Caledonian Sleeper

[Indigo Soup]

Why has it not been merged back to ScotRail? Good question, one only the SNP can answer as they were the ones who decided to split it in the first place. Ridiculous decision and hopefully it will be rectified in the future by merging it back with ScotRail. Makes sense.

My cynical assumption is that they believe that having a separate brand will help attract that brand of well-heeled tourist who wants to visit Scotland but doesn't want to interact with any (red-headed, kilt-wearing, whisky-swilling) Scotch people.

 

[35B]

Yes as it's a reservation only service - thats their get out of jail card. They have every right to refuse anyone who is not reserved even if they have a valid ticket.

Guards do not have the ability to sell tickets anymore, its only the host staff that can, and even at that they cant sell tickets from say Crianlarich to Spean Bridge, they can only sell walk up fares from London/Crewe/Preston Northbound and Southbound its any station between FTW and Dalmuir to Preston/Crewe/London. These are 'walk up' prices as well which will make your eyes water. £110 for a seat off the top of my head.

Whats changed? Sheer greed from those at the top running the sleeper. foot passengers boarding for a few stops on the WHL make no money for them, they're far more interested in bleeding dry tourists with overpriced cabins, food and drinks. The markup on the food must be at least a few hundred percent.

Why has it not been merged back to ScotRail? Good question, one only the SNP can answer as they were the ones who decided to split it in the first place. Ridiculous decision and hopefully it will be rectified in the future by merging it back with ScotRail. Makes sense.

And despite those huge prices, the subsidy is still enormous.

 

[Tetragon213]

The fact that it needs to be subsidised, despite its frankly outrageous pricing is downright absurd.

The sleeper leaves after the last flights and arrives before the first flights, allowing more time in Westminster and in the constituency. The northbound Lowland sleeper runs late enough that an MP can attend evening debates and be in their constituency in the morning.

More subsidising MP luxuries, just what we need in these times!

 

[Bletchleyite]

They're all above the bogies as well.

Not easy to fix that because they need to be near the doors so you can fit a chair through. It's not possible to have enough room to lie down in other cabins while having an aisle wide enough for a wheelchair to pass in UK loading gauge. Sometimes practicality has to win out.

It's concerning that it isn't possible to physically lock the door though. Staff needing access isn't a good reason for that as they could have a key.

What is this word 'plushie?' If it's the monkey then I'd call this a teddy or soft toy.

It's a trendy word for a soft toy generally used by adults who have them (no reason they shouldn't of course!) and don't want it to sound childlike, pretty much.

 

[35B]

The fact that it needs to be subsidised, despite its frankly outrageous pricing is downright absurd.

So what would you do to bring the subsidy down given your view of the pricing?

As far as I can tell the subsidy requirement is a combination of two things - the cost of running the service, and the amount of income it can earn. Subsidy fills the gap.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So what would you do to bring the subsidy down given your view of the pricing?

Merging it back into ScotRail would allow some cost savings. Though they wouldn't be huge, it would be around the edges like duplication of customer services functions.

 

[Scotrail84]

My cynical assumption is that they believe that having a separate brand will help attract that brand of well-heeled tourist who wants to visit Scotland but doesn't want to interact with any (red-headed, kilt-wearing, whisky-swilling) Scotch people.

Yes, they seem to want to attract rich tourists who turn up expecting the all American hospitality offerings with porters and silver service etc which is never going to happen. Normal people that you'd call the bread and butter find themselves being priced out the market and relegated to being only able to afford the seats.

The fact that it needs to be subsidised, despite its frankly outrageous pricing is downright absurd.

More subsidising MP luxuries, just what we need in these times!

The subsidy is off the scale, Serco bled it dry as well.

Merging it back into ScotRail would allow some cost savings. Though they wouldn't be huge, it would be around the edges like duplication of customer services functions.

They could easily save money by merging with ScotRail and straight off the bat as you've got duplicate management that is not needed at all. The whole backroom could go as ScotRail already have everything long established and set up.

Train crew would merge into the respective depots they work out of in separate sleeper links, easy to do

Current Conductor managers would just absorb them into their 'teams', easy to do

All training could be moved to Glasgow removing the need for that place in Perth, easy to do

ScotRail control take over the operations side of nightly running, easy to do

Those lounges at out stations that are never open anyway could be closed. (rumour is thats happening anyway)

Costs saving would be considerable in the long run

With the creation of GB Railways I do think merging will happen at some point in the future.

 

[35B]

They could easily save money by merging with ScotRail and straight off the bat as you've got duplicate management that is not needed at all. The whole backroom could go as ScotRail already have everything long established and set up.

Train crew would merge into the respective depots they work out of in separate sleeper links, easy to do

Current Conductor managers would just absorb them into their 'teams', easy to do

All training could be moved to Glasgow removing the need for that place in Perth, easy to do

ScotRail control take over the operations side of nightly running, easy to do

Those lounges at out stations that are never open anyway could be closed. (rumour is thats happening anyway)

Costs saving would be considerable in the long run

With the creation of GB Railways I do think merging will happen at some point in the future.

