Caledonian Sleeper

WesternLancer · 18 Jun 2019

option said:
One of the reports was that the shower water was puddling, which means that it's not draining away quick enough.
If you look at the drain used, & it's position, it's obvious that any tilt, in any direction, will move water away from the drain.

SCT-EEm-Caledonian-Sleeper-GER30062016031

option

18 Jun 2019

Look at a bathroom (an accessible one) on the QM2, & the drain is much bigger, & the water to the right of it can't go anywhere but down the drain. There is also a much larger 'drainage hole' area.

Queen-mary-2-qm2-cunard-146825

option

18 Jun 2019

The comparison would presumably be more with say the VIA rail ex eurostar night stock (UK loading gauge) - shower compartments, or the ex DB (now OBB?) night stock maybe?
for VIA I recall the ensuite toilet and shower being good, but you had to think ahead as after you used the shower the toilet seat was covered in water! Pic here
https://www.seat61.com/montreal-to-halifax-by-train.htm
or
https://www.seat61.com/images/nightjet-toilet-comfortline-large.jpg

A journey a couple of years back on an SNCF night train where my couchette car had been replaced by a new russian railways sleeper resulted in shower compartment at the end of the carriage, was better in a way, but of course not easy to manage use if lots of people need to shower at approx the same time, which is what would happen in UK as journey is not extended much timewise beyond boarding and arrival time

RailUK Forums

option · 18 Jun 2019

WesternLancer said:
for VIA I recall the ensuite toilet and shower being good, but you had to think ahead as after you used the shower the toilet seat was covered in water! Pic here
https://www.seat61.com/montreal-to-halifax-by-train.htm
or
https://www.seat61.com/images/nightjet-toilet-comfortline-large.jpg

Another pic of the same bathroom
https://www.seat61.com/images/nightjet-deluxe-top2-large.jpg

Those pics show how it should be done;
the bathroom is a factory-built sealed pod, that then slots in (how it's now done for hotels & student accommodation)
the shower area is lower & so the water can't go anywhere else

JModulo · 18 Jun 2019

As previously mentioned about the shower drain position, it should also be noted that these also do not just drain. They are tanked in the same way the toilets are, so the shower only drains / sucks away so much water every so often.

Bletchleyite · 18 Jun 2019

JModulo said:
As previously mentioned about the shower drain position, it should also be noted that these also do not just drain. They are tanked in the same way the toilets are, so the shower only drains / sucks away so much water every so often.

What is the benefit of this complexity?

JModulo · 18 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
What is the benefit of this complexity?

Your guess is as good as mine... the sinks in the rooms are like this also and make a horrendous noise after most of the water is gone but it is still trying to drain when there isn't any water left. I didn't think there would be an issue going straight onto the track with the showers as its grey water, the only issue being it would soon have large deposits at terminus stations.

ainsworth74 · 18 Jun 2019

JModulo said:
I didn't think there would be an issue going straight onto the track with the showers as its grey water, the only issue being it would soon have large deposits at terminus stations.

Maybe it's just me but I'm sure when the Mk5s were first a thing it was stated that the tanks would deal with the toilet waste only and the sinks/showers would drain onto the track as being grey water they could do so and it would save on complexity and tank space!

Bletchleyite · 18 Jun 2019

ainsworth74 said:
Maybe it's just me but I'm sure when the Mk5s were first a thing it was stated that the tanks would deal with the toilet waste only and the sinks/showers would drain onto the track as being grey water they could do so and it would save on complexity and tank space!

This would seem to make sense. Or if that wasn't possible, have a separate tank with gravity draining for grey water. The benefit of a vacuum system for the toilets is reduced flush water consumption and reduced water in the effluent itself. Neither of these apply to showers and sinks, and therefore there is no case to have them set up in that way. It's just yet more overcomplicated nonsense to go wrong.

Hadders · 18 Jun 2019

I’m travelling from FTW to GLQ on the Sleeper tonight.

Everyone in the seated coach going the full distance to London has been upgraded free of charge to a solo berth on account of a problem with the Aberdeen seated coach (which passengers from FTW change into at Edinburgh).

Speaking to a host they just want to keep passengers happy at the moment.

Rather worrying that they’ve got so many berths available at the height of the tourist season....

MrEd · 18 Jun 2019

Hadders said:
I’m travelling from FTW to GLQ on the Sleeper tonight.

Everyone in the seated coach going the full distance to London has been upgraded free of charge to a solo berth on account of a problem with the Aberdeen seated coach (which passengers from FTW change into at Edinburgh).

