Caledonian Sleeper discussion

[Journeyman]

Hence my suggestion that it wasn't arranged in compartments.
You could have pods stacked vertically against bulkheads in an otherwise open saloon, for example. I'm thinking of a Japanese style "rabbit hutch" hotel - I'm sure there was an Michael Palin programme years ago when he tried one out.
So rather than sharing a couchette compartment, you're in a totally private pod, just arranged transverse rather than longitudinally. There might be another one above or below you but that's no big deal. There could even be a little window at one end.

Well, it's a bit late for that now.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Whichever one DB have available to fulfil the hire arrangement!

67004 was on hire but failed last week, so DB rustled up 003 to replace it. I seem to recall 67003 worked the Inverness earlier in the year briefly, but might be wrong.

Thanks for the reply, I wasn't sure if they had certain 67's they used and temporarily swapped them if they failed or they just used what they had. You could well be right that 67003 was here earlier as I do have a look when passing through the station but often can't see the 67.

John

 

[haggishunter]

Because they're transverse, not longitudinal. In a crash, the side of your body will take the impact, which is a lot less serious than a broken neck.

Given there are other modern longitudinal sleeping cars around, is the fact the Highlander reverses on route the problem here in that travelling head first for some part of the journey would be unavoidable?

That said given the risks of a crash happening, and the risks of what could happen in a normal coach as others have mentioned this does seem to be an overreaction.

This from the OBB Night Jet looks like an interesting solution to the issue of more beds and/or less space and individual privacy:

 

[jagardner1984]

And doesn’t all this work on the basis that in the instance of a crash, the main force is head on ?

Numerous recent incidents involving points issues, SPADs or other derailments have put the side of the train in danger (and thus the sleeping necks).

Again not wanting to be flippant but there are dozens of scenarios where people are at hugely greater risk daily (unrestrained on longitudinal beds on tour buses, for example). To say it isn’t possible just doesn’t seem credible, and it feels like any piece of travel carries a varying level of risk.

For example of the minute numbers of rail travellers who die on trains, one would assume (though I don’t have the numbers), that those nearer the front end of the train are at a greater risk. Presumably front/rear facing carries different statistical risk. Presumably intercity or commuter does too. We all make travel choices largely disregarding those differing risks (probably because they are all relatively minuscule in likelihood). I fail to see how the statistically minute possibility of a fatal collision involving a UK Train, let alone one of the 75 Caledonian Sleeper carriages of the 16000 carriages nationally, let alone one of the tiny proportion of those which might have had a portion of longitudinal sleeping arrangement, is a valid reason to undermine a design choice which is implemented far more widely in far riskier circumstances daily (without significant consequences, it would seem).

Ultimately the spectacular increase in fares over the past few years, combined with new stock whose costs will presumably be recovered from the fare payer in one way or another, prices me off the sleeper onto day trains or airlines, which I find annoying as the sleeper is a far superior way to travel (IMHO).

If they can fill the trains at £400-500 for a return to London on a train (based on solo room fares for a selection of dates in the near future), good luck to them. In a time where public subsidy will be under increasing scrutiny, significant subsidy for a service principally used by the wealthy at the exclusion of the regular traveller will be a hard political sell. Personally I’d be sad to see it fold.

 

[TimboM]

1S25 - 90047 (late sub for 92018)
1S26 - 92014

 

[JonathanH]

1S25 - 90047 (late sub for 92018)
1S26 - 92014

1S25 left at 2136. Strangely given the fast line in front of 1H13 (2140 Manchester) and 9G47 (2143 Wolverhampton) and making both late.

Although it arrived at Euston at 2047, they didn't start checking tickets at the entrance to platform 1 at Euston until 2115 - surely that process could start even if the doors of the train itself stay shut.

 

[TimboM]

1S25 left at 2136. Strangely given the fast line in front of 1H13 (2140 Manchester) and 9G47 (2143 Wolverhampton) and making both late.

Although it arrived at Euston at 2047, they didn't start checking tickets at the entrance to platform 1 at Euston until 2115 - surely that process could start even if the doors of the train itself stay shut.

100 mph Skoda on the front so Wembley box probably felt generous towards it. May have needed the platform too?

The 1S25 loco (90047) didn't arrive until c.10 mins after that - it then needed to be coupled up to the stock, ETS checked, brake-tested etc. and other prep being done. The train crew are focussing on that. Whilst you know the score, no doubt other guests would start trying the door handles etc. and potentially interrupt the staff from getting things ready to accept guests and get away ASAP.

 

[87015]

Whoever made it should be hiding given the litany of delays it’s racking up. Especially if it’s as suggested it’s because of the self imposed pathetic boarding policy as they act like they’ve never seen a train before!! What’s wrong with the perfect 92s now?

 

[Highlandspring]

92018 had an ETH fault.

 

[TimboM]

92018 had an ETH fault.

Although it worked 5S96 in with all the lights on...

 

[Peter Mugridge]

92018 had an ETH fault.

