Caledonian Sleeper

[route101]

I've consistently ended up requiring bussed on BA arriving at Gatwick in morning from Scotland. Easyjet to be fair that is very rare.

If I fly I often prefer Gatwick for ease and rail options in getting to Central London.

Think you get bussed as the gate is a international one. Usually use Gatwick as flights are cheaper. Used to get a cheap BA one way.

Back to the sleeper. Seated sleeper one way with railcard is fairly cheap. The berths are pretty dear now though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Luton will be quicker when the transit opens (hopefully soon!). 30 mins from St Pancras to Security. Security to plane can’t be more than 5 minutes or so.

Very quick the other way, too. It's an incredibly quick airport to get through because everything is all together and the baggage system is very simple (a flatbed Transit straight from the aircraft) - the only thing that lets it down is passport control. Once the shuttle bus is dispensed with, and given how slow Gatwick is to get through, it'll easily beat Gatwick to Central London, probably by half an hour or more for the same flight arrival time, possibly as much as an hour if you've got hold luggage.

 

[Bald Rick]

Very quick the other way, too. It's an incredibly quick airport to get through because everything is all together and the baggage system is very simple (a flatbed Transit straight from the aircraft) - the only thing that lets it down is passport control. Once the shuttle bus is dispensed with, and given how slow Gatwick is to get through, it'll easily beat Gatwick to Central London, probably by half an hour or more for the same flight arrival time, possibly as much as an hour if you've got hold luggage.

And, getting back on topic, flying from Scotland to Luton or vice versa is consistently 10-15 minutes quicker flight time than Gatwick. From arriving Glasgow or Edinburgh airport to arriving central London will definitely be doable in 3h via Luton if it all clicks. And passport control isn’t an issue. Or st least not yet.

(As an aside, I haven’t had to wait more than a few minutes at Luton passport control for nearly a decade, and I’m through it at least twice a year.)

 

[theironroad]

Obviously all these comparisons are personal depending on where the final destination is depending on whether people are going straight to work or home etc

 

[Scotrail84]

Is it bad to think Serco might try and not bring it back, instead convert it into another lounge car to increase the appeal to those who can afford the expensive berth fares.

Absolutely not a chance that will happen. Thats the brake coach for a kick off where the guards area is and the onboard computers that basically run the train. Service can't run without that coach, never mind turning it into a kitchen.

 

[Deafdoggie]

On Caledonian Sleeper the seated coach contains the controls for the entire train. If the seated coach can’t run, the entire train can’t run.

On the night riviera it doesn’t.

If a room has an infected person in it then that room can be cleaned and locked out of use for 72 hours without affecting anything.

So it’s risk mitigation - better to have the train running than not.

Coach A (seated coach) on night riviera is brake coach so has to run.
If fogged and deep cleaned it only has to be left 6 hours unused. It can be even less depending on treatment.
If not cleaned at all it has to be left 72 hours (that’s the time Covid-19 lives on surfaces without being treated) It would be pointless treating somewhere AND leaving it 72 hours, it’s one or the other.

 

[65477]

Although my experiences are about a decade old looking at the railway press / internet things have not changed much.

I used to travel between London and Glasgow quite often. My first choice would be the sleeper on the down journey work in the office in the morning and fly back to STN, as I could get from the arrival gate to home in under 30 mins. The problem with the sleeper was that when things went wrong they could go very wrong. Even to the extent that in order to complete my work in Glasgow I would miss the flight back and either get a later flight or if that was not available take a hotel and flight the next day.

After a number of 2-3 hour delays plus one aborted trip I gave up on the sleeper and usually took a late afternoon train + hotel.

 

[Kite159]

Absolutely not a chance that will happen. Thats the brake coach for a kick off where the guards area is and the onboard computers that basically run the train. Service can't run without that coach, never mind turning it into a kitchen.

Hence my fear it will get converted into an extension of the lounge car, remove the 2+1 seating and inserting more tables to be served from the existing lounge car. The guards office won't need to get touched.