Speaking to a host they just want to keep passengers happy at the moment.

Rather worrying that they’ve got so many berths available at the height of the tourist season....

The Fort William crew are all a fantastic bunch, I travel with them a lot and they always keep me very happy

I think that upgrading seated passengers to berths is fairly standard practice when the seated coach is faulty, assuming there are any spare berths. Tuesday night in any direction on the Highlander is likely to be comparatively quiet at any time of year. Just under two years ago, I did Euston to Inverness on a Tuesday night in late August and both first and standard class were no more than a third full. In my experience, Tuesday is probably the most likely night of the week for there to be enough spare capacity for displaced seated passengers/walk-ups. We’re probably not yet in the absolute height of the season yet either, particularly as school holidays haven’t started in either Scotland or England. July and August are the busiest months for the Highlander, I think. I wouldn’t bank on there being any spare capacity on a Thursday or Friday night northbound or a Sunday or Monday night southbound at this time of year though, that’s for sure.

Hadders · 18 Jun 2019

Agree with you about the staff, they’re top notch tonight.

TimboM · 18 Jun 2019

Highlandspring said:
I don’t think anyone who is speculating here has a clue what ‘passenger comfort’ type testing was done by Serco and CAF during the development and commissioning process. Including me.

BRX said:
I think we do - not enough!

The delivery and introduction of the stock was significantly delayed and many months behind schedule.
It's evident there were significant financial and political pressures to get the Mk5's into service ASAP and evidently when they were still not really ready - so they were a long way off being in a position to take their time and get everything ship-shape, together with letting invited guests/enthusiasts or whoever ride around on them for a few nights to iron out the wrinkles.

WesternLancer · 19 Jun 2019

Hadders said:
I’m travelling from FTW to GLQ on the Sleeper tonight.

Everyone in the seated coach going the full distance to London has been upgraded free of charge to a solo berth on account of a problem with the Aberdeen seated coach (which passengers from FTW change into at Edinburgh).

Speaking to a host they just want to keep passengers happy at the moment.

Rather worrying that they’ve got so many berths available at the height of the tourist season....

sounds like just the kind of customer service initiative that seems to have been lacking in other parts of the CS operation mentioned in this thread from time to time. Well done to all concerned.

tsr · 19 Jun 2019

VTWC have also been accepting CS tickets tonight on various services.

BRX · 19 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
This would seem to make sense. Or if that wasn't possible, have a separate tank with gravity draining for grey water. The benefit of a vacuum system for the toilets is reduced flush water consumption and reduced water in the effluent itself. Neither of these apply to showers and sinks, and therefore there is no case to have them set up in that way. It's just yet more overcomplicated nonsense to go wrong.

I imagine the showers may simply be too low down to have gravity drainage (unless it was directly to the track). I wonder if this is a problem particular to the uk loading gauge.

Bletchleyite · 19 Jun 2019

BRX said:
I imagine the showers may simply be too low down to have gravity drainage (unless it was directly to the track). I wonder if this is a problem particular to the uk loading gauge.

I doubt it, it doesn't need much of a fall if you're only talking water.

BRX · 19 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I doubt it, it doesn't need much of a fall if you're only talking water.

In a building context you normally look for a minimum of 18mm per m; a pipe running half the length of a 20m coach would need 180mm fall but then you have to add the depth of whatever tank it's being collected in, plus the vertical drop from the shower tray... pretty easy to see how quickly that could eat into whatever space you have between floor level and lowest part of undercarriage which can't be more than about 600mm. And I imagine it's no simple matter to find a continuous straight run threaded through everything else that has to fit under the floor... and presumably in a moving vehicle which can be on gradients and canted track and so on, the rate of fall that works in a static building context quickly becomes irrelevant. So I can see why it's probably inevitable there has to be some kind of pumped system.

JModulo · 19 Jun 2019

BRX said:
In a building context you normally look for a minimum of 18mm per m; a pipe running half the length of a 20m coach

Theres a tank below each room with the ensuites though.

BRX · 19 Jun 2019

JModulo said:
Theres a tank below each room with the ensuites though.

The same tank that the toilet goes to?

Bletchleyite · 19 Jun 2019

I do sort of wonder if they'd have done better fitting one or two shared shower compartments but offering them only to those in the premium compartments on a booked timeslot basis. It could have been bigger and better-appointed that way. Then all you'd need is a bog and sink, much easier to do and requiring of less space.

WesternLancer · 19 Jun 2019

Rail magazine has a review of the mk5 sleepers this week, by Pip Dunn I think.

