Caledonian Sleeper discussion

[Fishplate84]

That's a strange argument to make. The problem is that nobody, including the Government, wants the operator to make much profit so the industry bids lean and optimistic and they are in trouble if it doesn't go exactly to plan. The operators should be bidding at and allowed to make much fatter margins to have the capacity to take a few big hits like this. If there's more margin in it for them, there's more ability and willingness to invest in the services and improve them.

Scottish Government tendered this to be delivered as a much-improved quality service and committed a vast sum to ensure it got the improvements it wanted. All credit to them for having the vision and choosing a solution to deliver it. Serco have been doing a good job of turning the sleeper around. Everything about it is so much better than it was even if the pricing has increased to reflect a much better product. With the new stock very soon arriving it's so close to finally having the tools to do the job properly and to set it up for a long-term future.
You only need to look at Carillion, Capita and Interserve to see how foolhardy it would be for Serco to keep taking heavy losses on it and if the alternative is going to cost Scottish Government just as much money, sending Serco to the wall just so they can keep getting the sleeper artificially cheaply for a bit longer is exactly the sort of irresponsible government procurement and short-sighted decision making in Westminster that has been questioned in the headlines recently. You'd hope Scottish Government is more mature and pragmatic.

Difficult for Scottish Government. They carved out the sleeper from ScotRail and presumably were equally as naive as Serco about the real cost of creating and operating a small, niche franchise. If they accepted the Serco bid in the full knowledge it would be in trouble so soon and rejected other more realistic and expensive bids, that's surely an embarrassing procurement failure?
Scottish Government have few choices. It's not a position that can be traded out of with few services, finite customer capacity and a fairly inflexible product mix. So,
1, Transport Scotland accept the sleeper costs far more to run as a separate franchise than they thought and pay up to maintain their vision of having the sleeper as the iconic world-class service it's starting to become and they want it to be, or
2, U-turn on their aspiration and slash it back to the bone to contain costs in an attempt to make it affordable (whoever runs it, in-house, re-franchised or folded back into ScotRail) destroying any hope of the sleeper ever being anything more than a lame duck oddball service to be delivered at lowest possible cost, or
3, Throw in the towel and close it down as an unaffordable folly and hope to recover some of the new rolling stock costs by offloading them to the Night Riviera.

Only one of those looks remotely politically attractive.

 

[Chrism20]

Like others I never thought it was a great idea to split the franchise. On the plus side separating it allowed some real focus to be put into the product and the service for the first time in about thirty years.

That could have been done though through the franchise specifications requiring a dedicated sleeper team within the ScotRail franchise along with more detailed specifications for the new stock in the ITT.

Interesting that there is the right to seek adjustments in 2022 or walk away. Isn’t that when the ScotRail franchise also expires with Abellio having a 3 year extension option based on meeting certain targets/criteria? If I’m not mistaken on that the SG at least have the option then of combining everything back into one franchise if they wish to do so.

The pricing of fares is clearly an issue though and the worrying part is once you lose customers there is no guarantee you will get them back. I also don’t like the idea of cost cutting and trying to roll out a new product. I worry we could end up with a substandard product.

 

[pitdiver]

I only hope it is still in existence in May as I am treating the wife to a few days in Scotland via the Fort Bill sleeper.

 

[47271]

This is only my conjecture but it wouldn't surprise me if, rather than a reduction in business caused by high ticket prices, the main reason for the shortfall will be way higher operating costs than they ever expected. I reckon they thought that they'd be able to run the old stock into the ground at minimal cost in the first three years and then magically transform the service in 2018. They were quickly disabused of this in the first few months as technical faults overwhelmed them, and it does feel that they've been having to spend a packet on the trains to no obvious passenger effect ever since.

I hear nothing from regulars that suggests that business has declined under Serco, although I still can't quite believe that they're getting away with some of the prices they're asking.

Just my speculation as I say.

 

[cambsy]

I think that Serco will have to look at their pricing as going to lose a lot of custom, and the SG will have to help out Serco, so it stays a public service and not just for well off clientele, and dont think GWR would want the Mk5’s as they just spent a load of money refurbishing their Mk3’s, which are really nice, to the point I think Serco missed a trick, so are not looking to go down brand new stock route.

 

[6Z09]

There seems to be a lot of different companies involved in this franchise, ie Drivers,GBRf Guards,Serco,Scotrail? Cleaning crews,Alstom Scotrail,Virgin?
Shunters,Scotrail,Serco ,Agency. This must all add to the costs.

 

[Steamysandy]

Serco put a big deal into this in that they gave up the Australian operations they had (Indian Pacific,the Ghan ) immediately they were told they had won this.Incidentally Serco have got a lot of stick for using a cargo boat to replace the Northlink ferry " Hamnavoe" which was away for its annual refit so they're not exactly covering themselves in Glory!

