Could the Sleepers be made self-funding?

[Zomboid]

EMUs with push pull locos (33/1 & 4TC style) so there's no diesel engines buzzing away whist people are trying to sleep (I assume some of those in the seated cars are hoping to sleep, too).

No real need for 110mph either, other than for keeping ECS moves during the day out of the way of traffic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

EMUs with push pull locos (33/1 & 4TC style) so there's no diesel engines buzzing away whist people are trying to sleep (I assume some of those in the seated cars are hoping to sleep, too).

No real need for 110mph either, other than for keeping ECS moves during the day out of the way of traffic.

To be fair it probably wouldn't be too hard, as noted above, to have an autocoupler fitted bi-mode locomotive at one end and a new-build or spare* driving trailer at the other of fixed formation sets of existing Mk5 coaches, which would be effectively the same as multiple units. This would also have the upside of being able to have spare individual vehicles instead of needing spare complete sets, but still in operation having all the economies of a multiple unit.

However, sound insulation on modern DEMUs is good, and the sort of people who can sleep in seats are the sort of people who generally don't have a problem sleeping on road coaches or in things like Voyagers and 80x (on the latter you can barely hear the engines at all - the transformer whine when on AC can be more disruptive) or indeed the far noisier environment of a jet aircraft.

* If Chiltern reform the Mk5A sets there may be a few spares, otherwise build some. Suggested above I think.

 

[Brubulus]

This wouldn't avoid reversals. For the Highlander the only way to avoid them is to go into Edinburgh from the east which means the ECML.

There's the Edinburgh suburban which can get a train facing the right way. However it's not electrified.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's the Edinburgh suburban which can get a train facing the right way. However it's not electrified.

That would of course be an option if a bi-mode locomotive or unit was to be used. (Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you'd have to run via the Suburban on the way into Edinburgh, not on the way out - if you could do it on the way out you've already got the diesels on).

Not sure about the Lowlander, I guess you'd have to split at Carlisle, so you would have increased costs of two drivers/locomotives for a longer part of the journey?

 

[Brubulus]

That would of course be an option if a bi-mode locomotive or unit was to be used. (Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you'd have to run via the Suburban on the way into Edinburgh, not on the way out - if you could do it on the way out you've already got the diesels on).

Not sure about the Lowlander, I guess you'd have to split at Carlisle, so you would have increased costs of two drivers/locomotives for a longer part of the journey?

You could send the lowlander that way, you'd need dissel or batteries. The limitation is platform lengths at Glasgow Central. You could enter or leave Edinburgh via the suburban. With a loco hauled fleet you do still need shunting on the Highlander, but that would deliver a substantial reduction in costs for the lowlander.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You could send the lowlander that way, you'd need dissel or batteries. The limitation is platform lengths at Glasgow Central. You could enter or leave Edinburgh via the suburban. With a loco hauled fleet you do still need shunting on the Highlander, but that would deliver a substantial reduction in costs for the lowlander.

For the Lowlander the issue is that the Edinburgh portion reverses out of Carstairs. The Glasgow doesn't reverse. Thus you'd have to split it elsewhere or run a very convoluted route via Glasgow meaning a later arrival.

 

[MatthewHutton]

For the Lowlander the issue is that the Edinburgh portion reverses out of Carstairs. The Glasgow doesn't reverse. Thus you'd have to split it elsewhere or run a very convoluted route via Glasgow meaning a later arrival.

Could they not build a new siding for it slightly further south?

Also the idea that you have couchettes that you also use in the daytime is pretty strong.

 

[Brubulus]

For the Lowlander the issue is that the Edinburgh portion reverses out of Carstairs. The Glasgow doesn't reverse. Thus you'd have to split it elsewhere or run a very convoluted route via Glasgow meaning a later arrival.

You'd send the entire train via Edinburgh, the arrival time doesn't really matter, so no stopping at Carstairs and no splitting.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Some kind of four car EDMU (a mixture of seats and couchettes that can be converted to day compartments) hauling a four car rake of sleeper trailers (with a driving end) would be quite useful as the powered set can be used on daytime services in the Highlands.

More recent examination of my original suggestion would actually involve longer units ( 10 cars running in pairs ) rather than shorter units... and yes, with a re-jig of the service to offer three departures a night.

