Steve Harris
Member
What's that old saying ?? Arh... Jack of all trades, master of none, lol
-
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
What's that old saying ?? Arh... Jack of all trades, master of none, lol
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I would argue that transporting prisoners may influence how you transport other groups of people...
They also used to run the Ghan and various other luxury sleeper type services overseas.
gingerheid
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2006
- Messages
- 1,492
I always do the Lowland, but unscientific sample of fares for a random Friday evening in a few weeks time:
Megabus 2300-1100 £22.90 (no flexible fare available)
Sleeper (seated) £53 / £73 (flexible / non flexible) /
Loganair (from Southend) 1835-2010 - £55 (non flexible, with hand luggage and small suitcase)
Loganair (from Southend) 1835-2010 - £70 (flexible, with hand luggage and suitcase)
BA 1735 - 1915: £125 Economy (non flexible, with no luggage)
LNER 1600-2311: £187 standard (flexible)
Sleeper (berth) £195 - £235 (non flexible / club, flexible)
LNER (first) 1600-2311: £273 (flexible)
BA 1735 - 1915: £277 business (flexible, luggage)
Can't really call it the most expensive; I'd say all the fares above have been pitched at about the right level (except maybe LNER would have been more reasonable if I'd happened on a day with advances available).
I think that's the problem we've got to - it's become a forum norm here to make the above statements whether they are true or not; the Sleeper has become the forum equivalent of the Brexiteer's bendy banana!!!
I'd say what we need to be criticising them for is:
- The problems that should have been teething problems but are still happening
- Not having sufficient robustness in loco availability (probably partly due to foreseeable problems from having unusual couplers that ought to have lead them to have better contingency planning)
The fares? Well... if people don't pay them they'll come down. Every time I book a journey I look at the cost of the alternatives and book the one that makes the most sense to me, considering convenience and the costs of things like getting to airports or getting taxis to early departures. Ideally it would be everyone else that stopped paying them so the prices came down for me, bc while I'd rather pay less (ofc), ultimately it's still a better service so I'm still using it a lot more then before and paying it!
Last edited:
Wouldn’t that apply to just about any largely self contained rail network incorporating the latest technology & with all trains & infrastructure a maximum of 10 years old ?
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Of more interest is Serco's experience at running the Australian tourist railways.
paul1609
Established Member
True, but the scale of it also needs to be appreciated at 204 million passenger journeys in 2018 it was bigger than Northern plus Merseyrail plus TPE plus Grand Central plus Hull Trains put together.
Merle Haggard
Established Member
On the subject of the 92s; I'm not sure how their reliability compares with other locos but logically one might expect them to be very reliable indeed. Perhaps they are, but failures are not unknown.
They were, of course, built for the Channel Tunnel and the regulations for traction used through it were much more onerous than on the GB mainland, to reduce the difficulties caused by loco failure in the Tunnel. In effect they were two independent locos. in one body so any failure could be isolated to one 'half' and the other half could carry on. There may have even been some under-rating of the power output when both parts were working, enabling an increase in power in the shorter term of the half in use. (And, as a result, they cost about 2 1/2 times that of a standard electric (e.g. Cl 90)).
It's surprising one never hears of them 'limping along' - they just seem to expire. Perhaps there's been some simplification that may, with hindsight, have been ill-advised?
They were, of course, built for the Channel Tunnel and the regulations for traction used through it were much more onerous than on the GB mainland, to reduce the difficulties caused by loco failure in the Tunnel. In effect they were two independent locos. in one body so any failure could be isolated to one 'half' and the other half could carry on. There may have even been some under-rating of the power output when both parts were working, enabling an increase in power in the shorter term of the half in use. (And, as a result, they cost about 2 1/2 times that of a standard electric (e.g. Cl 90)).
It's surprising one never hears of them 'limping along' - they just seem to expire. Perhaps there's been some simplification that may, with hindsight, have been ill-advised?
