Caledonian Sleeper discussion

[87015]

Delay leaving was due to a misbehaving coach that needed to be shunted out of the rake at Euston I believe.

They really are trying to beat Virgin WC for how much you can run down a fleet by just not bothering to maintain it aren’t they. Never thought I’d see anyone come close, but it seems this lot want the prize more than ever...

 

[TimboM]

They really are trying to beat Virgin WC for how much you can run down a fleet by just not bothering to maintain it aren’t they. Never thought I’d see anyone come close, but it seems this lot want the prize more than ever...

It’s 30-40+ year-old stock getting replaced in c.9 months (because it’s life expired).

Most rakes are two coaches short currently as the usual approach is being taken of removing coaches from the sets to maintain/repair them during the quiet period (even though they’re getting replaced soon).

There’s still a weekly run of one or two coaches between Polmadie and the works at Kilmarnock for repairs.

Doesn’t seem like they’re not bothering to maintain the fleet at all. The stock isn’t in perfect condition by any means, however in the circumstances not sure what more is expected with old stock that’s not far off getting replaced?

The odd coach out of c.56 (at the moment) being used every night will fail occasionally.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They really are trying to beat Virgin WC for how much you can run down a fleet by just not bothering to maintain it aren’t they. Never thought I’d see anyone come close, but it seems this lot want the prize more than ever...

To be fair their rolling stock, of the same vintage as VTWC/XC, is now about 20 years older than VTWC's was as they were having the issue.

 

[Deafdoggie]

To be fair their rolling stock, of the same vintage as VTWC/XC, is now about 20 years older than VTWC's was as they were having the issue.

Is it not also the same vintage as the GWR Night Rivera stock? Who seem to have a lot less issues

 

[Scotrail84]

They really are trying to beat Virgin WC for how much you can run down a fleet by just not bothering to maintain it aren’t they. Never thought I’d see anyone come close, but it seems this lot want the prize more than ever...

What a load of Tom Kite!! You've no got a clue what you're talking about...

 

[Scotrail84]

Is it not also the same vintage as the GWR Night Rivera stock? Who seem to have a lot less issues

Which does a lot less miles per week compared to Sercos coaches.

 

[BRX]

Last few times I've travelled on it I've definitely got the impression that fairly minimum maintenance is being carried out especially on the lounge/seated cars. Of course I can see the logic that if you're about to replace everything, it doesn't make sense to invest heavily in the old stock. But I've spotted quite a few things that presumably *could* be repaired if they wanted.

 

[TimboM]

Which does a lot less miles per week compared to Sercos coaches.

GWR also only operate two sleepers which are each a Load 8 usually, so each night they've a quarter of the stock in use compared to CS (and hence a quarter the size of fleet to maintain give or take).

GWR also took the decision to go down the route of overhauling/refurbing their Mk3s and invest in them to keep them going for a few more years - they'll be looking to use their coaches for another decade or so I expect, so their outlook on some of the more "could be fixed" items will be quite different to CS (and their backers) who made the different decision about 3-4 years ago to invest (a lot!) in a brand new fleet. As @BRX says the logic is then that only the "must do" items are fixed on the CS stock to keep it running (the vast majority of the time) rather than spend money on "nice-to-haves". Indeed in terms of things like fitting USB points to all the berths, they've done more than might be expected to coaches that are on their way out (comparatively) very soon.

 

[ScottDarg]

There’s still a weekly run of one or two coaches between Polmadie and the works at Kilmarnock for repairs.

Such as the one that happened today, which still went ahead even though the assigned support loco (47749) is hiding away at Craigentinny. The loco from yesterdays China Clays, 66723, was used instead.

I believe the two going to Kilmarnock today were BUO 9805 and SLEP 10722.

https://flic.kr/p/K2S8vF

In other news, 73968 and 969 ran light to Polmadie this morning - presumably for some Mk.5 testing.

 

[TimboM]

Such as the one that happened today, which still went ahead even though the assigned support loco (47749) is hiding away at Craigentinny. The loco from yesterdays China Clays, 66723, was used instead.