There is mention elsewhere in this thread of the Aberdeen portion; yes - it's the least used bit but unfortunately it's also a portion that the politicians are absolutely determined to retain.

As to the question of demand... Caledonian Sleeper themselves said last year that they could sell the Edinburgh portion three times over...

 

[ABB125]

More recent examination of my original suggestion would actually involve longer units ( 10 cars running in pairs ) rather than shorter units... and yes, with a re-jig of the service to offer three departures a night.

There is mention elsewhere in this thread of the Aberdeen portion; yes - it's the least used bit but unfortunately it's also a portion that the politicians are absolutely determined to retain.

As to the question of demand... Caledonian Sleeper themselves said last year that they could sell the Edinburgh portion three times over...

So, an Edinburgh sleeper, a Glasgow/Fort William sleeper, and an Inverness/Aberdeen sleeper? The last of which could run straight from London to Stirling via Coatbridge on electric then split there?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

So, an Edinburgh sleeper, a Glasgow/Fort William sleeper, and an Inverness/Aberdeen sleeper? The last of which could run straight from London to Stirling via Coatbridge on electric then split there?

Not quite - a bit more ingenious than that, but I'm not sure if I should say openly ( yet... ).

 

[ABB125]

Not quite - a bit more ingenious than that, but I'm not sure if I should say openly ( yet... ).

Very mysterious...

Of course, if Edinburgh is the key market you could run an EDB/INV service and an EDB/ABD service, which has the benefit of giving two different departure times for the Edinburgh market and, assuming we still have normal coaching stock, you could if needed have most of each train stopping in Edinburgh when demand is high, with only a few coaches continuing further north. Could be a bit like a nodern-day slip coach - just it's most of the train!

 

[Brubulus]

More recent examination of my original suggestion would actually involve longer units ( 10 cars running in pairs ) rather than shorter units... and yes, with a re-jig of the service to offer three departures a night.

There is mention elsewhere in this thread of the Aberdeen portion; yes - it's the least used bit but unfortunately it's also a portion that the politicians are absolutely determined to retain.

As to the question of demand... Caledonian Sleeper themselves said last year that they could sell the Edinburgh portion three times over...

Train lengths are limited to 400m. Mk5s can go to Night Riviera. Trains must go to Aberdeen. Taking these constraints into account, there is no reason why Mk5s can't run to Glasgow via Edinburgh, no shunting required. Maybe you could run 1 all the way to Glasgow and 1 just to Edinburgh given the excess demand, meaning no transfer to Night Riviera is necessary. Then use multiple units for the Highlander, either newbuild bi modes or 222s with the engines under intermediate cars removed. The performance would be dire but it doesn't really matter. Especially if ScotRail ends up acquiring much of the 222 fleet this could work as a sleeper subfleet. A single 5 car 222 to Aberdeen and Fort William would work while 7 cars would run to Inverness, again removing the cost of shunting. Not entirely sure if 1500hp is enough to run on the HML at all, which would be a concern. Newbuild stock would be a less compromised solution but more expensive, though could happen in conjunction with the ScotRail HST replacement. Inverness can only accommodate 15 coaches while Fort William can only accommodate around 8, so that's the issue with running full length through service, though running 15 coaches instead of 16/17 isn't that much of a hardship given the extra capacity on Inverness. Also a major cost saving would be exempting the sleeper from Delay Repay.

 

[Zomboid]

Train lengths are limited to 400m. Mk5s can go to Night Riviera. Trains must go to Aberdeen. Taking these constraints into account, there is no reason why Mk5s can't run to Glasgow via Edinburgh, no shunting required. Maybe you could run 1 all the way to Glasgow and 1 just to Edinburgh given the excess demand, meaning no transfer to Night Riviera is necessary. Then use multiple units for the Highlander, either newbuild bi modes or 222s with the engines under intermediate cars removed. The performance would be dire but it doesn't really matter. Especially if ScotRail ends up acquiring much of the 222 fleet this could work as a sleeper subfleet. A single 5 car 222 to Aberdeen and Fort William would work while 7 cars would run to Inverness, again removing the cost of shunting. Not entirely sure if 1500hp is enough to run on the HML at all, which would be a concern. Newbuild stock would be a less compromised solution but more expensive, though could happen in conjunction with the ScotRail HST replacement. Inverness can only accommodate 15 coaches while Fort William can only accommodate around 8, so that's the issue with running full length through service, though running 15 coaches instead of 16/17 isn't that much of a hardship given the extra capacity on Inverness. Also a major cost saving would be exempting the sleeper from Delay Repay.

