Caledonian Sleeper discussion

[hexagon789]

And perhaps the Serco decision to move maintenance from Scotrail at Inverness to Alstom in Glasgow had an impact - I suspect with vintage stock, you have to know the foibles of each piece of equipment. An avoidable loss of knowledge.

GZ

Inverness did seem to maintain them much better. I don't think it's a mere coincidence that they seem to be failing more frequently since the shift to Glasgow.

 

[TimboM]

Inverness did seem to maintain them much better. I don't think it's a mere coincidence that they seem to be failing more frequently since the shift to Glasgow.

Inverness were maintaining a fleet that not only was (at least) 3 years younger than it is now (which is a big difference when in the latter stages of a coaches' "life") and also one which may have had a longer future - I understand the other two unsuccessful bids both included keeping and overhauling the existing stock.

Glasgow/Wembley are maintaining stock that's now that much older, and with the knowledge it's not going to be around much longer - not sure it's directly comparable. As above, Inverness also still do major overhauls, so can't all be because of the folk in Glasgow/Wembley...?

Hypothetical of course, but had one of the other bids won, we'd probably now have one or two of each of the lounges and seats away for major refurb, the franchisee struggling to provide a full service with the remainder of the (unrefurbed) old stock failing as they are now and no spares to back-fill, and we'd no doubt be saying similar things about the maintenance of the fleet and that overhauling the old stock was a bad idea - and new stock should've been brought...

 

[hexagon789]

Inverness were maintaining a fleet that not only was (at least) 3 years younger than it is now (which is a big difference when in the latter stages of a coaches' "life") and also one which may have had a longer future - I understand the other two unsuccessful bids both included keeping and overhauling the existing stock.

Glasgow/Wembley are maintaining stock that's now that much older, and with the knowledge it's not going to be around much longer - not sure it's directly comparable. As above, Inverness also still do major overhauls, so can't all be because of the folk in Glasgow/Wembley...?

Hypothetical of course, but had one of the other bids won, we'd probably now have one or two of each of the lounges and seats away for major refurb, the franchisee struggling to provide a full service with the remainder of the (unrefurbed) old stock failing as they are now and no spares to back-fill, and we'd no doubt be saying similar things about the maintenance of the fleet and that overhauling the old stock was a bad idea - and new stock should've been brought...

I'm not saying Glasgow are doing a bad job, just that things seemed better when Inverness were in charge, probably just a case looking at it through rose-tinted glasses.

 

[43096]

One factor that may or may not be relevant is the Brake/Lounge coaches are owned by Serco, whereas the Mk3 Sleepers are leased from ROSCOs.

I wasn’t aware the Mark 2s had changed ownership from Eversholt. When did they change?

The sleepers are still Porterbrook owned, I assume.

 

[TimboM]

I wasn’t aware the Mark 2s had changed ownership from Eversholt. When did they change?

The sleepers are still Porterbrook owned, I assume.

Mk2s ownership (Serco) is as per the Franchise Agreement - might be wrong...!

Mk3 sleepers are leased from a ROSCO, but its identity is redacted in the Agreement - assume it’s still Porterbrook.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Mk2s ownership (Serco) is as per the Franchise Agreement - might be wrong...!

Mk3 sleepers are leased from a ROSCO, but its identity is redacted in the Agreement - assume it’s still Porterbrook.

The Sleepers are indeed still Porterbrook.

The Mk2s are officially listed as "Caledonian Sleepers Rail Leasing" - the parent organisation for that is Lombard North Central.

 

[route101]

I thought so - only 2 seats were available in the seated coach when I last checked



Nearly - they had us all allocated to specific berths and they had put me in with a female. As opposite genders sharing a berth if they're strangers is against their policy (I think) I was moved to a single berth

I see . If the train was quiet it would nicer for everyone to get a berth . I was going to ask how much an upgrade from seat to berth was .

 

[Kite159]

Was the option of cancelling travel and getting a full refund on the table as well?

I can't say I'd be happy with booking a seat then being expected to share a cabin with a stranger.

I would treat it as a bonus, certainly sharing a cabin with only one stranger compared to sharing the coach with upto X others

 

[marks87]

I would treat it as a bonus, certainly sharing a cabin with only one stranger compared to sharing the coach with upto X others

I would rather share an open coach with X others, than an enclosed space with one other (even if X=1).

I would assume there's others out there who share the same opinion, and would book the seats on that basis (if a solo berth is out of their price range). That's why I was wondering if the option not travelling and getting a full refund was on the table.