 

[TimboM]

There seems to be a lot of different companies involved in this franchise, ie Drivers,GBRf Guards,Serco,Scotrail? Cleaning crews,Alstom Scotrail,Virgin?
Shunters,Scotrail,Serco ,Agency. This must all add to the costs.

Traction (including drivers) supplied by GBRf.
Coaching stock maintained by Alstom.
There’ll also be your usual suppliers for food, beverage, cleaning etc.
NR of course provide the infrastructure.
Guards are directly employed by Serco.

But that’s the main ones - Scotrail and Virgin are only involved these days providing station facilities where applicable.

It’s how a lot of companies work - things like cleaning, maintenance etc tend to be outsourced to other companies rather than being done in-house.

Also were some similarly outsourced aspects in Scotrail days - eg EWS/DB were the traction provider.

 

[BRX]

Serco have been doing a good job of turning the sleeper around. Everything about it is so much better than it was even if the pricing has increased to reflect a much better product.

?

From a passenger point of view there's only one thing that I've noticed significantly change, and that's the pricing.

 

[theironroad]

?

From a passenger point of view there's only one thing that I've noticed significantly change, and that's the pricing.

+1

As a standard class (potentially sharing a berth) passenger who doesn't use the lounge car, I've not noticed any real tangible benefit since the change. Possibly the pillows are better and they provide a duvet rather than blanket but I find the sheets scratchy tbh. Oh ok, they installed usb sockets which is an improvement.

 

[Hadders]

?

From a passenger point of view there's only one thing that I've noticed significantly change, and that's the pricing.

Absolutely correct. I'll remind everyone that since Serco took over we've seen:

- appalling reliability
- massive increase in berth fees
- withdrawal of the facility to have exclusive use of a standard class berth
- refusal to accept All Line Rovers on their last day of validity
- making seat reservations for the seated sleeper between Fort William and Glasgow/Edinburgh impossible to obtain (even though the service is 'reservations compulsory')

 

[BRX]

No major change in lounge car either. Some minor fiddling with the menu perhaps but it was ok before and it's ok now.

Serco have been better at marketing. That's good in that I'd like more people to know about and use the service. But while the presentation has become slicker, what you get "on the ground" is not really any different. USB sockets aside it's very visible that they've had no interest in investing in the current stock, which they've not even bothered to repaint in their own colours. Of course when the new stock arrives, there will be a noticeable change. But it's not Serco who have paid for it.

 

[Caleb2010]

Absolutely correct. I'll remind everyone that since Serco took over we've seen:

- appalling reliability

I fail to see how Serco can be held responsible for reliability !

On a day to day basis,
Traction - not their fault
Weather - not their fault!
Track condition - not their fault!
Rolling stock maintenance - not their fault!
Line blocks and possessions- not their fault!
Signalling problems - not their fault!
Broken down trains in front of them - not their fault!

Yes, ok Serco may have made bad calls in pricing and so on but, companies like GBRF would have Guaranteed loco's, Astolm or whoever would have done the same with maintenance. If they've not been able to supply or repair - how is that sercos fault ?

Again, would you hold Serco responsible for the highland running 2 hours late into Inverness because some freight or another had bought wires down at Shap causing loss of power!

Being a single service operator is difficult yes but it's no different to the sleeper under First - Loco hauled, 40 year old stock, on a one train a day service. Had reliability problems occurred when operated by First, where would the back up be? First didn't have a limitless supply of spare locos and stock hanging around ready for service and neither do Serco! Should the WCML be shut, yes there's always the ECML, staffing problems here preclude automatic diversions, the same under First as Serco!

Serco have been up against it from the beginning.

 

[Hadders]

I fail to see how Serco can be held responsible for reliability !

On a day to day basis,
Traction - not their fault
Weather - not their fault!
Track condition - not their fault!
Rolling stock maintenance - not their fault!
Line blocks and possessions- not their fault!
Signalling problems - not their fault!
Broken down trains in front of them - not their fault!

Yes, ok Serco may have made bad calls in pricing and so on but, companies like GBRF would have Guaranteed loco's, Astolm or whoever would have done the same with maintenance. If they've not been able to supply or repair - how is that sercos fault ?

Again, would you hold Serco responsible for the highland running 2 hours late into Inverness because some freight or another had bought wires down at Shap causing loss of power!

Being a single service operator is difficult yes but it's no different to the sleeper under First - Loco hauled, 40 year old stock, on a one train a day service. Had reliability problems occurred when operated by First, where would the back up be? First didn't have a limitless supply of spare locos and stock hanging around ready for service and neither do Serco! Should the WCML be shut, yes there's always the ECML, staffing problems here preclude automatic diversions, the same under First as Serco!