I believe the two going to Kilmarnock today were BUO 9805 and SLEP 10722.

https://flic.kr/p/K2S8vF

In other news, 73968 and 969 ran light to Polmadie this morning - presumably for some Mk.5 testing.

Good shot, Scott

I also assume that on its outward journey this morning from Kilmarnock to Polmadie (5Z75) that 'Chinook' returned the two coaches that went in last week for maintenance/repair as seen in this photo (not mine): https://flic.kr/p/23MKfyz

And whilst on the topic of maintenance, an interest shot of one of the Mk3 sleeper cars having an overhaul at Inverness a c.3 weeks ago: https://flic.kr/p/Jt62sF (not mine)

 

[BRX]

Ah, I thought that Inverness didn't do any maintenance on the sleeper stock any more.

 

[TimboM]

Ah, I thought that Inverness didn't do any maintenance on the sleeper stock any more.

I think a few of us thought that too until seeing that photo - maintenance also still done at Aberdeen apparently. I think one of those coaches in the photo might be the one that was pulled of your train last minute at Inverness...!?

 

[BRX]

I think a few of us thought that too until seeing that photo - maintenance also still done at Aberdeen apparently. I think one of those coaches in the photo might be the one that was pulled of your train last minute at Inverness...!?

yeah, I wondered that too.

 

[Sarahs_Railway]

Because they have booked well in advance and certainly a lot of the time is off season. While cs do seem to being some yield management, their base prices for the early birds are still much higher.

Serco have talked about a hotel on wheels since they took over, so as long as enough people are prepared to pay for the experience then they'll be happy. Most people who are being priced out of berths don't want a sleeper seat so will look to daytime trains or air.[/

o Victoria custome

I've been a regular sleeper traveller for work since August. So here's my tuppence worth:

I didn't use the sleeper all that much before Serco so can't possibly comment on pre- and post- Serco price comparisons. But having used the sleeper between London / Crewe and Aberdeen eight times in the last two months (which I'd consider low season), comments of a lack of business aren't reflected in my actual experience. I haven't obviously done a head count in each berth, but each time the train seems reasonably full, every time I've gone standard I've always had to share, and on two occasions over the last two months I've been unable to book standard a few days before travel because it's been full and I've had to fork out for 1st (the boss is paying).

And besides who goes on holiday to Aberdeen?? The Aberdeen portion seems to cater for a very different market compared to the Fort William and Inverness portions. The vast majority seem to be travelling for work (as I do) which means employers are probably paying (as mine does). I can't speak for other employers but mine just pays, provided I can demonstrate I got the cheapest ticket (with a bed) - I just enclose a screen shot with the claim. Indeed I last week persuaded the boss to buy me a ten trip flexi pass.

I usually end up paying £90-£110 for standard and £140-£160 for first. Yes, some of the prices would put me off if I was paying for myself and travelling for no meaningful purpose, but I'm not. And I suspect that's the case with most people using the Aberdeen portion.

Every time I have checked flights the times haven't worked out, which means travelling the evening before and staying overnight in a travelodge or similar, the total cost of which is always more expensive.

Unfortunately those of us business travellers who cannot claim fares back are now being forced elsewhere. A 50%+ hike in fares for me is intolerable. I would love to see what would happen if a TOC foisted that sort of increase onto a run such as East Grinstead to Victoria then explained it by saying they were paying for shiny new trains. Perhaps CS customers from the last 10 years should now receive refunds for the lack of investment in working stock? Hotels on wheels are a marvelous idea - that's what Belmond Royal Scotsman do very well indeed. The idea of the sleeper was never this! Day time trains for me from now on as Virgin will deliver me home and away on time (mostly) for under 50% of CS fares. It's a pity because I think the CS staff are brilliant and I have previously been a staunch supporter.

 

[ScottDarg]

Good shot, Scott

I also assume that on its outward journey this morning from Kilmarnock to Polmadie (5Z75) that 'Chinook' returned the two coaches that went in last week for maintenance/repair as seen in this photo (not mine): https://flic.kr/p/23MKfyz

Thanks!

Posted elsewhere that 5Z75 this morning was 66723 + BUO 9802 & SLEP 10548.