He's not over critical but reading between the lines he's not saying 'wow'. Points he picks up are
a) snagging issues (noise from draft around a window in his compartment / air con too cold) but
b) also other more fundamental probs like the noise from flushing bog in next door compartment, sloshing of water etc, air con fan noise. Also lack of any coat hangers / surface to put things down on he suggests is a negative compared with Mk3 design.

Overall his review is generally positive however.

Essexman · 19 Jun 2019

I found the sloshing of water annoying.
Lack of coat hangers seems to be a basic error.

Essexman · 19 Jun 2019

CS website says they hope to get services back to normal by the end of the week.
Tonight's Southbound from Glasgow is cancelled but they haven't yet said that anything has been cancelled for tomorrow, so I assume are hopeful that they can run, or at least that there's a chance they can run.

Deafdoggie · 19 Jun 2019

Been past Longsight this lunchtime, they are still there

option · 19 Jun 2019

BRX said:
In a building context you normally look for a minimum of 18mm per m; a pipe running half the length of a 20m coach would need 180mm fall but then you have to add the depth of whatever tank it's being collected in, plus the vertical drop from the shower tray... pretty easy to see how quickly that could eat into whatever space you have between floor level and lowest part of undercarriage which can't be more than about 600mm. And I imagine it's no simple matter to find a continuous straight run threaded through everything else that has to fit under the floor... and presumably in a moving vehicle which can be on gradients and canted track and so on, the rate of fall that works in a static building context quickly becomes irrelevant. So I can see why it's probably inevitable there has to be some kind of pumped system.

1) if they had used bathroom pods, that would have gained a couple of cm, as they sit on top of existing floor levels

2) if there's not enough length to get to the end of the coach with a suitable drop, then do a gravity run to a tank shared between 2/4 bathrooms, then pump from that.

option · 19 Jun 2019

TimboM said:
The delivery and introduction of the stock was significantly delayed and many months behind schedule.
It's evident there were significant financial and political pressures to get the Mk5's into service ASAP and evidently when they were still not really ready - so they were a long way off being in a position to take their time and get everything ship-shape, together with letting invited guests/enthusiasts or whoever ride around on them for a few nights to iron out the wrinkles.

I think whats evident is that testing wasn't considered important enough to be done early enough, ie. before building the final product.
A static build of the 'hotel' fittings & systems should have been done, & then stress tested.

Maybe they should have got one of the shipbuilders to do the interior fit out?

trebor79 · 19 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I do sort of wonder if they'd have done better fitting one or two shared shower compartments but offering them only to those in the premium compartments on a booked timeslot basis. It could have been bigger and better-appointed that way. Then all you'd need is a bog and sink, much easier to do and requiring of less space.

It wouldn't save any space as the bog area can't be any smaller than it already is for practical use.

Mainliner · 19 Jun 2019

Essexman said:
Lack of coat hangers seems to be a basic error.

Very basic indeed, should have been picked up (if even only one person did a proper test run as a guest) and immediately rectified, at little cost.

Instead, lots of guests now annoyed about it.

If such a minor detail can’t be sorted, it’s little wonder that so much else has gone wrong.

Maybe an opportunity, though, for some enterprising individual to flog adhesive coat hooks and hangers to a couple of hundred punters each night at Euston/Glasgow/Edinburgh? :lol:

BRX · 19 Jun 2019

Essexman said:
I found the sloshing of water annoying.

Easy solution to that (for me) is to book a non ensuite cabin!

Never really see the point of ensuites myself. I know some people want them though.

WesternLancer · 19 Jun 2019

BRX said:
Easy solution to that (for me) is to book a non ensuite cabin!

Never really see the point of ensuites myself. I know some people want them though.

Unsure if this was from within Pip D's cabin or elsewhere. Does layout of coach etc mean that non en-suite cabins (which are a decent cost saving anyway!) are sufficiently far away from en-suite ones to remove one from noise of water sloshing and bog flushing in adjacent cabin?

Grandnat · 19 Jun 2019

WesternLancer said:
Unsure if this was from within Pip D's cabin or elsewhere. Does layout of coach etc mean that non en-suite cabins (which are a decent cost saving anyway!) are sufficiently far away from en-suite ones to remove one from noise of water sloshing and bog flushing in adjacent cabin?

Because the bog/shower are positioned between the sleeping compartments then the classic rooms are always going to be at least a sleeping compartment away from a WC. If you’re in a club room then you are right next to your own WC obviously plus will get the noise from next door’s as well.

Caledonian Sleeper

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member