Serco have been up against it from the beginning.

Internal rail procurement/ways of operating are no concern of the passenger. Whatever the cause reliability has been appalling since Serco took over.

 

[43096]

I fail to see how Serco can be held responsible for reliability !

On a day to day basis,
Traction - not their fault
Weather - not their fault!
Track condition - not their fault!
Rolling stock maintenance - not their fault!
Line blocks and possessions- not their fault!
Signalling problems - not their fault!
Broken down trains in front of them - not their fault!

Yes, ok Serco may have made bad calls in pricing and so on but, companies like GBRF would have Guaranteed loco's, Astolm or whoever would have done the same with maintenance. If they've not been able to supply or repair - how is that sercos fault ?

Again, would you hold Serco responsible for the highland running 2 hours late into Inverness because some freight or another had bought wires down at Shap causing loss of power!

Being a single service operator is difficult yes but it's no different to the sleeper under First - Loco hauled, 40 year old stock, on a one train a day service. Had reliability problems occurred when operated by First, where would the back up be? First didn't have a limitless supply of spare locos and stock hanging around ready for service and neither do Serco! Should the WCML be shut, yes there's always the ECML, staffing problems here preclude automatic diversions, the same under First as Serco!

Serco have been up against it from the beginning.

I would not see the traction as being "unreliable". Whilst the 92s and 73s have had issues, GBRf have put in place contingency plans with the hire-in of 90s and 67s. The initial problems are now gone and the traction is now generally reliable. I would also say that in any ways, the position is improved as GBRf have done a much better job of crewing diversions (notably the Lamington Viaduct outage) than DB ever did in the old regime (when trains were just cancelled because DB could not resource crews).

Rolling stock maintenance - absolutely is Serco's fault. They chose to place a contract with Almost to do the maintenance. If Almost aren't delivering it is up to Serco to manage them and enforce delivery under their contract.

 

[Muzer]

Out of curiosity (since I was on it!), does anyone know why 1M11 (lowland sleeper) was delayed for an hour between Garstang & Catteral and Barton & Broughton Pass Lp (just north of Preston) this morning?

 

[Highlandspring]

Out of curiosity (since I was on it!), does anyone know why 1M11 (lowland sleeper) was delayed for an hour between Garstang & Catteral and Barton & Broughton Pass Lp (just north of Preston) this morning?

A fire under a bridge just north of Preston station.

 

[Maxfly]

Internal rail procurement/ways of operating are no concern of the passenger. Whatever the cause reliability has been appalling since Serco took over.

I would say the reliability has been no worse than when First ran the sleepers and currently there is a greater desire to keep them running when issues do come up compared to First Groups Era. Plus a greater ability to keep going during disruptive works (Gbrf using 73's that can go to Oban when WHL shut).
Were the usb sockets not started to be installed by First though?

 

[TimboM]

In the summer, CS was the TOP performing TOC (ie #1 out of all of them).

I would say the reliability has been no worse than when First ran the sleepers and currently there is a greater desire to keep them running when issues do come up compared to First Groups Era. Plus a greater ability to keep going during disruptive works (Gbrf using 73's that can go to Oban when WHL shut).
Were the usb sockets not started to be installed by First though?

CS were the top (i.e. #1) performing TOC in the summer (PPM-wise). Hardly “appalling”.
The significant challenges with wheelflats in the Autumn put a dent in figures - however issues with railhead adhesion cannot entirely be the operators’ fault.

The majority of major delays are infrastructure related (as already mentioned). Fires, floods and storms (OHLE damage) have all been issues. Traction issues are not all that common, but are perceived to be as a) the moment something goes wrong many like to blame the 92s/73s even when it may be the infrastructure, stock etc.; and b) if the traction does fail it tends to receive lots of attention on forums like this.

USB sockets were installed under Serco’s watch.

 

[BRX]

It would be interesting to see what the numbers were for the % of time the entire train is running without issues; ie. without any coaches being out of action or without heating etc.

I get the impression that it's not very unusual for one of the seated coaches to be locked out of use, and that it's something that's becoming worse.

Problems seem more often to be to do with the stock rather than the traction.

 

[Maxfly]

In the summer, CS was the TOP performing TOC (ie #1 out of all of them).

CS were the top (i.e. #1) performing TOC in the summer (PPM-wise). Hardly “appalling”.
The significant challenges with wheelflats in the Autumn put a dent in figures - however issues with railhead adhesion cannot entirely be the operators’ fault.

The majority of major delays are infrastructure related (as already mentioned). Fires, floods and storms (OHLE damage) have all been issues. Traction issues are not all that common, but are perceived to be as a) the moment something goes wrong many like to blame the 92s/73s even when it may be the infrastructure, stock etc.; and b) if the traction does fail it tends to receive lots of attention on forums like this.