 

[158820]

Hi all. I have been observing this magnificent thread for long it is fasinating. Just some news you all might want to know. On the Scotsman front page tomorrow.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/959195098264293376/photo/1

 

[Sarahs_Railway]

Hi all. I have been observing this magnificent thread for long it is fasinating. Just some news you all might want to know. On the Scotsman front page tomorrow.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/959195098264293376/photo/1

Thank you for this link 158820. Perhaps the fares will follow suit once they are running empty trains to Aberdeen.

 

[TimboM]

Hi all. I have been observing this magnificent thread for long it is fasinating. Just some news you all might want to know. On the Scotsman front page tomorrow.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/959195098264293376/photo/1

I think as usual with these rags the headline is misleading.

What has happened is that with the delay until October 2018 of the new stock being introduced on the Lowlander, CS have postponed (not "shelved after protests") all the changes to sharing rules/price structures/railcards they were going to bring in on 25th Feb and are reverting to the previous fares/rules (including being able to use railcards, sharing etc.) whilst the old stock is still being used. However, despite what the Scotsman wants to claim - all these changes are still happening with the new stock - just being delayed so that they're implemented concurrently with the new stock and not 6 months ahead of the game... CS made a very clear statement about this on their website last week.

I've quoted the main summary part, but worth reading the full details via the link if you want to get into all the detail about how things will work from now until late October, and thereafter for the Lowlander and Highlander: https://www.sleeper.scot/travel-after-25-february Key part is the last couple of paras of this quote (I've put in bold):

We are delighted to be introducing our new trains during 2018, beginning in October with our Lowland service between London and Glasgow/Edinburgh.

As part of this enhancement of the Caledonian Sleeper service, we will be making some important changes and improvements to our booking process and accommodation offering over the coming months.

We offer a unique advantage as a train operator, allowing guests the opportunity to book up to 12 months in advance of travel. To facilitate this booking option for our guests, the UK national rail booking system requires us to finalise our pricing a full 15 months in advance.

Advance planning for the introduction of the new fleet began in 2016 and it was necessary to build in some flexibility with launch dates due to the scale of the project. As part of this plan, it was decided that during the five week new trains roll out period, a system of “transitional” fares would be offered.

These ‘transitional’ fares were based on the “new trains” configuration and products, to ensure that no matter whether a new or current train arrived for any service, we could provide comparable services to fulfil the conditions of all bookings.

The original period for transition to occur was during February and March 2018. However, we have now confirmed that the new train introduction will begin in October 2018. This has created a disjoint between the fares introduction and the train introduction.

With the date for the introduction of the new fleet for the Lowland service now known, we are now able to reinstate, from late February 2018 - the current fares structure from transitional pricing, until the new trains are available.

Specifically regarding sharing with strangers still being 'banned' when the new stock is introduced in October on the Lowlander in late October (my emphasis in bold):

Shared Room Products from late October 2018
As mentioned, from late October, all our accommodation products will be offered on a “hotel style” room rather than “per traveller” basis. Due to this change, our share with a stranger products will no longer be available. However, all classes are available to book on a solo or twin basis.

We will offer a discounted rate per person to guests who share a room when travelling together. These are available to all of our guests and you do not need a Railcard to take advantage of these fares.

We also have great value Club and Classic Family Fares for those guests travelling with children. This will automatically be shown during the booking process as long as no railcard is chosen.

 

[158820]

Thanks Tim for the detailed reply l looking forward to taking a trip this year which l thaught would have to be in the seats but now will be a bit more comfortable.

If, as people say it is going to only carry fresh air when the mk 5 price structures properly come on stream. l still have a tiny bit of hope, not much, that they would have another look at new prices.

 

[TimboM]

Thanks Tim for the detailed reply l looking forward to taking a trip this year which l thaught would have to be in the seats but now will be a bit more comfortable.

If, as people say it is going to only carry fresh air when the mk 5 price structures properly come on stream. l still have a tiny bit of hope, not much, that they would have another look at new prices.

If there's too much fresh air, they may drop the prices - as with most businesses it's trying to find the optimum sales price and sales quantity mix that maximises revenue.

It's worth remembering, though, that a train that's only 51% occupied where the prices are twice as high is still earning more income than one that's 100% full with prices half as much.

