Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
We all like the Sleepers as a bit of a railway curiosity, but both do seem to be rather a money pit.
Could either or both of them be made self-funding? The main options for this would seem to be increasing fares - OeBB's Nightjet charges much higher fares comparatively and the market doesn't seem very price sensitive.
Do the seats sell well? Might it be an option to increase capacity and thus income by reseating to 2+2 on the Cally, given that it's a budget option?
One area where money could be saved is merging CS back into ScotRail so there isn't duplication of business functions like HR, customer services and the likes, I suppose.
One area where money could be saved is merging CS back into ScotRail so there isn't duplication of business functions like HR, customer services and the likes, I suppose.
Would that really make a noticeable difference? I would say very much no
Would a business class 2+2 flatbed with direct aisle access like in every new airline cabin product work as the seated part? (and not the exisiting cr*p of seated CS)
Changing the seats won't do much, especially given the 8.30 lumo service is a major competitor with much lower operating costs, at least to Edinburgh. The only thing that would substantially reduce costs is getting rid of the Lowlander and integrating into ScotRail to reduce costs. Highlander is very price inelastic, especially cabins so that can stay, with another substantial price increase.
I've always wondered if the current Nightjet/Japanese Capsule-style cabin would work as an intermediate between full cabins and seats. More suitable for solo travellers, allows for higher packing density, and still provides an element of privacy as well as a lie-flat bed.
China is rather unique in also offering high speed sleepers, although obviously the size of the area covered makes that a viable option.
It isn't safely possible to have one's neck in the direction of travel, given the possibility of snapped necks in the event of a collision. What could work is OBB style capsules, or 6 person couchettes, though I'm not sure if that would fit in the UK loading gauge.
The issue with longitudinal flatbeds on CS is I believe the risk of neck and head injury in the event of a collision while lying head to direction of travel. That isn't an issue on planes because the only time you could ever hit anything and survive is takeoff and landing (or a crash landing), and for those you would be sat back up. It also isn't an issue on coaches because they always go one way - though I do recall on the Megabus sleeper they used to come round and make sure people were facing the right way before setting off.
The problem with this and CS is that all services reverse in the middle of the night. Even if the seats rotated like those in China (so that sort of seat is on the market) would people accept being woken up in the middle of the night to rotate? I doubt it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It isn't safely possible to have one's neck in the direction of travel, given the possibility of snapped necks in the event of a collision. What could work is OBB style capsules, or 6 person couchettes, though I'm not sure if that would fit in the UK loading gauge.
You could do 4-person couchettes easily enough. I do think that might be worth looking at, because you would fit slightly more beds in per coach that way as you would have half the amount of aisle space. Question is whether it would be remunerative compared to just charging a fortune for beds.
One area where money could be saved is merging CS back into ScotRail so there isn't duplication of business functions like HR, customer services and the likes, I suppose.
I don't think it would make enough of a difference. Cally's subsidy is gigantic, and cutting HR/Customer Services, streamlining training etc wouldn't make much of a dent in the overall subsidy.
I don't think it would make enough of a difference. Cally's subsidy is gigantic, and cutting HR/Customer Services, streamlining training etc wouldn't make much of a dent in the overall subsidy.
Though if it would save money it would seem worthwhile to me. It doesn't make a lot of sense having two entirely separate TOCs both owned by ScotGov. It could still operate under the two brands with different customer services numbers (to the same call centre, but flagging up which number was used so they know how to answer) so it would appear as two separate things to the customer, just like plenty of organisations do.
It presumably could also save money in staffing terms to go back to ScotRail drivers and guards doing the legs inside Scotland (you'd still need dedicated ones for the run to Euston unless you subbed it to Avanti which probably wouldn't save anything).
While I guess it's hard to compare as they're very different operations, I wonder if this does save reasonable amounts of money with regard to the Riviera?
Though if it would save money it would seem worthwhile to me. It doesn't make a lot of sense having two entirely separate TOCs both owned by ScotGov. It could still operate under the two brands with different customer services numbers (to the same call centre, but flagging up which number was used so they know how to answer) so it would appear as two separate things to the customer, just like plenty of organisations do.
It presumably could also save money in staffing terms to go back to ScotRail drivers and guards doing the legs inside Scotland (you'd still need dedicated ones for the run to Euston unless you subbed it to Avanti which probably wouldn't save anything).