Offers more for the upmarket hotel experience than a reasonably priced way to travel overnight, depending what Transport Scotland wants from the sleeper in a couple years time

 

[Essexman]

I used to fly from Stansted to Glasgow or Edinburgh on Air UK until I discovered the sleeper in 2020 and now I don't even consider flying. Occasionally I use a day train but the sleeper is so much more time efficient. I leave home about 9pm and arrive in Glasgow 7.20 for meetings from 9.30am. I'm travelling north during the time I'd be in bed anyway, so it almost takes no time at all!

 

[williamn]

I'm surprised at how many on a rail forum are trying to persuade me to fly! I really don't think there is much time differential city centre to city centre. For all airports from central London I'd want to leave 90 minutes travel time to be safe, plus an hour check in (ok, that's not needed at LCY). Then there's at least an hours travel time, and then the travel time the other end. That's a minimum of 4.5 hours. Euston is a 20 min tube journey for me. This also assumes that time spent on the train is dead time, its not, its time I can work, or relax and read and listen to music.

Plus short haul flights are the most polluting there are, so there's the environmental aspect as well. I'll only take the plane in extremis and will see what combo of trains including the Sleeper works for me. Definitely interested in the flexi pass if it gets you a club room.

 

[Butts]

I used to fly from Stansted to Glasgow or Edinburgh on Air UK until I discovered the sleeper in 2020 and now I don't even consider flying. Occasionally I use a day train but the sleeper is so much more time efficient. I leave home about 9pm and arrive in Glasgow 7.20 for meetings from 9.30am. I'm travelling north during the time I'd be in bed anyway, so it almost takes no time at all!

What did you do between 1998 (When Air UK ceased operations) and 2020 ?

 

[philthetube]

The seated car is a revenue stream where the luunge costs to run, as the two cater for very different markets I cannot imagine they will get rid of the seats.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm surprised at how many on a rail forum are trying to persuade me to fly! I really don't think there is much time differential city centre to city centre. For all airports from central London I'd want to leave 90 minutes travel time to be safe, plus an hour check in (ok, that's not needed at LCY). Then there's at least an hours travel time, and then the travel time the other end. That's a minimum of 4.5 hours. Euston is a 20 min tube journey for me. This also assumes that time spent on the train is dead time, its not, its time I can work, or relax and read and listen to music.

Plus short haul flights are the most polluting there are, so there's the environmental aspect as well. I'll only take the plane in extremis and will see what combo of trains including the Sleeper works for me. Definitely interested in the flexi pass if it gets you a club room.

It depends (as ever) on the specific origin and destination points, and what you will do with the time. For City Centre to City Centre the day train will usually be the best option for time and comfort, and when you add in the cost of getting to / from the airport it’s about par on price. The plane can be a little quicker (my record from central London to central Edinburgh is a shade over 3 hours, via LCY), but is certainly less comfortable and making good use of the travelling time is more difficult.

However if either origin or destination is closer to an airport than the city centre, then the equation changes fairly quickly.

 

[Peter Sarf]

How many people would prefer a return to the ramshackle day's of 1st's Regime?

At least you could get a £19 Bargain Berth and it wasn't trying to pretend to be something it was not !!

That is the issue for me. I would not pay these high prices for the service even if it was as good as it is marketed to be. But it obviously is not that good or reliable anyway so I ignore the broken promises. That is two reasons for not using CS.

Dangle a £19 Bargain Berth in front of me and I might start looking for a reason to travel.

 

[JModulo]

That is the issue for me. I would not pay these high prices for the service even if it was as good as it is marketed to be. But it obviously is not that good or reliable anyway so I ignore the broken promises. That is two reasons for not using CS.

Dangle a £19 Bargain Berth in front of me and I might start looking for a reason to travel.

Think I have only paid for 4 out of 13 trips I've had on the MK5s. The rest ended up being refunded due to faults.

 

[PG]

Dangle a £19 Bargain Berth in front of me and I might start looking for a reason to travel.

Given CS's extortionate prices it does make you wonder how they (First) were able to make any money off of the Bargain Berths?... or was it so much cheaper operating as part of the ScotRail franchise?

 

[MrEd]

Given CS's extortionate prices it does make you wonder how they (First) were able to make any money off of the Bargain Berths?... or was it so much cheaper operating as part of the ScotRail franchise?