 

[Deafdoggie]

When I was a spotty 16 year old, my first proper job was working in Fine Fare (a supermarket chain for our younger members!) the manager there always moaned he could't fill the shelves fast enough with sugar before it sold out. So he put it up 1p to slow sales so he could keep up with it. He did this every time he could't keep up, and the price gradually increased till he sold enough, but not so much he couldn't keep up with demand. The same principle applies with sleeper berths. They need to get the price at such a rate that they sell enough, but not so much that people are being turned away as its sold out. Expect to see some price fluctuation as they settle it down to the optimum rate, but as TimboM says above, at twice the price, you only need half the passengers to make the same money. There will be those posting saying how it is carrying fresh-air, but from a business point of view, that is fine, as you can then expand the leisure market. Only if it dips below the 50% full mark will they start to look at prices.

 

[BRX]

From a "business point of view" carrying fresh air might be fine - but it's not fine for a heavily subsidised service that's supposed to be providing a public service. If it does end up carrying 51% as many passengers for twice the price (when it could be running full at half the price and making nearly as much revenue) then it's not Serco as such that are to blame - they are just doing what businesses do - it's the specification of the franchise and the conditions put on it that would have failed, as I see it.

 

[TimboM]

From a "business point of view" carrying fresh air might be fine - but it's not fine for a heavily subsidised service that's supposed to be providing a public service. If it does end up carrying 51% as many passengers for twice the price (when it could be running full at half the price and making nearly as much revenue) then it's not Serco as such that are to blame - they are just doing what businesses do - it's the specification of the franchise and the conditions put on it that would have failed, as I see it.

I agree with the sentiment.

However, coming at it from the other direction, if that's what's been deemed/calculated as the required prices to make things stack up after the significant investment/subsidy from Transport Scotland and the DfT, then it illustrates how uneconomical sleeper services are and why there's so few left. Without the subsidies, the service wouldn't even exist - or if someone was mad enough to give it a go, the prices would be even higher.

That aside, currently a lot of the backlash at the prices is directed towards Serco, but I think it's Transport Scotland (and the DfT) who really need to be explaining the rationale behind the increases and why they are in the best interest of the taxpayers who both subsidise and use (or used to use) the service.

Transport Scotland as well as setting the franchise specifications as you say also, from what I can tell, play a fairly active role in the on-going oversight of the franchise. Humza Yousaf is always happy to add a quote to any press release about the new stock or turn up for a photo opportunity, and I've noted a few other things which suggest to me Transport Scotland haven't just signed-off the franchise agreement 3 years ago and let Serco get on with it without any further involvement from TS. These pricing structure changes/increases have not occurred without at least some implicit agreement from TS, if not direct involvement.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I guess the point is, if the fares don't increase, then the subsidy will have to increase, or the service will have to cease. If the price doubles and the train is half full, but making the same money that is fine, there will be savings to made (less linen washing, fewer hosts, etc) so that is ok, and if it sells more, then that is more money in the till.

Whilst people may not like the railway being run as a business, they don't like the taxpayer paying for it either, so business try to run it and save the taxmoney money.

 

[BRX]

No - if the price doubles and the train is half full, and is making the same money then it really isn't fine at all.

Because then it is costing "the taxpayer" the same as before, but what it's providing is a subsidised luxury service for a small number of people, instead of a subsidised moderately affordable service for twice as many people.

If the price doubles, and the train is full, and making more money than it used to, and the result is that the required subsidy is reduced, and this means that the service can survive into the future, then maybe that is fine or even a positive improvement - depending on your opinion of what the sleeper is there for.

 

[TimboM]

...depending on your opinion of what the sleeper is there for.

My opinion would be it's for a range of travellers who want to use it as an overnight travel with accommodation option vs a travel and separate overnight accommodation option. Looking at the new offering, I think it's what CS are trying to do. The crux will be if the numbers of rooms in each of the "categories" and the prices are the right mix to maximise capacity and still allow the Sleeper to be used by the various differing (broad) groups of travellers who want to use it, including those that already do.