And how much do you think that's going to save given the number of staff actually needed to run a train?

 

[GordonT]

And how much do you think that's going to save given the number of staff actually needed to run a train?

Any saving is worthwhile when there is haemorrhaging of public funding.

 

[35B]

Any saving is worthwhile when there is haemorrhaging of public funding.

But is it a saving? How much will getting out of leases cost? What are the redundancy costs? How will you transition the knowledge about the business from current CS staff to their Scotrail equivalents?

Will CS staff be willing to "just be absorbed into teams"? If so, how will safety critical knowledge be addressed? Will existing Scotrail staff be willing to work the shifts required to run the sleeper?

It may well be better to have CS form part of Scotrail, whether as a brand or fully subsumed. But this isn't a OO trainset, and there are real people and real laws governing how that could happen.

If I were looking, I'd be looking at what extra cash I'd need to fund for the restructuring, what savings I'd make - and whether there'd be any impact from the change on the income I made. Then I'd look at whether the change was saving me money in the round, or not.

 

[Scotrail84]

And how much do you think that's going to save given the number of staff actually needed to run a train?

By getting rid of of lounges and duplicate management, I'm no expert but id say say easily hundreds of thousands a year saved if not more. Train crew would be ring fenced and untouchable. Other grades and management would be up on offer definitely.

But is it a saving? How much will getting out of leases cost? What are the redundancy costs? How will you transition the knowledge about the business from current CS staff to their Scotrail equivalents?

Will CS staff be willing to "just be absorbed into teams"? If so, how will safety critical knowledge be addressed? Will existing Scotrail staff be willing to work the shifts required to run the sleeper?

It may well be better to have CS form part of Scotrail, whether as a brand or fully subsumed. But this isn't a OO trainset, and there are real people and real laws governing how that could happen.

If I were looking, I'd be looking at what extra cash I'd need to fund for the restructuring, what savings I'd make - and whether there'd be any impact from the change on the income I made. Then I'd look at whether the change was saving me money in the round, or not.

If it was a tupee process then anyone unwilling to do so would not transfer and effectively be out of a job. After tupee then anyone not required could be offered a new position on new conditions or be on 90 days notice.

 

[boom boom]

The staff would need to be TUPEd to ScotRail . Which is quite a long process. The drivers would keep their rate of pay if TUPEd,so no saving there. GB drivers have a far higher basic than ScotRail. The drivers could elect to stay with GB. I can’t remember the figure,but you can only TUPE if a certain percentage of your linked work is the work that’s transferring . Will work at some GB depots,but not them all. It could be done ,but would not be a straightforward process

 

[JamesT]

Is there actually spare capacity within Scotrail to take on CS stuff? Or would it just end up being a team within Scotrail dedicated to CS, so no actual difference other than the uniforms?
How was it run when they were integrated?

 

[SuspectUsual]

I can’t remember the figure,but you can only TUPE if a certain percentage of your linked work is the work that’s transferring

75% I think (or it was when I was last involved in a TUPE case a few years ago)

If it was a tupee process then anyone unwilling to do so would not transfer and effectively be out of a job. After tupee then anyone not required could be offered a new position on new conditions or be on 90 days notice.

It is nothing like that simple

 

[Scotrail84]

75% I think (or it was when I was last involved in a TUPE case a few years ago)




It is nothing like that simple

TUPE conditions only last for 24hrs then changes can be made unless I'm mistaken, yes theres a lot more to it than that but it can be done.

The staff would need to be TUPEd to ScotRail . Which is quite a long process. The drivers would keep their rate of pay if TUPEd,so no saving there. GB drivers have a far higher basic than ScotRail. The drivers could elect to stay with GB. I can’t remember the figure,but you can only TUPE if a certain percentage of your linked work is the work that’s transferring . Will work at some GB depots,but not them all. It could be done ,but would not be a straightforward process

Sleeper work is only a small piece of GBs overall work content, its a very small pool of drivers as well.

 

[SuspectUsual]

TUPE conditions only last for 24hrs then changes can be made unless I'm mistaken

TUPE conditions are protected indefinitely, unless the change is completely unrelated to the transfer (ie in 99.9% of instances the changes would also have to be happening to workers in similar roles who had always been at the company the staff moved to)

 

[35B]

TUPE conditions only last for 24hrs then changes can be made unless I'm mistaken, yes theres a lot more to it than that but it can be done.

Many things can be done, but definitely not as cheaply as you assume. The protected period is at least 1 year, and if the workforce in question is unionised, there is also collective bargaining to consider.

You are also making a very bold assumption that anyone in scope would choose to transfer, and that those who chose not to would be immediately replaceable. Having had involvement with TUPE transfers and service take-ons in the past, life is nothing like that simple.

 

[Scotrail84]

Many things can be done, but definitely not as cheaply as you assume. The protected period is at least 1 year, and if the workforce in question is unionised, there is also collective bargaining to consider.

You are also making a very bold assumption that anyone in scope would choose to transfer, and that those who chose not to would be immediately replaceable. Having had involvement with TUPE transfers and service take-ons in the past, life is nothing like that simple.