While I guess it's hard to compare as they're very different operations, I wonder if this does save reasonable amounts of money with regard to the Riviera?
The Night Riviera makes some savings on not doing any funny shunting, splitting, or reversals; however this is tempered by having to run diesel all the way to Penzance. I also seem to recall that GWR sometimes has issues with staffing their Class 57 sets.
You also got more bang for your buck on the Riviera; I paid less than £140 for a room (Cally wanted £200), and I got lounge access at both ends, complimentary hot/cold drinks throughout the journey, and breakfast in bed (well, I asked for mine in a bag, to max out how much sleep I could get). Caledonian meanwhile charges £10 for a shower, £10 for breakfast, and £3 for a hot chocolate on board!
I'm not sure what the Riviera's subsidy is, but I would be mightily surprised if it was on par with what Cally receives.
I would figure that much like regional rail, sleeper services would get a fair chunk of their funding with more profitable InterCity services acting as a feeder. That said sleepers are more of a luxury than regional rail, and so they could most probably justify higher pricing per passenger. I haven't given it much thought, but I think it's fairly safe to say that the Caledonian Sleeper would probably be better off back under larger management, be that Scotrail or GBR in the future. I can't imagine the market is big enough to sustain a sleeper-only operation without subsidy, feeders, or extortionately high pricing.
If the plane crashes during level flight, you are likely dead regardless of seating position.
If you are lying flat in the direction of travel and the train hits something, you could easily be thrown into a wall head first and break your neck.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The problem with this and CS is that all services reverse in the middle of the night. Even if the seats rotated like those in China (so that sort of seat is on the market) would people accept being woken up in the middle of the night to rotate?
Is there an available routing for these trains that does not require a reversal?
The other way to somewhat limit costs per passenger would be to make the trains longer, but they are currently limited by platform length at Euston, unless you want to try a shunt in the Euston throat!
I think they'd have to go from Kings Cross via the ECML for the Highlander, unless it's possible to go round the Suburban to end up the right way round at Edinburgh though that isn't I think wired. For the Lowlander you could go from Euston but would need to do the split somewhere other than Carstairs, I guess Carlisle? That would increase costs due to the separate trains running much further.\
I think where this basically sits is "possible but awkward" to be honest.
You could still split the Lowlander at Carstairs and then send the Edinburgh portion round via the Shotts Line, from what I could tell. Would add time, though...
I think they'd have to go from Kings Cross via the ECML for the Highlander, unless it's possible to go round the Suburban to end up the right way round at Edinburgh though that isn't I think wired. For the Lowlander you could go from Euston but would need to do the split somewhere other than Carstairs, I guess Carlisle? That would increase costs due to the separate trains running much further.\
I think where this basically sits is "possible but awkward" to be honest.
The sub isn't wired, so you would need to use a bimode or diesel locomotive.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
In another thread I tried to figure out how many locomotives the sleeper uses. By my count, there are 7 Electric locos, as well as 5 or 6 diesel ones (depending on whether most or all the in scotland legs use double-heading)
13 locos for what is in effect 4 trains is quite a lot
I assume the night riviera does better, but I would guess it likely still uses 4 locos (1 service loco and 1 pilot per direction)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The seats do regularly sell out, at least on the glasgow portion of the lowlander. Switching to 2+2 with more comfortable seats would enable more tickets to be sold, and the current seats are absolutely awful, so would be worth replacing in my view.
Does the sleeper offer onboard upgrades from seated to any unsold cabins? (are there ever even unsold cabins?) If not, that would be a way to increase revenue.
Another thing that may be worth looking at is how many staff are onboard each service? If that's a lot, it may also be worth considering if that is needed.
The seats do regularly sell out, at least on the glasgow portion of the lowlander. Switching to 2+2 with more comfortable seats would enable more tickets to be sold, and the current seats are absolutely awful, so would be worth replacing in my view.
You could actually sell that quite well. 2+2 obviously isn't as desirable, but if the comfort was upgraded significantly by using a premium design* of seat (and still reclining) you could sell that - and obviously then sell about another 10 seated tickets per train (I think it's about 10 rows?)
* NOT the Fainsa Sophia! I'd suggest looking at stuff like the seat used on the ICE. It should have a thickly padded base, a sliding-base recline function and a thin back to maintain legroom.
Wasn't it more that the ORR decided that it would require more testing and risk assessing before being permitted and Serco decided it wasn't worth the expense? Rather than it being a flat "No"?