Just the cable apparently - it works OK at the other end of the loco - so hopefully shouldn't take long to fix.

 

[LeylandLen]

I know its off topic, but I see the Penzance to Paddington sleeper was terminated at Reading at 0408 due to wires down at Ealing.
I read the Pddington Penzance started Reading 0136.Is there a thread for the GWML sleeper, ? I am looking for it..

 

[JohnMcL7]

I know its off topic, but I see the Penzance to Paddington sleeper was terminated at Reading at 0408 due to wires down at Ealing.
I read the Pddington Penzance started Reading 0136.Is there a thread for the GWML sleeper, ? I am looking for it..

Is this what you're looking for?

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...es-from-long-rock.127881/page-37#post-3660269

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's exactly it. It was transmission of forces through neck and spine in a collision that was the unresolvable problem.

The fundamental issue, I guess, is that trains have to run both ways. I assume there was no rotatable pod of any kind on the market?

I guess therefore that the unattractive layout would have had them sideways on? I'd still have preferred that over sharing a berth or paying a fortune.

 

[LeylandLen]

Is this what you're looking for?

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...es-from-long-rock.127881/page-37#post-3660269

Thanks .. not as many pages as this thread .No doubt GWML sleeper is a more simple one than Sleeper Scot and not as many problems x

 

[JohnMcL7]

And doesn’t all this work on the basis that in the instance of a crash, the main force is head on ?

Numerous recent incidents involving points issues, SPADs or other derailments have put the side of the train in danger (and thus the sleeping necks).

Again not wanting to be flippant but there are dozens of scenarios where people are at hugely greater risk daily (unrestrained on longitudinal beds on tour buses, for example). To say it isn’t possible just doesn’t seem credible, and it feels like any piece of travel carries a varying level of risk.

For example of the minute numbers of rail travellers who die on trains, one would assume (though I don’t have the numbers), that those nearer the front end of the train are at a greater risk. Presumably front/rear facing carries different statistical risk. Presumably intercity or commuter does too. We all make travel choices largely disregarding those differing risks (probably because they are all relatively minuscule in likelihood). I fail to see how the statistically minute possibility of a fatal collision involving a UK Train, let alone one of the 75 Caledonian Sleeper carriages of the 16000 carriages nationally, let alone one of the tiny proportion of those which might have had a portion of longitudinal sleeping arrangement, is a valid reason to undermine a design choice which is implemented far more widely in far riskier circumstances daily (without significant consequences, it would seem).

I entirely agree with you about the risk but at the same time I can see it being a reason why they didn't do it as they could design as they want and it would make commercial sense to be able to offer it.

Ultimately the spectacular increase in fares over the past few years, combined with new stock whose costs will presumably be recovered from the fare payer in one way or another, prices me off the sleeper onto day trains or airlines, which I find annoying as the sleeper is a far superior way to travel (IMHO).

If they can fill the trains at £400-500 for a return to London on a train (based on solo room fares for a selection of dates in the near future), good luck to them. In a time where public subsidy will be under increasing scrutiny, significant subsidy for a service principally used by the wealthy at the exclusion of the regular traveller will be a hard political sell. Personally I’d be sad to see it fold.

This is my frustration as well, a few years ago I travelled first class on the sleeper for £170 return and it was great as I needed to get down overnight for a flight to maximise my time off. Being able to use the first class lounge on the way back after an overnight flight was a real bonus too and I thought next time even if I didn't get as good a price it would be worth paying a bit more for. Each time I've checked since the price has been horrendous though and while I don't mind paying a bit more to travel on the sleeper as it is a good way to travel, I'm not prepared to fork out a huge premium for it. When I was travelling this year I was able to get a cheap evening flight, stayed overnight and hired a car for the five days (to counter the airport being out of town) which was still a lot less than the sleeper. I can't see the prices changing either.

 

[jagardner1984]

Exactly, this is a real problem. I'd imagine in the forthcoming recession such premium travel will come under even greater threat. I fully expect the sleeper to cost significantly more than the day train. I use the off peak return as a point of comparison as that applies to most day journeys London to Glasgow. Being no longer as young as I once was (!) I'm not really up for sleeping in a chair, nor sharing a room, particularly if the purpose of me paying the premium is to arrive refreshed and ready for a day. In the days of the budget hotel boom, I can routinely get a room in London for £50/60/70. So if my off peak ticket from Glasgow is approx £75 single (ignoring any Advance or other discounts), why exactly would I pay an extra £100-150 for the privilege of sleeping on a train ?

And if there really is demand to fill this service at these prices, why aren't we talking about running a full train from each of the two cities on the Lowlander, simplifying the whole operation and letting the economics of scale give more revenue to CS and a better deal to the traveller ?

 

[Mike395]

Am on the sleeper from Fort William tonight- quick practical question, is it advisable to bring cash for the lounge car or do their Chip & Pin machines default to processing offline if no signal is present?