It’s probably difficult to answer that because the sleeper will never be profitable, end of. It doesn’t matter how you run it, it will never be a profitable service. The problem is that CS need to recover the not inconsiderable investment in the Mk5s, and reduce the subsidy from government if possible (though I doubt they’ll achieve that any time soon).

I believe the answer to your second question is ‘yes’. First of all, the sleeper could make use of existing Scotrail staff in so many areas- guards north of Edinburgh, telesales, drivers on the Fort William route, cleaning staff, service delivery managers etc. There was no need to recruit or train dedicated staff to work in these areas (I appreciate that drivers on the Fort William route are now provided by GBRF)- all Scotrail had to do was train existing staff (who had other turns and other duties) to work the sleeper. In particular, it seems very wasteful having train managers (having to pay for their training which involves considerable route knowledge) at Edinburgh and Dalmuir whose only work is the sleeper to or from Inverness or Fort William- they then have to travel passenger in the opposite direction, whereas Scotrail Fort William and Perth conductors had turns on the conventional day services as well as the sleeper. The only ‘dedicated’ staff which Scotrail employed for the sleeper were the sleeper hosts and the Train Managers who worked south of Edinburgh. Marketing and customer relations too could be handled by Scotrail, with no need for CS to man its own office or recruit staff for these purposes.

As part of Scotrail, the sleeper could also be cross-subsidised from revenue gained from profitable parts of the franchise, such as the Edinburgh-Glasgow shuttles and the Central Belt commuter network (how most successful franchises are run- Greater Anglia being another example which springs to mind). The Caledonian Sleeper franchise as it stands has no profitable services.

 

[PG]

It’s probably difficult to answer that because the sleeper will never be profitable, end of. It doesn’t matter how you run it, it will never be a profitable service. The problem is that CS need to recover the not inconsiderable investment in the Mk5s, and reduce the subsidy from government if possible (though I doubt they’ll achieve that any time soon).

I believe the answer to your second question is ‘yes’. First of all, the sleeper could make use of existing Scotrail staff in so many areas- guards north of Edinburgh, telesales, drivers on the Fort William route, cleaning staff, service delivery managers etc. There was no need for the sleeper to recruit or train its own staff in these areas (I appreciate that drivers on the Fort William route are now provided by GBRF). Marketing and customer relations too could be handled by Scotrail, with no need for CS to man its own office or recruit staff for these purposes.

As part of Scotrail, the sleeper could also be cross-subsidised from revenue gained from profitable parts of the franchise, such as the Edinburgh-Glasgow shuttles and the Central Belt commuter network (how most successful franchises are run- Greater Anglia being another example which springs to mind). The Caledonian Sleeper franchise as it stands has no profitable services.

All of which begs the question - why the heck did TS take it out of the Scotrail operation if it costs more overall?

 

[MrEd]

All of which begs the question - why the heck did TS take it out of the Scotrail operation if it costs more overall?

I wish I knew. I think, looking back, even they probably realise that it was the wrong decision.

Transport Scotland somehow had a bizarre idea that the sleeper, which is at the end of the day a national rail service, should be some sort of travelling advertisement for Scottish tourism which meant that every part of the operation had to be geared towards the excessively touristy business model which is often lamented on this forum. We should bear in mind that this business model is not entirely of Serco’s choosing. It was felt that if it remained part of the Scotrail franchise, this business model was unachievable. There was also a suggestion that the sleeper would be more ‘visible’ as a stand-alone service than as just another Scotrail train.

First Group did not run the sleeper especially well as part of Scotrail (for a number of reasons- not least because they did not invest in it and had allowed the coaching stock to become very run down both internally and externally by the early 2010s, not to mention the hideous, tacky purple livery which did not suit it at all) but Abellio might have turned things around for the better had they been given the chance.

 

[PG]

I wish I knew. I think, looking back, even they probably realise that it was the wrong decision.

Transport Scotland somehow had a bizarre idea that the sleeper, which is at the end of the day a national rail service, should be some sort of travelling advertisement for Scottish tourism which meant that every part of the operation had to be geared towards the excessively touristy business model which is often lamented on this forum. We should bear in mind that this business model is not entirely of Serco’s choosing. It was felt that if it remained part of the Scotrail franchise, this business model was unachievable. There was also a suggestion that the sleeper would be more ‘visible’ as a stand-alone service than as just another Scotrail train.