 

[ScottDarg]

That's why I was wondering if the option not travelling and getting a full refund was on the table.

Wasn't mentioned to me, all we were asked when we approached the host was what seat we had booked so that they could find the associated berth, so I'm not sure if it was an option I'm afraid.

1B01 Fort William - Euston showing cancelled between Crianlarich & Edinburgh, with JourneyCheck showing the following:

Due to urgent repairs to the track between Ardlui and Arrochar & Tarbet the line towards Glasgow is closed. Disruption is expected until the end of the day on 11/04/18.

Impact:
Train services between Glasgow Queen Street and Fort William will be terminated at and started back from Crianlarich. All stations between Crianlarich and Glasgow Queen Street will not be served.

Additional Information:
We have had reports of a sink hole on the track between Ardlui and Arrochar & Tarbet. We have staff en route to assess the tracks. Until this has been done we are unable to run services between Crianlarich and Glasgow Queen Street. Check back here for further updates.

http://www.journeycheck.com/scotrail/

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G60079/2018/04/10/advanced

 

[TimboM]

I would rather share an open coach with X others, than an enclosed space with one other (even if X=1).

I would assume there's others out there who share the same opinion, and would book the seats on that basis (if a solo berth is out of their price range). That's why I was wondering if the option not travelling and getting a full refund was on the table.

I doubt it... you'd be too late for a "normal" refund for choosing not to travel yourself - I know you're saying it wouldn't be your choice, but the point being that's not a way round it.

The Guest Charter states CS will provide compensation for non-availability of booked accommodation. However, the issue you'd have (whilst it's not your personal view) is that a shard berth is deemed an upgrade from the seats (and this is reflected in the respective prices) - so the first row in the table below doesn't apply.

The second row doesn't either - you'd be hard pushed to state a case it was "not possible" for you to travel due to a "fault of the railway" if the seats were out of action and CS offered to take you instead in a functioning berth (albeit shared) at no extra cost.

Likelihood is CS' position would be that you've been offered "upgraded" accommodation (at no extra cost) to get you to your destination - so if you chose to get off the train and not travel, you wouldn't be getting a refund.




Once the new stock is in, hopefully broken seated coaches will be very rare, but if they did happen, would the "no sharing with stranger" rule to be introduced with the new stock still apply I wonder, or wonder this be overruled in favour of getting everyone from A to B?

 

[mde]

The Mk2s are officially listed as "Caledonian Sleepers Rail Leasing" - the parent organisation for that is Lombard North Central.

I thought the money from RBS (who are the owner of CSRL/LNC) was for the new Mk5 coaches only?

The most recent accounts for CSRL suggest a 15 year lease, which would match the franchise term for Serco so presumably it wouldn't refer to Mk2's which should be departing reasonably soon… of course, I could be very wrong.

 

[TimboM]

I thought the money from RBS (who are the owner of CSRL/LNC) was for the new Mk5 coaches only?

The most recent accounts for CSRL suggest a 15 year lease, which would match the franchise term for Serco so presumably it wouldn't refer to Mk2's which should be departing reasonably soon… of course, I could be very wrong.

The accounts also show (note 7) that (at 30 Sept 2016) CSRL did not own any rolling stock - the only Fixed Asset was the Finance Lease Receivables (simplistically the total finance payments CSRL expect to receive from Serco/TS/whoever over the 15 years, less the capital expenditure they expect to incur acquiring the sleeper coaches). Presumably as nothing had actually been acquired by CSRL at that point this asset relates solely to the Mk5s.

That's not to say that since Sept 2016, Serco haven't entered into an agreement for CSRL to buy the Mk2s from them and then for Serco to lease them back from CSRL - this would be a way of Serco raising some additional finance/cash - although probably not that much for 22x 40-odd year old coaches with a limited life span. I think that's the only way the info in the Franchise Agreement, these accounts and what Peter M notes above can all be correct - although of course there's the option that one or more of those bits of info isn't correct...!

 

[marks87]

I doubt it... you'd be too late for a "normal" refund for choosing not to travel yourself - I know you're saying it wouldn't be your choice, but the point being that's not a way round it.

The Guest Charter states CS will provide compensation for non-availability of booked accommodation. However, the issue you'd have (whilst it's not your personal view) is that a shard berth is deemed an upgrade from the seats (and this is reflected in the respective prices) - so the first row in the table below doesn't apply.

The second row doesn't either - you'd be hard pushed to state a case it was "not possible" for you to travel due to a "fault of the railway" if the seats were out of action and CS offered to take you instead in a functioning berth (albeit shared) at no extra cost.

