn't much of a debate. There is no strong support locally for this service. Better air links are always preferable to rural communities. Flight time from Wick to Edinburgh 1hour 15 minutes. No competition.

 

[Indigo Soup]

On other alternatives you've thrown in a sleeper bus as cheaper, but not attempted to cost that at all, or address why this apparently super service can't wash its face on other more apparently-achievable flows like London.

That's the point. For the approximately no passengers who would want to use a Caithness to the Central Belt sleeper, it's more cost effective to transport fresh air by coach than by rail. The several million pounds a year it would cost to run the sleeper could be used in more productive ways.

 

[BRX]

It's easy simply to state as fact that no-one wants or would use an overnight rail service. No-one knows for sure unless a proper trial is run. A "flight time" is just that - the flight time. The flight time doesn't say anything about the connecting journeys at each end or the times of day it runs.

It wasn't that long ago that the Fort William sleeper was regarded as a basket case. Now in the summer it runs with 4 sleeping cars and is often fully booked.

It's also easy to state that a sleeper bus provides something equivalent, but it doesn't. Just for example, for the many people who are subject to motion sickness it's impossible to read, work or even look at a smartphone on a bus. It's not marketable to tourists as an experience. And don't forget, the sleeper buses between London and Scotland failed.

 

[takno]

That's the point. For the approximately no passengers who would want to use a Caithness to the Central Belt sleeper, it's more cost effective to transport fresh air by coach than by rail. The several million pounds a year it would cost to run the sleeper could be used in more productive ways.

You say that, and previously I might have agreed, but I recently heard some well-developed proposals to run a helicopter on the route, and now I'm wondering if there is more pent-up demand than I was imagining

 

[Bald Rick]

So you dump in some whatabouttery about a helicopter, and then admit that it's all rubbish but finish by claiming that "I'm sure we can all agree" on your original point, on which we don't all agree at all. Have you been taking debating tips from Boris?

The numbers you've come up with for the sleeper costs were fluffed up by a factor of at least two just to get to your original number, and everything you've said about helicopters is literal nonsense. Some guy with a big house may be able to manage a daily commute, but that's because he's signed a private contract with a supplier and uses the service daily. If it was a public service you would have to add in loads of extra time for safety briefings, and a higher level of support for accessibility and when things go wrong. You've also claimed that everybody would prefer it, but frankly the idea sounds absolutely horrific to me.

On other alternatives you've thrown in a sleeper bus as cheaper, but not attempted to cost that at all, or address why this apparently super service can't wash its face on other more apparently-achievable flows like London.

The sleeper costs aren’t ‘fluffed up’ at all. You could estimate it the other way ie ‘top down’ using resource miles / resource hours as a percentage of the CS costs.

ORR data suggests it cost £53m to run the CS in 2017/18. Serco accounts suggest rather more. Let’s go with the lower number. The current sleeper runs 2,800 train miles and 52 hours a night. The Wick proposal would be 600miles / 22.5 hours a night, which is 21% and 43% of the CS respectively. Let’s go with the 21% and then be extremely optimistic, and say that this proposal would somehow manage to run that many train miles and hours of resources for half the overall rate that CS manages, ie 10.5% of CS costs. That’s £5.6m pa, going best case on all the numbers. The £5m looks anything other than ‘fluffed up’.

There were four points that I suggested that @BRX and I could agree on re the helicopter ‘idea’, ie that it would be:

1) nuts
2) cheaper to provide (in the way I suggested it) than the sleeper
3) quicker than the sleeper
4) probably be more attractive to passengers than the sleeper (if given the option)

Which bits of that do you ‘not agree at all’?

The overnight sleeper bus won’t wash its face on the London run because it has to operate commercially, ie without the direct subsidy the CS enjoys (of around £100 / passenger). I’m sure if someone offered a coach company that sort of incentive, there would be plenty of operators willing to help.

I would cost up an executive coach sleeper alternative, but can’t be bothered now. Maybe later when I’m not supposed to be looking after my kids. It would be less than £1m a year, and, incidentally, have shorter journey times, allowing a later start at either end. If Hi Trans are so convinced there’s is a market for a overnight sleeper service, why not try this; pay Scotrail to have integrated fares, and see what happens? It would be a lot easier and cheaper, and also easier to unpick if it doesn’t succeed.

Finally, the guy with the helicopter flies himself. The point was that helicopters don’t need an airport / heliport to land. I don’t know how many helicopter trips you’ve had, public or otherwise, but I can tell you from those that I have done that the safety briefing is about 30 seconds - ‘seat belt on, life jacket there, door there’.

 

[BRX]

Another number to throw into the discussion -

The 'Air Discount Scheme' which is available to residents of various islands as well as those living in Caithness and NW Scotland, and which gives a 50% discount on air fares, cost £8.6M in 2017-2018.