First Group did not run the sleeper especially well as part of Scotrail (for a number of reasons- not least because they did not invest in it and allowed the stock to become very run down) but Abellio might have turned things around for the better had they been given the chance.

Given another recent TS faux pax mentioned over on the HST thread (Perth v Cadder stabling) it does seem like a body which doesn't make wise investment decisions!

If only someone could hold them to account for this (mis)use of taxpayers money in some sort of public arena? Now theres a novel idea

 

[paul1609]

And, getting back on topic, flying from Scotland to Luton or vice versa is consistently 10-15 minutes quicker flight time than Gatwick. From arriving Glasgow or Edinburgh airport to arriving central London will definitely be doable in 3h via Luton if it all clicks. And passport control isn’t an issue. Or st least not yet.

(As an aside, I haven’t had to wait more than a few minutes at Luton passport control for nearly a decade, and I’m through it at least twice a year.)

Having done this for over 5 years I'd say its more than 10-15 minutes quicker southbound. If your flying in to Stansted you actually pass over Luton Airport but for both of these its always been a straight in with me. With Gatwick you generally loop over North of Brighton and its not uncommon to be stacked there and pass over 2 or 3 times in the summer. Ive had one exceptional Stansted Easyjet flight southbound where I made it from Glasgow terminal to Stansted terminal in 40 minutes plane was late at Glasgow because of strong headwinds but this worked to our advantage southwards, flight crew were saying it was their fastest ever flight and almost beat the easyJet record.

It’s probably difficult to answer that because the sleeper will never be profitable, end of. It doesn’t matter how you run it, it will never be a profitable service. The problem is that CS need to recover the not inconsiderable investment in the Mk5s, and reduce the subsidy from government if possible (though I doubt they’ll achieve that any time soon).

I believe the answer to your second question is ‘yes’. First of all, the sleeper could make use of existing Scotrail staff in so many areas- guards north of Edinburgh, telesales, drivers on the Fort William route, cleaning staff, service delivery managers etc. There was no need to recruit or train dedicated staff to work in these areas (I appreciate that drivers on the Fort William route are now provided by GBRF)- all Scotrail had to do was train existing staff (who had other turns and other duties) to work the sleeper. In particular, it seems very wasteful having train managers (having to pay for their training which involves considerable route knowledge) at Edinburgh and Dalmuir whose only work is the sleeper to or from Inverness or Fort William- they then have to travel passenger in the opposite direction, whereas Scotrail Fort William and Perth conductors had turns on the conventional day services as well as the sleeper. The only ‘dedicated’ staff which Scotrail employed for the sleeper were the sleeper hosts and the Train Managers who worked south of Edinburgh. Marketing and customer relations too could be handled by Scotrail, with no need for CS to man its own office or recruit staff for these purposes.

As part of Scotrail, the sleeper could also be cross-subsidised from revenue gained from profitable parts of the franchise, such as the Edinburgh-Glasgow shuttles and the Central Belt commuter network (how most successful franchises are run- Greater Anglia being another example which springs to mind). The Caledonian Sleeper franchise as it stands has no profitable services.

Don't think that the situation on the West Highland is as bad as you make out. I think they drive the other way Dalmuir is only just over 2 hours by van from Fort William, may be an extra 10-15 mins in summer with the caravans. Id suggest that having the dedicated staff probably saves a lot of training effort especially with the more complicated rolling stock.

 

[MrEd]

Given another recent TS faux pax mentioned over on the HST thread (Perth v Cadder stabling) it does seem like a body which doesn't make wise investment decisions!

If only someone could hold them to account for this (mis)use of taxpayers money in some sort of public arena? Now theres a novel idea

You could say that! The HST refurbishment project is perhaps a litany of errors in itself, although that seems to have settled down now.

 

[Bald Rick]

Having done this for over 5 years I'd say its more than 10-15 minutes quicker southbound

I agree with that from experience; I was going by the published flight schedules.

 

[JonathanH]

Given CS's extortionate prices it does make you wonder how they (First) were able to make any money off of the Bargain Berths?... or was it so much cheaper operating as part of the ScotRail franchise?