Likelihood is CS' position would be that you've been offered "upgraded" accommodation (at no extra cost) to get you to your destination - so if you chose to get off the train and not travel, you wouldn't be getting a refund.

View attachment 45089


Once the new stock is in, hopefully broken seated coaches will be very rare, but if they did happen, would the "no sharing with stranger" rule to be introduced with the new stock still apply I wonder, or wonder this be overruled in favour of getting everyone from A to B?

My argument would be that CS themselves acknowledge there is a risk with sharing thanks to their policy against strangers of the opposite gender sharing. I'm fairly sure a passenger could argue that the principles behind that policy could mostly (if not fully) apply to passengers of the same gender as well.

Is it not also the case that when booking a shared berth, you're warned about the possibility of needing to share? By giving this warning, they also acknowledge that it is not something everyone will be prepared to do, thus giving the option to either not book, or choose an alternative accommodation - with one of the options being the seats.

That's why I think that, unless the T&Cs of booking a seat make clear the risks in the event of a stock issue, they would be on dodgy ground to refuse a full refund to anyone not willing to travel, who cites personal safety as a reason.

 

[BRX]

I reckon most people (me included) would see a berth in a shared cabin as an upgrade from a seat - but at the same time I can think of valid reasons why you might feel you didn't get what you paid for, and/or aren't comfortable sharing a cabin with a stranger. And it's true that having introduced (albeit then temporarily withdrawn) the (in my opinion stupid) enforced no-sharing thing, CS would seem to have put themselves into a bit of a corner if they were then gong to argue it wasn't an issue!

 

[mde]

That's not to say that since Sept 2016, Serco haven't entered into an agreement for CSRL to buy the Mk2s from them and then for Serco to lease them back from CSRL - this would be a way of Serco raising some additional finance/cash - although probably not that much for 22x 40-odd year old coaches with a limited life span. I think that's the only way the info in the Franchise Agreement, these accounts and what Peter M notes above can all be correct - although of course there's the option that one or more of those bits of info isn't correct...!

Agreed - not that I wish to imply Peter is incorrect, I'm simply curious given the link to RBS, which did seem rather unusual. If they had acquired Mk2s then you'd have to wonder if they have ROSCO ambitions (again)… of course, I could be wibbling

 

[marks87]

I reckon most people (me included) would see a berth in a shared cabin as an upgrade from a seat - but at the same time I can think of valid reasons why you might feel you didn't get what you paid for, and/or aren't comfortable sharing a cabin with a stranger. And it's true that having introduced (albeit then temporarily withdrawn) the (in my opinion stupid) enforced no-sharing thing, CS would seem to have put themselves into a bit of a corner if they were then gong to argue it wasn't an issue!

Agreed.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting everyone shares my view - this thread alone demonstrates that. But given that CS acknowledge that sharing a cabin both carries risks, and is not to everyone's liking, I think the option of a refund should be on the table (or even a hotel and a seat on the first day train the following morning - something that could well cost them less).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am one of those people who would book a seat were a single cabin not an option. But I doubt I would be at significant safety risk if it turned out I had to share a cabin instead, so I'd just put up with it on that occasion. I just prefer an open coach than sharing with one person because I find it awkward, not because I fear I will be attacked.

Not travelling or staying overnight would knacker my journey so I doubt I would choose that.

 

[swaldman]

Walking to work in Aberdeen, I'm accustomed to sometimes seeing the Aberdeen bit of the sleeper moving into the depot here. But today, there seemed to be more of it than usual.... I counted ~8 coaches (+/- 1), and two 73s.
What's going on?
(or is it that this normal, and I'm misremembering?)

 

[Mag_seven]

Walking to work in Aberdeen, I'm accustomed to sometimes seeing the Aberdeen bit of the sleeper moving into the depot here. But today, there seemed to be more of it than usual.... I counted ~8 coaches (+/- 1), and two 73s.
What's going on?
(or is it that this normal, and I'm misremembering?)

Might have something to do with the southbound Fort William portion being cancelled last night. As a result the northbound Fort William sleeper vehicles may have stayed on to Aberdeen as this mornings northbound Fort William portion was also cancelled.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G60113/2018/04/11/advanced

 

[marks87]

Walking to work in Aberdeen, I'm accustomed to sometimes seeing the Aberdeen bit of the sleeper moving into the depot here. But today, there seemed to be more of it than usual.... I counted ~8 coaches (+/- 1), and two 73s.
What's going on?
(or is it that this normal, and I'm misremembering?)