I've not been able to find the relevant statistics, but it would certainly be interesting to untangle the proportion of this spent on flights from Wick, and add that to the proportion of the HIA subsidy that can be allocated to operating Wick airport.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=2ahUKEwiZp--Mn8jjAhWKRhUIHRLqAL4QFjAGegQIBxAC&url=https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/minutes/2018/11/adt-highlands-and-islands-working-group-papers-october-2018/documents/paper-3---air-discount-scheme---public-service-obligations/paper-3---air-discount-scheme---public-service-obligations/govscot%3Adocument/Paper%2B3%2B-%2BAir%2Bdiscount%2Bscheme%2B-%2Bpublic%2Bservice%2Bobligations.pdf&usg=AOvVaw14-_Kl3LVF8meKNVpsK-Ad

 

[takno]

The sleeper costs aren’t ‘fluffed up’ at all. You could estimate it the other way ie ‘top down’ using resource miles / resource hours as a percentage of the CS costs.

ORR data suggests it cost £53m to run the CS in 2017/18. Serco accounts suggest rather more. Let’s go with the lower number. The current sleeper runs 2,800 train miles and 52 hours a night. The Wick proposal would be 600miles / 22.5 hours a night, which is 21% and 43% of the CS respectively. Let’s go with the 21% and then be extremely optimistic, and say that this proposal would somehow manage to run that many train miles and hours of resources for half the overall rate that CS manages, ie 10.5% of CS costs. That’s £5.6m pa, going best case on all the numbers. The £5m looks anything other than ‘fluffed up’.

There were four points that I suggested that @BRX and I could agree on re the helicopter ‘idea’, ie that it would be:

1) nuts
2) cheaper to provide (in the way I suggested it) than the sleeper
3) quicker than the sleeper
4) probably be more attractive to passengers than the sleeper (if given the option)

Which bits of that do you ‘not agree at all’?

The overnight sleeper bus won’t wash its face on the London run because it has to operate commercially, ie without the direct subsidy the CS enjoys (of around £100 / passenger). I’m sure if someone offered a coach company that sort of incentive, there would be plenty of operators willing to help.

I would cost up an executive coach sleeper alternative, but can’t be bothered now. Maybe later when I’m not supposed to be looking after my kids. It would be less than £1m a year, and, incidentally, have shorter journey times, allowing a later start at either end. If Hi Trans are so convinced there’s is a market for a overnight sleeper service, why not try this; pay Scotrail to have integrated fares, and see what happens? It would be a lot easier and cheaper, and also easier to unpick if it doesn’t succeed.

Finally, the guy with the helicopter flies himself. The point was that helicopters don’t need an airport / heliport to land. I don’t know how many helicopter trips you’ve had, public or otherwise, but I can tell you from those that I have done that the safety briefing is about 30 seconds - ‘seat belt on, life jacket there, door there’.

Points 2-4 would be the main bones of contention. There hasn't been any general agreement on the thread about any of them, and claiming that there has doesn't do your argument any good at all.
On the running costs it's hard to justify using the Caledonian sleeper costs as a benchmark for anything - they run more expensive trains on a more complex route and have significantly higher levels of service because it allows them to charge a proportion of the customers significantly more money.

The upshot of all this is that I absolutely assumed before reading this thread that the whole thing was probably a waste of money, but your arguments have genuinely made me think it might be worth a more detailed look.

 

[BRX]

There were four points that I suggested that @BRX and I could agree on re the helicopter ‘idea’, ie that it would be:

1) nuts
2) cheaper to provide (in the way I suggested it) than the sleeper
3) quicker than the sleeper
4) probably be more attractive to passengers than the sleeper (if given the option)

For the record -

1) Agreed
2) Not agreed, unless the aim is only to transport 8 passengers in each direction*
3) Agreed but not necessarily relevant if the aim is an early morning arrival without a very early morning start.
4) Maybe for some, not for all.

*as regards costs - unfortunately I don't have the knowledge to assess how realistic your estimates for either option are. So they are taken on trust for the sake of the argument but with a high degree of scepticism.

The overnight sleeper bus won’t wash its face on the London run because it has to operate commercially, ie without the direct subsidy the CS enjoys (of around £100 / passenger). I’m sure if someone offered a coach company that sort of incentive, there would be plenty of operators willing to help.

The point is though, it was (as far as I know) priced fairly similarly to the seated sleeper, and substantially lower than a sleeper berth. I'd argue its failure in spite of this shows that people will prefer the train given the option. In other words, it doesn't provide an equivalent - most people who will pay for a sleeper on the train won't choose the bus as an alternative, even if it's cheaper.