They won't have directly made any money off them - the point is of offering really low prices at very off peak times is to market the service so that people consider it at a much higher price when they want to use it at other times.

If Caledonian Sleeper feel that that marketing strategy negates the value of the operation (which it clearly does) they are going to try other strategies.

Same with any other commodity - if I expect that I can get something for £50 that is usually charged at £100, I'm going to resent paying the higher price. If it had been £100 all along, I might (have to) value it higher.

If Caledonian Sleeper can sell out at peak times at £150-£200 they aren't going to offer berths off peak for £50 because they are going to chase selling one room at £150 rather than three at £50 because it maintains the value of the sleeper in the eyes of potential customers.

'Bargain Berths' is actually a legacy from a previous era that could be seen as potentially adversely affecting the current operation.

Something similar might actually need to apply on the conventional railway - low advance fares have essentially devalued the product and now, when the railway needs money, it needs people to place a much higher value on travel to pay higher fares.

 

[Mogz]

If the CS is now to be a premium product “not for the proles”, perhaps we could have a budget sleeper in the same sense as EasyJet or Ryanair? I’d happily do the journey in an old Mk3 berth again if the price was right!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the CS is now to be a premium product “not for the proles”, perhaps we could have a budget sleeper in the same sense as EasyJet or Ryanair? I’d happily do the journey in an old Mk3 berth again if the price was right!

If Megabus couldn't make that pay (and it was really quite good) I doubt the railway will.

I think it's a shame they didn't include something more couchette-like in the new coaches. I know there was an issue with the "pods", but they weren't really the same thing.

 

[Mogz]

If Megabus couldn't make that pay (and it was really quite good) I doubt the railway will.

I think it's a shame they didn't include something more couchette-like in the new coaches. I know there was an issue with the "pods", but they weren't really the same thing.

Good point.

Having travelled couchette on the continent I’d say it’s miles (or should that be “kilometres”?) better than travelling seated overnight.

 

[MrEd]

If the CS is now to be a premium product “not for the proles”, perhaps we could have a budget sleeper in the same sense as EasyJet or Ryanair? I’d happily do the journey in an old Mk3 berth again if the price was right!

Who knows what CS will try to do to attract business post-lockdown. Perhaps they’ll change their business model slightly to reflect demand; I also don’t see how they can get away with charging premium fares when (for instance) the club car is closed and the catering offering is severely reduced, understandably due to the pandemic, but still a sign that the product as marketed cannot be delivered. Surely CS need to take this into account this summer (and also the fact that most passengers will be domestic and on a tighter budget).

Your suggestion about a separate sleeper is sadly a non-starter as it wouldn’t be profitable- and why would the UK govt. or the SG want to subsidise two unprofitable sleeper operations when CS is enough of a basket case as it is?

 

[NotATrainspott]

The split-out of the Caledonian Sleeper was necessary for any meaningful level of investment in the service to happen. Serco have (had?) a 15-year franchise agreement, which is one of the longest post-privatisation franchise agreements ever agreed upfront. This would provide enough time for the new rolling stock and experience to be delivered and kinks hammered out for the service to mature and become more self-sustainable.

You can criticise the government for trying to turn the sleeper into a cruise ship on rails but that's the only possible future for the service given the ever-decreasing daytime LDHS journey times to Glasgow and Edinburgh. Once HS2 gets Scotland-London times to around 3 hours it's game over for the sleeper as well as air, as you could get a 6am train down and be in London at 9am. The recent renaissance of night trains on the continent isn't the same, since these are typically on routes which will remain uncompetitive by daytime high speed rail services. What you want is to get to 2030 or so in a state where demand for places north of Glasgow and Edinburgh is high enough that you can change the lowland/highland split (e.g. serving Glasgow only by a permanently lengthened WHL sleeper) without the economics getting worse.

 

[Scotrail84]

Hence my fear it will get converted into an extension of the lounge car, remove the 2+1 seating and inserting more tables to be served from the existing lounge car. The guards office won't need to get touched.

Offers more for the upmarket hotel experience than a reasonably priced way to travel overnight, depending what Transport Scotland wants from the sleeper in a couple years time

Its a franchise requirement to have 31 seats available on each individual service. That won't change.