A Challenge
Established Member
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 2,823
These two images (full versions only attached as they are so large) appear to show that Caledonian Sleeper are charging more for a berth supplement (which requires a ticket which is over £100 anyway) than just booking a berth without ticket. Is this an anomaly in the same way that first is sometimes cheaper than standard for advances or is this a regular occurrence, and why doesn't CS warn of this here?
But, still need to lead a good team of people, maintain trains, manage the assets, control the service, etc, etc. The M.D. of Serco rail U.K. was on the Dubai Metro when new a new line was opened so knows a thing or two about introducing new trains etc.
BRX
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 3,629
Are there better refund/change of date options on a berth supplement, compared to what is presumably a non flexible advance fare?
greatkingrat
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2011
- Messages
- 2,764
The issue is the railcard. You don't get a railcard discount on the berth supplements which is why they appear more expensive.
The prices without a railcard would be £205 Club or £180 Classic, compared with £170 / £120 for the berth supplements.
A Challenge
Established Member
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 2,823
So booking engines aren't sensible enough to take the railcard off if that makes it more expensive - seems mad!
MrEd
Member
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 587
I agree with everything you say- for all its faults, to get from Cambridge to Kyle of Lochalsh I use the Highland sleeper from London to either Inverness or Spean Bridge without hesitation, and would only consider a day train or a flight if the sleeper was either fully booked or not an option for any reason. The sleeper is not perfect at the moment, but I for one can categorically say that it’s far more agreeable than either of the other two options for travelling from southern areas of England to the northern Highlands. I’m sure that many more folk in my position would be encouraged to use the sleeper if the berth fares were more reasonable (or the seats were made such that they were conducive to proper sleep). I don’t like airports or air travel at all, and try to avoid it wherever possible, and the day train is a waste of a day (and can be very tedious indeed- particularly if you find yourself standing up on a crush-loaded LNER up the ECML followed by a crush loaded Scotrail 170 north of Edinburgh- that really is a soul-destroying experience). Even with a first class ticket you can find yourself standing up at times on that route. Standing up on trains all the way from Peterborough to Perth as I did one Friday last autumn (had reserved seats but trains were too full to move down) is not an experience which I would ever repeat if I could help it. Compared with this, a night in a comfy bed on the sleeper (for all its faults) seems a very appealing prospect...
The railcard isn't making the berth supplement more expensive. Those are the prices without a railcard.
nlogax
Established Member
I've just submitted feedback to CS from my most recent trip on Friday evening. Namely the inconsistent info being given by the Twitter and Euston teams when it came to late boarding (or whether the service would run at all). Also.. that ride quality topic. Been thinking a lot about it recently.. this time around I was mid carriage and still felt every point frog and every centimetre of gnarled track. Is there any sort of objective opinion of Mk3 vs Mk5 ride quality?
John Bishop
Member
Up FW portion cancelled last night and subsequent Down FW portion cancelled this morning for some reason?
Rather large snow drifts on Rannoch Moor / Corrour area.
John Bishop
Member
Oh dear, don’t suppose the road alternative would have been much better.
Looks like 1Y48 passed the area around 1825 and was the last to pass. Time to get the big ploughs out!
d9009alycidon
Member
Another forum reported that 6S45 has been stuck all night in the snow shed north of Rannoch and last report was that the class 73 off 1B16 was being sent to assist.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I saw this, from Corrour, on the NR Scotland Twitter feed this morning...
https://twitter.com/NetworkRailSCOT/status/1227554766445785090?s=19
https://twitter.com/NetworkRailSCOT/status/1227554766445785090?s=19
Deafdoggie
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 3,076
When we did the Night Riviere we were the only people in the seated coaches so they let us dim and bright them as we wanted. Seats are hard and narrow though!
The Scotrail services regularly push through this sort of thing at Corrour. Video of this on YouTube.
Think the fact the loco on 6S45 had problems and failed is more the deciding issue and can only guess at a new driver on the sleeper not managing through that bit of snow? so while not CS, would say their traction provider maybe?
Aye they look broadly similar to a 156 plough but when they got the dellner mods the centre 1-2ft of the plough was removed so the coupler could hang down in that area
Struner
Member
It took network rail no more than half an hour to clear it...