If they didn't transfer then they wouldn't have a job though?

TUPE conditions are protected indefinitely, unless the change is completely unrelated to the transfer (ie in 99.9% of instances the changes would also have to be happening to workers in similar roles who had always been at the company the staff moved to)

TUPE is complicated, yes I get that. It could be done though, it would take 6-12 months to implement though.

 

[SuspectUsual]

TUPE is complicated, yes I get that. It could be done though, it would take 6-12 months to implement though

So your 24 hours is now 6 - 12 months. Are you solving the Ukraine crisis on behalf of Trump?!

Anyway, I've told you what the law says. If you think that waiting 6 to 12 months would mean that the organisation the TUPE workers are moving to could unilaterally change their terms and conditions, you're wrong

Where T&C changes take place after a move its almost always (i) for an unrelated reason or (ii) the result of a negotiation with a financial consideration to buy out whichever protected term(s) is being changed

If they didn't transfer then they wouldn't have a job though?

Choosing not to transfer generally results in a worker leaving their role on similar terms to a resignation. There are some exceptions, but it's on the employee to prove them, and if they can do this they can claim constructive dismissal. (An example might be a worker who cannot drive for medical reasons, and who gets to and from work by bus, and the new employer's location and/or shift times makes travelling by bus unworkable)

But someone close to, at, or beyond retirement age might very well see the upset and change as a reason to retire - so as @35B says assuming everyone in scope would choose to transfer is unrealistic

 

[sh24]

It would be a bold employer who TUPE's employees (in a highly unionised industry) and then try to change their terms. Ugly PR and likely to see a tribunal appearance too.

 

[35B]

If they didn't transfer then they wouldn't have a job though?

No, they wouldn't. They may see it as a trigger to retire, or look at some other career option. For some, TUPE is just something that happens; for others, it acts as a massive prod to consider their lives.

And, like all of the other costs that some assume could just be evaporated, the reality is slower, more complicated and more expensive. Which means that "it must be easy to save money" becomes "well, we could, but we will spend more this year, and won't get the saving till the year after next". For example, if you're going to make them redundant on TUPE transfer (yes, it is legal), you have to factor in the redundancy payments.

TUPE is complicated, yes I get that. It could be done though, it would take 6-12 months to implement though.

It's not just complicated and riddled with compliance traps, but it also requires negotiation to effect change to peoples terms of employment. Which again delays the savings - which may mean you're better sticking with what you've got than changing it.

 

[MotCO]

How much are the track access charges? Is it based on number of carriages and distance, in which case that would soon add up, particularly on a cost per passenger basis since there are few passengers per sleeper carriage. Also, aren't all the trains double-headed (or one traction and one hotel supplies)? The costs of that would soon add up.

Contrast with the Riviera - less mileage, fewer carriages, only one locomotive? etc.etc.

 

[14xxDave]

I think there are around five locos involved with the Highlander. I might be wrong though.

 

[Scotrail84]

I think there are around five locos involved with the Highlander. I might be wrong though.

Can be as many as 7 locos used across all Highlander portions during a 'normal' service.

 

[Bill57p9]

Operationally the sleepers are complex. Typically the Highlander employs 5 diesel locos:

• 66+73/9 for Fort William
• 66+73/9 for Inverness
• 73/9 for Aberdeen

There are seasonal variations: The Fort William can run with just a single 73/9 when the load is short and the railhead conditions favourable. Sometimes the Inverness is 2x73/9 rather than shed+ED.

These diesel locos operates the evening up service followed by the morning up service.

Meanwhile 2 class 92s are also required for the Highlander: One up and one down. Plus one to draw the ECS between Euston and Wembley, however the Lowlander loco is used.


And then there is the Lowlander operation, which requires 5 92s:

1. ECS between Euston and Wembley
2. Down Euston - Glasgow
3. Up Glasgow - Euston
4. ECS between Glasgow and Polmadie - This can be the Highlander loco
5. Edinburgh portion (Polmadie - Edinburgh - Carstairs - Edinburgh - Polmadie)

Therefore I believe the typical minimum for 1 night is 6x92, 3x73 and 2x66 = 11

 

[Scotrail84]

1S25 40+ late off Euston, reason unknown just now.

 

[Bill57p9]

Fair play to CS: They are running the first passenger train south of Crianlarich and, unless it gets diverted, through Dunblane since Storm Éowyn.

 

[Scotrail84]

Fair play to CS: They are running the first passenger train south of Crianlarich and, unless it gets diverted, through Dunblane since Storm Éowyn.

Fair play? More like madness really considering theres line blocks in place between Helensburgh and Dalmuir...

M16 likely to go via fife as well as Polmont-Falkirk G still blocked.

As predicted, 1M16 running through Fife. 1B01 still sat up at Helensburgh.

 

[GordonT]

As predicted, 1M16 running through Fife. 1B01 still sat up at Helensburgh.

1B01 65L leaving Dumbarton C. and 62L into Edinburgh via the Falkirk High route.

 

[JamieL]

Seems to have made up time - the Highlander is tracking for an on time arrival at London Euston.