Performance does matter on the Highlander - it doesn't arrive in Inverness until 0845, which is well into the running of the day trains, so if it's underpowered then it will be stuck in those single line sections for long enough to cause delay.

It can have a leisurely trundle up the WCML, but needs to run fairly sensibly beyond Perth.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's leased, but that's why I do think the best solution is very slow 222s instead of small run newbuild stock

How are you converting stock which has a tapered roofline rather than a square profile into sleeper stock?

 

[I'm here now]

Put some roomettes on and raise the prices for the cabins.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Performance does matter on the Highlander - it doesn't arrive in Inverness until 0845, which is well into the running of the day trains, so if it's underpowered then it will be stuck in those single line sections for long enough to cause delay.

It can have a leisurely trundle up the WCML, but needs to run fairly sensibly beyond Perth.

Some of that is because of the pissing about in Edinburgh which takes over an hour.

The fort William sleeper takes 4.5 hours to get from Glasgow to Preston non stop vs 2.5 hours for a daytime Pendelino.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You'd send the entire train via Edinburgh, the arrival time doesn't really matter, so no stopping at Carstairs and no splitting.

Of course the arrival time matters, otherwise they'd use the first day train for a third of the price.

 

[Zomboid]

Some of that is because of the pissing about in Edinburgh which takes over an hour.

The fort William sleeper takes 4.5 hours to get from Glasgow to Preston non stop vs 2.5 hours for a daytime Pendelino.

It's still got to get up and down the Highland main line whilst day trains are running, so needs to have the performance to get over Slochd and Druomochter (apologies for the spelling if that's wrong) without delaying other trains.

 

[Bill57p9]

Caledonian: Would it be possible to retro fit cabs in to one end of the seated cars to make them Driving Trailers (DTs), rated for use in passenger service at 86mph (or close to)? That would remove the need for terminal shunts (and associated top & trailing), just leaving the splits/joins requiring shunting.

Surely there would be savings to be made by merging CS into ScotRail, even if remaining a separate brand but with common back office functions.

If GWR had not been retiring the Castle sets I would consider using HST power cars on the Night Riviera to avoid the top & tail requirement and provide commonality of locomotive crew and parts.

 

[Zomboid]

I think LHCS probably is the answer for the Riviera, with some cab cars to allow the Reading to Paddington ECS run to be done with just one loco. But even then they'd need a spare loco, and could just hire a freight engine for that move if needed.

Trying to run it with MUs would mean mostly diesel still, and there's only two train sets needed, so having a couple of spares of each coach type rather than an entire spare train sitting idle is probably economically more viable.

They should have replaced the mk3s when CS did theirs, but that's water under the bridge now.

 

[Tetragon213]

Caledonian: Would it be possible to retro fit cabs in to one end of the seated cars to make them Driving Trailers (DTs), rated for use in passenger service at 86mph (or close to)? That would remove the need for terminal shunts (and associated top & trailing), just leaving the splits/joins requiring shunting.

Surely there would be savings to be made by merging CS into ScotRail, even if remaining a separate brand but with common back office functions.

If GWR had not been retiring the Castle sets I would consider using HST power cars on the Night Riviera to avoid the top & tail requirement and provide commonality of locomotive crew and parts.

I once asked about this on the dedicated Night Riviera stock thread, and apparently the electrical systems are incompatible. The Class 43s provide power at 415V, but the Mk3A stock of the Night Riviera accepts power at a nominal 1000V instead.

If you could use normal Mk3 coaches with HST-grade electrical switchboards etc for the Cally's Highlander portion, one could potentially use either Class 43 or Class 68 locomotives to haul them (perhaps with a DVT or similar), and then have the locomotive be available for hauling daytime services.