One of the big selling points of the Night Riviera from a profitability point of view is that it's entirely staffed by general GWR staff. For example the Plymouth driver who drives down from Plymouth to Penzance goes on to work the 0910 Penzance to Paddington normal GWR service (to Plymouth). Whereas the Scotrail sleepers rely on employing people who's primary role is to drive / guard it. Probably doesn't help that Scotrail will never have traincrew depots at Euston or Preston!
If the plane crashes during level flight, you are likely dead regardless of seating position.
If you are lying flat in the direction of travel and the train hits something, you could easily be thrown into a wall head first and break your neck.
one advantage to a classic style 4 person couchette vs a pod style one is how you could enable seat-bed conversion so the stock could be used for a daytime route after doing a overnight, e.g. the Inverness portion could depart Inverness at 0900 for Edinburgh arriving at 1300 then back again 1400-1800 with enough time to prep for the overnight down to London
in general if the sleepers want to be self funding they need to focus on quantity not quality, more hostel on wheels not hotel on wheels
Certainly finding a use for some of those locomotives when they're not pulling the sleeper might help with the general economics. If ScotRail had some LHCS trains (Aberdeen to Inverness would be a good run, as that's between two ends of the sleeper service) then it at least wouldn't use so many engines to only run the sleeper.
Certainly finding a use for some of those locomotives when they're not pulling the sleeper might help with the general economics. If ScotRail had some LHCS trains (Aberdeen to Inverness would be a good run, as that's between two ends of the sleeper service) then it at least wouldn't use so many engines to only run the sleeper.
Isn't that just throwing even more money at it? Scotrail would have to get some stock they could haul from somewhere and it would be a mini-fleet compared to the rest of their stock.
Also, as the locomotives are hired in from GBRf, isn't it their problem to maximise usage? CS will only be paying for the actual runs the locomotives do.
Isn't that just throwing even more money at it? Scotrail would have to get some stock they could haul from somewhere and it would be a mini-fleet compared to the rest of their stock.
Also, as the locomotives are hired in from GBRf, isn't it their problem to maximise usage? CS will only be paying for the actual runs the locomotives do.
I'd be surprised if GBRFs rates didn't allow for the fact that the locos don't actually do anything else.
Obviously from where we are now there would be expenditure to create an LHCS fleet, but I suppose what I was getting at is that if there were a lot more LHCS operations, there would need economies is scale surrounding them.
We all like the Sleepers as a bit of a railway curiosity, but both do seem to be rather a money pit.
Could either or both of them be made self-funding? The main options for this would seem to be increasing fares - OeBB's Nightjet charges much higher fares comparatively and the market doesn't seem very price sensitive.
Do the seats sell well? Might it be an option to increase capacity and thus income by reseating to 2+2 on the Cally, given that it's a budget option?
Fares, I think Caledonian Sleeper could charge more on the Fort William section. Daytime travel from Fort William to London involves either two trains with a change of stations in Glasgow or a bus / train to Glasgow, a bus or taxi to Glasgow Airport and a flight. Either of these options are going to take up most of the day, whereas the sleeper will only take up the evening and early morning of someone’s day. So Caledonian Sleeper could charge more to reflect that it is most convenient and time effective option on this route. The Night Rivera and other Caledonian Sleeper routes I think are probably priced right due to better daytime options on these routes.
Use of other operators lounges were possible. With GBR coming soon this may be more feasible, Euston for example could just a single GBR branded lounge for both Avanti and Caledonian Sleeper passengers
Use of a single locomotive instead of both a class 66 and class 73 locomotives for the Highland Caledonian Sleeper. I am not sure how feasible this is though.
I agree with 2+2 seating on the sleepers. Overnight coaches are also have 2+2 seating, which is probably the market the seats are competing with. Even with 2+2 seating, the sleeper will offer a better travel experience due to the availability of food on the train and Euston / Paddington stations having better onward travel connections than Victoria Coach Station.
This is a rather zany idea, but given the enormous power that a modern EMU has, could sleeper vehicles be hauled north to Carlisle (or to Edinburgh/Glasgow for the lowland) coupled to a suitable EMU?
This is a rather zany idea, but given the enormous power that a modern EMU has, could sleeper vehicles be hauled north to Carlisle (or to Edinburgh/Glasgow for the lowland) coupled to a suitable EMU?
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
