Or as stated above, a loco fault, with no loco to take the empties to Edinburgh so its running as a full 16 from Glasgow.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
Caledonian Sleeper
- Thread starter Essexman
- Start date
Or as stated above, a loco fault, with no loco to take the empties to Edinburgh so its running as a full 16 from Glasgow.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Well, yes, but a supply fault is a loco fault.
The CS Twitter suggested the empties were already at Edinburgh, but admittedly the Tweet in question could be read in two ways.
Highlandspring
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 2,777
The empties have actually chucked it at Motherwell (93043 ADD issues), the stock is currently being rescued by 92010 and will run directly to Carstairs for the join as booked.
E6007
Member
left Carstairs 170 late!
Elecman
Established Member
Passed Preston just around 06.00 running very late
It's not unreasonable to expect a booked seat for a journey of over 4.5 hours though. Last year when I made the trip the seated coach was almost full (busiest I've ever seen the FTW portion, even in the height of summer).
Also, I wouldn't put it past Serco to deny boarding at FTW to those without a reservation in the event of it being fully reserved.
In any case it's a poor show that tickets can't be purchased from any retailer other than Trainsplit.
sprinterguy
Established Member
In addition to issues with the Edinburgh portion of the southbound Lowlander, does anyone know why the Edinburgh portion of the northbound Lowlander, 1B26, was 27 minutes late leaving Carstairs this morning? The main train through to Glasgow, 1S26, reportedly arrived and departed there on time, so I'm just wondering why the Edinburgh portion hung around for an extra half hour.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The problem is that if people stack it full with reservations to GLC then they can't sell tickets to London (this will be more of an issue now it is GLC rather than Dalmuir which is inconveniently sited in the suburbs). However, the obvious solution to this is another coach on the Fort William portion dedicated to "domestic" use (a 2+2-seated TSO), and the mind boggles as to why this has never been done.
Extra expense, and a lack of interest from Serco in running a day train from Glasgow to Fort William to help ScotRail out. Especially as many of the passengers would be likely to use standard tickets rather than Advances, and they'd only get whatever share of the revenue ORCATS allocates them.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The error was probably in the Scottish Government not making this a franchise requirement; the cost of it would have been miniscule compared with the whole operation.
I suppose it'd also be an option to stop such carriage and put on a separate day train pair, but that would surely be far more costly.
They can't fill the Fort William seats with London passengers anyway, unless the Aberdeen seats are completely empty.
If anything, it's surprising they don't try and cash in on that fact; every time a seat is booked to/from Aberdeen, open up a competitively-priced Advance ticket from Glasgow (Queen Street, not Central) to Fort William or a popular intermediate station.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
True, but if someone booked up the entire coach they'd block sales of the ones you can sell to London.
Is there any way to quota reservations by destination, i.e. allow only half the seats to be reserved for domestic travel? That would sort it.
BRX
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 3,638
Yes, this.
Kendalian
Member
- Joined
- 30 Mar 2016
- Messages
- 249
CS finally replied to my Facebook Messenger contact and have agreed a full refund.
Worryingly though they are adamant they have emailed all affected customers offering partial or full refunds.
That has not happened. I haven’t received the email Essexman kindly shared and going by Twitter I’m not alone. Some difficult times ahead when “guests “ turn up unaware!
Worryingly though they are adamant they have emailed all affected customers offering partial or full refunds.
That has not happened. I haven’t received the email Essexman kindly shared and going by Twitter I’m not alone. Some difficult times ahead when “guests “ turn up unaware!
GrimShady
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 1,740
I wonder how hard to would be to convert a MK3 TSO to Delner and compatible power system/TMS. Aren't the couplers at a different height plus incompatible gangways?
It will never happen though.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Would be easier to order a Mk5 on a follow on from TPE's order while the line is still going.
In my experience the day coach from FTW is never full even in the height of summer although it was pretty full when I used it last year.
I believe it’s a franchise commitment to allow local passengers to use it to Glasgow/Edinburgh as it represents an additional journey opportunity on a line with a very light service. The problem is Serco are trying to remove it by stealth. I pointed this out a couple of years ago when it first started getting harder to get reservations to Glasgow/Edinburgh.
I believe it’s a franchise commitment to allow local passengers to use it to Glasgow/Edinburgh as it represents an additional journey opportunity on a line with a very light service. The problem is Serco are trying to remove it by stealth. I pointed this out a couple of years ago when it first started getting harder to get reservations to Glasgow/Edinburgh.
Kite159
Veteran Member
And I noticed it doesn't appear on the platform information boards on the West Highland Line Stations.
No doubt Serco probably would love to get rid of the local passenger option and expect Scotrail to run an additional Fort William service to cater for those passengers (although I guess they could run the 05:20Glasgow Queen Street - Oban as a pair of units with the front unit going on towards Fort William splitting at Crianlarich (and likewise that afternoon Mallaig - Fort William service to extend to Glasgow, like it probably should do on a Saturday evening when there is no sleeper].
TimboM
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 3,732
Bearing in mind Transport Scotland are all over what Serco do with a fine-tooth comb, if TS wanted to encourage this more they would/could.
As for the extra TSOs - in the peak season when the demand would be highest, the train is already Load 6 (4 Sleepers going to FTW). This would then make it a Load 7 - so really needing 2x 73/9s with the inclines on the WHL. If this had been a plan from the outset, at least another 73/9 in the fleet would be required and hence additional cost from the traction provider. There may also be additional pathing challenges of 2x 73/9s + 7 coaches at certain stations.