USB sockets were installed under Serco’s watch.

I agree with all you say there, cheers for clearing up on the usb's for me.

 

[Maxfly]

It would be interesting to see what the numbers were for the % of time the entire train is running without issues; ie. without any coaches being out of action or without heating etc.

I get the impression that it's not very unusual for one of the seated coaches to be locked out of use, and that it's something that's becoming worse.

Problems seem more often to be to do with the stock rather than the traction.

It would be interesting, maybe expected as the stock moves towards being retired but again it was not uncommon under First for there to be issues with the coaches.

 

[TimboM]

It would be interesting, maybe expected as the stock moves towards being retired but again it was not uncommon under First for there to be issues with the coaches.

I know it’s not always the case, but sometimes if seats are totally out of action folk get upgraded to berths, so not always a “bad” thing.

The stock is old and tired and being replaced with £100m+ of new Mk5s. Its introduction is delayed of course, but there’s not a lot more that can be done than replace the whole lot - and keep the old stuff going as best as possible in the meantime.

 

[BRX]

keep the old stuff going as best as possible in the meantime.

I think it's more like "spend as little on the old stuff as they can get away with".

I get why they don't want to spend on it, of course. But many of the things that are wrong, aren't things that would be impossible to fix. Maybe it's reasonable to make a commercial decision that it's more cost effective to upgrade seated passengers to berths when the heating doesn't work. But for example last time I was on it, the sliding door into the lounge car wasn't working so passengers were continually getting up to close it to stop the freezing draught coming through. Hardly a "hotel on wheels" experience. I doubt the franchise terms say that they can provide a substandard service prior to the new stock arriving.

 

[TimboM]

I think it's more like "spend as little on the old stuff as they can get away with".

I get why they don't want to spend on it, of course. But many of the things that are wrong, aren't things that would be impossible to fix. Maybe it's reasonable to make a commercial decision that it's more cost effective to upgrade seated passengers to berths when the heating doesn't work. But for example last time I was on it, the sliding door into the lounge car wasn't working so passengers were continually getting up to close it to stop the freezing draught coming through. Hardly a "hotel on wheels" experience. I doubt the franchise terms say that they can provide a substandard service prior to the new stock arriving.

I suspect you’re correct re the franchise - which also required the new stock to be fully in place by 1 April 2018...

That said, keeping the old stock going (and longer than expected) has been cited as a main reason for Serco (as per last week’s financial results) expecting to lose £47m more over the period of the contract than they forecast previously. I’m sure it’s not all just the old stock and delay to the new stock, but it would suggest even keeping it going just about - and not fixing the things like the sliding doors - is still costing significant sums.

 

[Muzer]

A fire under a bridge just north of Preston station.

Cheers! I assume this didn't involve the use of the down line, then, at the crossover at Garstang & Catteral (though it did appear to use the down platform 3 at Preston itself)?

 

[Highlandspring]

Cheers! I assume this didn't involve the use of the down line, then, at the crossover at Garstang & Catteral (though it did appear to use the down platform 3 at Preston itself)?

No once the fire was out and the OLE and bridge had been examined it carried on as booked.

 

[swaldman]

Serco have been doing a good job of turning the sleeper around. Everything about it is so much better than it was even if the pricing has increased to reflect a much better product.

er.... what's different, apart from the pricing?

 

[Caleb2010]

Exactly,
What I was highlighting was that problems happen on the journey that are out of Serco control!

As for the contract side, yes - Serco should be more proactive with suppliers and contractors but, again - if the contractor fails the blame falls on them!

I would agree that traction reliability has improved. You don’t hear as frequently about failure of 92s or 73s like you used to !

As has been said, Serco are very good in some ways, bad in others.

Reliability is one area that they can’t be held responsible for as their timetable relies on so many other variables to enable them to run at all, let alone on time!

 

[BRX]

Exactly,
What I was highlighting was that problems happen on the journey that are out of Serco control!

As for the contract side, yes - Serco should be more proactive with suppliers and contractors but, again - if the contractor fails the blame falls on them!

I would agree that traction reliability has improved. You don’t hear as frequently about failure of 92s or 73s like you used to !

As has been said, Serco are very good in some ways, bad in others.

Reliability is one area that they can’t be held responsible for as their timetable relies on so many other variables to enable them to run at all, let alone on time!

If Serco subcontract work out, then it doesn't absolve them of blame if those things go wrong. They decide who to put the work out to, how much to pay them, what the contractual specifications and penalties are, and what contingency plans there are for when they don't perform. That's the very nature of their business, in fact. Essentially their job is to get these things right.