 

[al78]

Exactly, this is a real problem. I'd imagine in the forthcoming recession such premium travel will come under even greater threat. I fully expect the sleeper to cost significantly more than the day train.

It is significantly more than the day train. I got a first class advance from Aviemore to Horsham for around £100 last year. A 1st class berth on the sleeper this year cost me £220. The sleeper train allows me to do a weekend backpacking trip in Scotland whilst taking minimum time off work, so I accept the higher price.

 

[Iskra]

Am on the sleeper from Fort William tonight- quick practical question, is it advisable to bring cash for the lounge car or do their Chip & Pin machines default to processing offline if no signal is present?

I've never had a problem paying with card.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is significantly more than the day train. I got a first class advance from Aviemore to Horsham for around £100 last year. A 1st class berth on the sleeper this year cost me £220. The sleeper train allows me to do a weekend backpacking trip in Scotland whilst taking minimum time off work, so I accept the higher price.

The fundamental problem is a lack of an intermediate class. I know the pods failed, and there is some detail on why above. But they could have done something else, e.g. 4 or 6-berth transverse couchettes.

 

[JohnMcL7]

It is significantly more than the day train. I got a first class advance from Aviemore to Horsham for around £100 last year. A 1st class berth on the sleeper this year cost me £220. The sleeper train allows me to do a weekend backpacking trip in Scotland whilst taking minimum time off work, so I accept the higher price.

Those are very cheap prices which I wouldn't mind paying, the last couple of times I've priced up the sleeper it's been around £350 for a standard return. Taking the late flight out of Inverness and staying overnight in London meant it actually took slightly less time than the sleeper although I'm in Inverness which is close to the airport whereas getting up from Aviemore would add a chunk of time on.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Thanks .. not as many pages as this thread .No doubt GWML sleeper is a more simple one than Sleeper Scot and not as many problems x

I agree, the Caledonian sleeper is quite an operation every night and in the process of being upgraded as well.

I'm wondering how well it's going to work when you see the issues they have now and with the new rolling stock, most locomotives are not going to be able to haul them which will limit rescue options.

John

 

[swapmeetpete]

Maybe they could get Tri-ang to design a converter wagon!

 

[al78]

Those are very cheap prices which I wouldn't mind paying, the last couple of times I've priced up the sleeper it's been around £350 for a standard return. Taking the late flight out of Inverness and staying overnight in London meant it actually took slightly less time than the sleeper although I'm in Inverness which is close to the airport whereas getting up from Aviemore would add a chunk of time on.

Hardly cheap. £220 for a one way journey, double that to get back again. From a financial point of view, it would make more sense for me to take leave on Friday and Monday, and use standard daytime trains booked in advance on those days, even adding the cost of a B&B on Friday and Sunday night it would be a lot cheaper than the sleeper, if I choose to use a campsite or camp wild on those days even more so. for me, the sleeper is a convenient way of getting to the Scottish highlands and to do linear backpacking trips, but it is only the privilege of wealth which allows me to have that choice.

 

[jagardner1984]

but it is only the privilege of wealth which allows me to have that choice

And for a massively subsidised service (£17million in 15-16 and £60million towards the new trains), that is truly scandalous.

 

[TimboM]

I'm wondering how well it's going to work when you see the issues they have now and with the new rolling stock, most locomotives are not going to be able to haul them which will limit rescue options.

There’s been one occasion in the last year a 92 has failed in service and required rescue (approx. 0.1% of runs).

Not sure of stats re 73/9s but rescues aren’t a particularly common occurrence for them either.

Most delays are infrastructure issues (which will happen anyway) or stock issues - which (in theory!) should improve.

All the locos still have classic couplings as well as Dellners, so if needs be a Thunderbird can still attach to the front of the train (the rear is more of a challenge, but ideally any rescue is in the direction the train was travelling anyway).

 

[Norther Monkey]

And for a massively subsidised service (£17million in 15-16 and £60million towards the new trains), that is truly scandalous.

I agree. Unless it can be demonstrated that the wider business generated by the sleeper (tourist spend and the like) is greater than the subsidy it should be left to stand or fall on its own.

 

[TimboM]

And for a massively subsidised service (£17million in 15-16 and £60million towards the new trains), that is truly scandalous.

Serco are making a significant loss on the franchise - they’re currently expecting losses of c.£49m over the full franchise - in effect they are also subsidising it to the tune of another £4m/year.

The sleeper - as noted previously - is extremely expensive to run. Even WITH the increased prices AND the govt subsidies it’s making a significant loss.

The “real” cost a guest would need to pay if it was to wash its face would be even higher than it is now.

Not sure what the scandal is?

To have materially lower/more affordable prices would require an even greater subsidy.

 

[TimboM]

I agree. Unless it can be demonstrated that the wider business generated by the sleeper (tourist spend and the like) is greater than the subsidy it should be left to stand or fall on its own.

Presumably that was demonstrated ahead of the new franchise - govts don’t dish out cash easily these days.