Total crayon thought here, but if you had a formation of (Electric loco) - (sleeping coaches) - (seated DBSO) - (seated DBSO) - (Sleeping coaches) - (Diesel locomotive hauled dead, e.g. Class 43), one could possibly make the splitting to Aberdeen a little easier? You could go up the ECML, split the train at Edinburgh, and have the electric loco haul the front half into Glasgow under the wires, while the Aberdeen portion (admittedly being driven locomotive at the wrong end) sets off a few minutes later? I'm 99% sure there is a good reason I've overlooked that this isn't possible, though!

 

[Zomboid]

It's probably fair to say that running from Kings Cross via the ECML would remove a lot of reversals, though whether that in itself would improve matters I don't know.

If as suggested Edinburgh could sell out a full 16 car set by itself then maybe it should be allowed to, unless the other destinations also regularly sell out. I don't know how to serve everywhere else in that scenario though.

 

[MatthewHutton]

I once asked about this on the dedicated Night Riviera stock thread, and apparently the electrical systems are incompatible. The Class 43s provide power at 415V, but the Mk3A stock of the Night Riviera accepts power at a nominal 1000V instead.

If you could use normal Mk3 coaches with HST-grade electrical switchboards etc for the Cally's Highlander portion, one could potentially use either Class 43 or Class 68 locomotives to haul them (perhaps with a DVT or similar), and then have the locomotive be available for hauling daytime services.

Total crayon thought here, but if you had a formation of (Electric loco) - (sleeping coaches) - (seated DBSO) - (seated DBSO) - (Sleeping coaches) - (Diesel locomotive hauled dead, e.g. Class 43), one could possibly make the splitting to Aberdeen a little easier? You could go up the ECML, split the train at Edinburgh, and have the electric loco haul the front half into Glasgow under the wires, while the Aberdeen portion (admittedly being driven locomotive at the wrong end) sets off a few minutes later? I'm 99% sure there is a good reason I've overlooked that this isn't possible, though!

The challenge is the 5 destinations and 4 trains.

If you make it 5 destinations and 3 trains (likely with a dedicated Edinburgh train) or “6” destinations and 3 trains and two of those being Edinburgh then you are in a better place.

The other question is whether really you need to have 16 car long trains in general. If they are shorter you have more flexibility about where they terminate - and also you can add more intermediate stops and get more passengers.

After East West rail starts being able to get off in Milton Keynes would be quite good.

 

[Krokodil]

Is there any scope for Saturday running? Even if just one of the trains rather than both. It would get more use out of the rolling stock.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Train lengths are limited to 400m.

Two of the suggested 10 car units referenced would be equal in length to the current 16 cars plus locomotives. The carriages would be slightly shorter because they would be articulated.

Is there any scope for Saturday running? Even if just one of the trains rather than both. It would get more use out of the rolling stock.

Apparently not, and not just because of potential engineering works issues - the entire train crew plan is based on three lots of paired workings ( out and back on consecutive nights ) per crew. Assuming that could be overcome, I suspect it would still be the same costs / revenue proportion; might even increase the costs as they'd have to hire two lots of extra crews as they'd have to shift the pairing arrangement by a day each week.

 

[Trainbike46]

More recent examination of my original suggestion would actually involve longer units ( 10 cars running in pairs ) rather than shorter units... and yes, with a re-jig of the service to offer three departures a night.

There is mention elsewhere in this thread of the Aberdeen portion; yes - it's the least used bit but unfortunately it's also a portion that the politicians are absolutely determined to retain.

As to the question of demand... Caledonian Sleeper themselves said last year that they could sell the Edinburgh portion three times over...

Wasn't there lots of unmet demand from Inverness as well?

Not quite - a bit more ingenious than that, but I'm not sure if I should say openly ( yet... ).

I'm looking forward to whatever this relates to becoming public! Three portions, of maximum length would be amazing.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I'm looking forward to whatever this relates to becoming public! Three portions, of maximum length would be amazing.

Don't get too excited... there's politicians involved aren't there...?!

 

[SuspectUsual]

From the demand side, we don’t know how much untapped demand there is, but surely CS could know as they’ll have data on the number of people who search a date on their website, get a “full” message and then don’t book a different date?

 

[Trainbike46]

Two of the suggested 10 car units referenced would be equal in length to the current 16 cars plus locomotives. The carriages would be slightly shorter because they would be articulated.

That sounds suspiciously like a FLIRT!