The Fort William portion was cancelled due to the line being blocked, so the full half-set will have gone to Aberdeen instead.

 

[swaldman]

Might have something to do with the southbound Fort William portion being cancelled last night. As a result the northbound Fort William sleeper vehicles may have stayed on to Aberdeen as this mornings northbound Fort William portion was also cancelled.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G60113/2018/04/11/advanced

Ah, that makes sense - thanks.

 

[InOban]

Presumably the FW portion, since the WHL is still closed?

 

[alistairlees]

Walking to work in Aberdeen, I'm accustomed to sometimes seeing the Aberdeen bit of the sleeper moving into the depot here. But today, there seemed to be more of it than usual.... I counted ~8 coaches (+/- 1), and two 73s.
What's going on?
(or is it that this normal, and I'm misremembering?)

Perhaps that is the FTW portion as well, as there is blockage on the West Highland line. See post #7041

 

[najaB]

The Fort William portion was cancelled due to the line being blocked, so the full half-set will have gone to Aberdeen instead.

What's the benefit in that (sending the carriages to an outstation) vs taking the opportunity to send them to Polmadie for a deep clean / minor repairs?

 

[InOban]

The WHL has now reopened, and of course last night's FTW coaches are in FTW, so it will be interesting to see how they get the sets back in order.

 

[TimboM]

Walking to work in Aberdeen, I'm accustomed to sometimes seeing the Aberdeen bit of the sleeper moving into the depot here. But today, there seemed to be more of it than usual.... I counted ~8 coaches (+/- 1), and two 73s.
What's going on?
(or is it that this normal, and I'm misremembering?)

It's normally (out of holiday season) a Load 6 - Seats/Brake + Lounge + 4 Sleeper cars. I expect what you saw this morning was due to the sink hole that closed the line from Fort William meaning the northbound FTW coaches that should've been split off at Edinburgh last night and gone to Fort Bill stayed with the Aberdeen portion. The extra 73/9 was likely added to help with the extra load.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The WHL has now reopened, and of course last night's FTW coaches are in FTW, so it will be interesting to see how they get the sets back in order.

Easiest would probably be to bustitute FTW in both directions (leaving the set there and running the set in Aberdeen back down south), though that wouldn't be popular at 4am!

 

[TimboM]

What's the benefit in that (sending the carriages to an outstation) vs taking the opportunity to send them to Polmadie for a deep clean / minor repairs?

When 1S25 arrived in Edinburgh last night there was no loco or driver ex-1B01 to take the Fort William coaches anywhere (as they were trapped the other side of the sink hole). To get them to Polmadie would have needed another loco and driver at short notice to collect them and take them back across to Polmadie. If a loco/driver was available, there may also have been other reasons which meant it wasn't feasible like overnight possessions.

Aberdeen has cleaning/servicing facilities (for the portion that's usual there each day) so not a lot to be gained from having the stock at Polmadie vs Aberdeen when it's only a period of 24 hours until everything is back in balance.

Those sleeper coaches should also have been in FTW today - so in terms of their rotation/maintenance schedule they weren't due any significant action today anyway.

 

[TimboM]

Easiest would probably be to bustitute FTW in both directions (leaving the set there and running the set in Aberdeen back down south), though that wouldn't be popular at 4am!

??

The southbound Fort Bill coaches from last night were trapped the FTW side of the sink hole, so 1B01 is fine for tonight (it's using last night's coaches in effect)

The northbound Highlander from London tonight (1S25) uses the set from the Up Lowlander (1M11) last night so that has the full complement of coaches to split at Edinburgh in the early hours and work to Fort Bill, Aberdeen and Inverness.

The imbalance at the moment due to the Fort William sleeper coaches never making it south last night means tonight's 1S26 northbound Lowlander will be short-formed, specifically the Edinburgh portion which becomes 1B26 from Carstairs. Whilst not the same two physical coaches, the "missing" coaches are currently in Aberdeen as per the above posts.

So to get things back together 1S26/1B26 will work short-formed tonight (may be a spare at Wembley to add in, maybe not) - it will therefore end up at Polmadie tomorrow morning. The "missing" coaches in Aberdeen will most likely be worked (empty) to Edinburgh tonight with the rest of 1B16, taken off at Waverley, then moved across to Polmadie to be reunited with the half-set that works 1S26/1B26 tonight - likely via the 0C01 Polmadie-EDB and 5B11 EDB-Polmadie VSTP paths that have gone in for tonight.