You're also looking at a couple of bespoke coaches at about £1.5m each in an already bespoke fleet giving further maintenance and availability headaches. Out of season they'd either be laid up or carrying fresh air.
It wouldn't stack up commercially for Serco (or any other operator) when realistic operational considerations/costs are taken into account - so would need additional govt/TS support and subsidy... and as above, it would appear TS are not particularly interested in pushing the Fort Bill portion as a day service.
GrimShady
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 1,740
Before the 37s arrived, the sleepers would be trusted to a single Class 27 up to load 10. Granted it was lighter MK1 stock.
Also During the MotoRail period on WHL, weren't the loadings similar to Class 37 plus 8/9?
Is there a spare lounge/kitchen Mk5 around? It could be used as an additional coach, at least it has table style seats down one side. Just offline the kitchen part. It removes the spare option if required however.
All points taken, just making mention of previous similar formations.
haggishunter
Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 349
On this topic of local day travel on the sleeper, what is the situation with the Inverness portion? It still shows in timetables as being available to board for travel from Kingussie northbound to Inverness, but tickets can not be purchased on the ScotRail website, nor can they be bought on sleeper.scot ?
The other day when I did it to INV as you say it did pick up day passengers from Kingussie but the trainman made no effort to grip anyone who got on, he probably has no way to issue tickets, definitely didn't have a ticket machine,just buy a single or whatever from to ticket machine at the station to cover yourself if you want too
It can be used as a normal 'day' train north of Kingussie. Seems as though Serco want to kill it off by stealth though if you can't buy a ticket.
TimboM
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 3,732
Whilst single 73/9s have hauled up to the equivalent of Load 14 as ECS, in service the Mk5s have a significant ETS draw (significantly higher than the old stock) which means less available for traction. The plan is 2x 73/9s on the Load 8 Inverness portion, so I suspect Load 7 on the WHL would be in the "might be OK, but a bit of a risk" category.
There is one spare Club Car in the fleet - it's to cover maintenance/repairs etc. though, so may not be available. It's also the 'jewel' in the service so I'm not sure CS would stick another one on for day passengers to use. There's a possibility the TMS may also not be configured for two Club Cars in a single unit like that.
In principle, since Transpennine have ordered their own Mark 5 fleet, I suspect that Serco could have their own versions of those coach types without too much difficulty. Though adding TSOs or FOs to the fleet (in effect, the Serco seated coaches are BFOs) would of course be more coach types to maintain, which they'd hardly welcome even if they were given away free.
Norther Monkey
Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2011
- Messages
- 245
The apparent disregard for 'day' passengers comes as no surprise. From the start of the franchising process it's been obvious that tourism and 'experience' were the focus. As a London to Scotland commuter I didn't feel my 'type' of passenger was being considered.
The pods I thought would provide the ideal solution for me - reasonable sleep at a price affordable for 3-4 return trips a month. Whatever the safety concerns were I doubt they were insurmountable and the impression I have is that they were given up without much of a fight. This only reinforced my opinion on the priority of commuters in the whole process.
I'm now largely priced out of the berths. The seats are affordable but don't guarantee I'll sleep. Thus I might need to write the morning off at the other end to sleep before I work, drive etc.
I feel we're left with a subsidised Royal Scotsman 'Light' with some steerage class tacked on the back. As a working man who simply wants to get to and from home efficiently and affordably it offers me less than before - almost by design. Ultimately the blame must lie with the Scottish Government who wrote the requirements and oversee the franchise.
The pods I thought would provide the ideal solution for me - reasonable sleep at a price affordable for 3-4 return trips a month. Whatever the safety concerns were I doubt they were insurmountable and the impression I have is that they were given up without much of a fight. This only reinforced my opinion on the priority of commuters in the whole process.
I'm now largely priced out of the berths. The seats are affordable but don't guarantee I'll sleep. Thus I might need to write the morning off at the other end to sleep before I work, drive etc.
I feel we're left with a subsidised Royal Scotsman 'Light' with some steerage class tacked on the back. As a working man who simply wants to get to and from home efficiently and affordably it offers me less than before - almost by design. Ultimately the blame must lie with the Scottish Government who wrote the requirements and oversee the franchise.
I've never understood how the pods were supposed to work. Intrinsically, they have to take up as much room as a bed, or else you can't lie on them. But they can't be double-decked, else you couldn't sit in them. So you're locked in to a passenger capacity (hence cost per seat) comparable to a conventional sleeping car, for an inferior product that has to be priced more cheaply.
That, I imagine, is why Serco didn't make much effort to resolve the issues. They didn't want pods, but had to examine the feasibility. Likewise, they don't really want the seats, but can't get rid of them.
If there was a commitment to sleeper travel for the ordinary person, we wouldn't have Caledonian Doubles, and we'd have couchettes (32 beds to a coach) replacing two or three sleeping cars.
On the Fort Bill portion, the guard had a fares table in a folder and was hand writing tickets.
Norther Monkey
Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2011
- Messages
- 245
But you wouldn't have sink, doors showers and all the other furniture associated with a room so capacity per coach would have been higher.
As you say I suspect they simply didn't want them. I've never bought the safety argument - I can stand at 125mph in a packed carriage full of badly arranged, loose heavy luggage but as soon as I'm horizontal it suddenly becomes unacceptable?
BRX
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 3,638
Is there a good reason for the inverness 'day' seats only to be available from Kingussie rather than from edinburgh as with the fort william one?