The options on the new trains are as follows (taken from CS website):

Suites – Double room with en-suite and shower. Includes full breakfast and access to station First Class lounges (where available). Priority access to Club Car.
Club Rooms – Twin room with en-suite and shower. Includes breakfast and access to station First Class lounges (where available). Priority access to Club Car.
Classic Rooms – Twin room, with interconnecting doors available. Light breakfast and refreshments available to purchase.
Seats – Reclining seat with reading light, USB charging points, lockable storage for personal belongings. Refreshments available to purchase.

Accommodation on our new trains will be priced and sold “hotel-style”, and is based upon buying a room rather than “per traveller”. This means that all rooms in all classes will be fully flexible in that they can be reserved for either solo or shared use. As a result, all rooms will be priced as Solo or Twin occupancy.
​

The Suites/Club Rooms are a clear step up from anything currently available - these for me will cater for the luxury leisure market and the few with business expense policies which aren't as stringent as most are these days. The prices for these are unsurprisingly a lot higher than anything on offer now.

The Classic Rooms are key - these are most akin to the current offering. These are the rooms that need to complete price-wise with the plane/day train + hotel option and be affordable for either individuals who'd look into this as an alternative for personal travel, or business travellers constrained by less generous expenses policies (which most are these days).

The seats should then continue to provide an affordable way to use the service for those who want to use it but either cannot or do not want to pay for a "room".

It doesn't seem from the general feedback on here that the proposed prices for the Classic Rooms/Seats are pitched right currently for the markets those parts of the train/offering are aimed at. If that turns out to be the case in due course and the occupancy in these parts of the service are low, then logically the prices should be adjusted to maximise the sales price/volume trade-off (as with the bags of sugar!)​

 

[BRX]

Agree with most of that. The pricing of the "classic" rooms is the main point of contention I think. We'll have to see what comes out in the wash.

I also find the new "no sharing with strangers" rule unnecessary, and taking that option has been one way for solo travellers to opt for a more affordable price. I know people who regularly go for that. It seems silly and wasteful to have two single travellers each paying over the odds for a solo cabin, when they'd both have been happy to share. It makes it more expensive for those two people and it means that two further people who might have wanted to travel can't. This point seems all the more relevant when the overall number of "classic" cabins has been reduced, which as I understand it is the case with the new stock.

 

[Chrism20]

No - if the price doubles and the train is half full, and is making the same money then it really isn't fine at all.

Because then it is costing "the taxpayer" the same as before, but what it's providing is a subsidised luxury service for a small number of people, instead of a subsidised moderately affordable service for twice as many people.

If the price doubles, and the train is full, and making more money than it used to, and the result is that the required subsidy is reduced, and this means that the service can survive into the future, then maybe that is fine or even a positive improvement - depending on your opinion of what the sleeper is there for.

It could be argued that it will be costing the tax payer a lot more.

The new trains leasing costs will be eyewatering in comparison to the current stock so occupancy going down and revenue flatlining whilst operating costs go up really isn’t an option.

The increased op costs will be budgeted for to an extent, however without a doubt the aim will be to increase revenue and occupancy.

 

[TimboM]

It could be argued that it will be costing the tax payer a lot more.

The new trains leasing costs will be eyewatering in comparison to the current stock so occupancy going down and revenue flatlining whilst operating costs go up really isn’t an option.

The increased op costs will be budgeted for to an extent, however without a doubt the aim will be to increase revenue and occupancy.

The new trains are not being leased as far as I understand - Transport Scotland/DfT are buying them outright.

Much of the current stock is leased (I think) and requires a fair bit of continual maintenance to keep "a float" (see posts over the past couple of days) - so in terms of revenue / "P&L" costs, I may be wrong but the new fleet may well cost less in terms of operating costs (bit like buying a new car).

The cost of the stock needs to be accounted for somehow, though, whether that's in the franchise's books or the governments (or both - i.e. Serco "lease" it off TS/DfT?) it has still cost what it cost - is a capital outlay though.

 

[gingerheid]

I hope I've been unlucky, but I'm not getting a good impression of their customer service. They try so hard, yet fail so miserably

I contacted them about journey with no lounge access and a very cold night in a carriage with broken heating. After prodding then a month later they apologised for all three and sent vouchers... without paying for the postage...