Caledonian Sleeper discussion

[jagardner1984]

I have to say I’m really surprised passenger numbers are up 26%, given the limited capacity and fixed nature of the service. Are these figures published and verified somewhere ?

I suppose as a Scottish taxpayer who pays a tiny part of CS’s significant subsidy, it bothers me that this is becoming a service for the wealthy and for tourists. Additionally travel services which cater to this market are particularly vulnerable to future economic downturn.

Given the broader issues with the Scottish rail network, and the public perception of Scotrail, if the Sleeper becomes an irrelevance to the ordinary standard class traveller, it becomes an extremely easy political target for cuts in the future.

It would be interesting if the media attention got into the detail of why new stock is launching which effectively constrains it to this business model.

I love the sleeper and want it to succeed, but I am now largely priced off it. I can’t be alone.

 

[swaldman]

I have to say I’m really surprised passenger numbers are up 26%, given the limited capacity and fixed nature of the service. Are these figures published and verified somewhere ?

I suppose as a Scottish taxpayer who pays a tiny part of CS’s significant subsidy, it bothers me that this is becoming a service for the wealthy and for tourists. Additionally travel services which cater to this market are particularly vulnerable to future economic downturn.

Given the broader issues with the Scottish rail network, and the public perception of Scotrail, if the Sleeper becomes an irrelevance to the ordinary standard class traveller, it becomes an extremely easy political target for cuts in the future.

It would be interesting if the media attention got into the detail of why new stock is launching which effectively constrains it to this business model.

I love the sleeper and want it to succeed, but I am now largely priced off it. I can’t be alone.

You're not alone, I'm priced off it too these days, and have to fly.
I don't think it'll get cut, though - too many MPs use it to get to their constituencies. Doesn't matter how much tickets are, though, because they claim them on expenses...

 

[Scotrail84]

1S25 should be 92 018

1S26 should be 90 046

1C11/1B26 should 92 044??

1M11 should be 90 045

1M16 should be 92 033

 

[Chrism20]

I suppose as a Scottish taxpayer who pays a tiny part of CS’s significant subsidy, it bothers me that this is becoming a service for the wealthy and for tourists. Additionally travel services which cater to this market are particularly vulnerable to future economic downturn.

An upturn in our economy could possibly also have the same effect. If the pound goes up you get less for your Yen/Euro/Dollar etc.

Eggs in baskets springs to mind.

 

[Chrism20]

You're not alone, I'm priced off it too these days, and have to fly.
I don't think it'll get cut, though - too many MPs use it to get to their constituencies. Doesn't matter how much tickets are, though, because they claim them on expenses...

Is it still the case that significant numbers of politicians are using the service? I'm sure I read something a while back (After the 2015 election IIRC) that the air fare expenses for Scottish MPs had increased significantly.

 

[TimboM]

The government are subsidising the Sleeper by £16m per year; Serco by a further £4-5m (by way of the loss they're currently making). This is all before the cost of the new stock, the majority of which is being subsidised by a Scottish Government grant.

A sleeper train is very expensive to run - the higher prices are still nowhere near the real cost per person (as evidenced by this £20m per year propping it up). The previous cheaper prices therefore can only have been achieved by an even greater subsidy that was more "hidden" by it being part of ScotRail and cross-subsidised. There's an argument whether a certain group of traveller's fares should be subsidised to such an extent for what is a premium way to travel (even with the old stock) - and that's even with the lower subsidy/higher prices there are now.

Seems folk are asking for cheaper prices, but also raising concerns about the size/use of subsidy - yet on balance that would need to be even bigger to bring the prices down?

All that said, the media (especially the Scotsman) won't present a balanced picture - they'll focus on examples like the family of five and come up with "eye-watering" percentage increases. I've recently booked my family on the Sleeper from Euston to Inverness under the new price regime and it's working out at £50 per person each way (in berths). For an 11 hour overnight Sleeper service I'd say that's decent value and (more than) competitive with day trains (and losing two days of the trip); or driving + hotel (and losing two days...) or flying (and all the hassle/transfers etc).

 

[TimboM]

Is it still the case that significant numbers of politicians are using the service? I'm sure I read something a while back (After the 2015 election IIRC) that the air fare expenses for Scottish MPs had increased significantly.

This was covered a few pages back and the general consensus from regulars was they saw very few M(S)Ps on the Sleepers.

 

[Meerkat]

How much was the new stock then? I thought Gideon called the Scottish Government’s bluff by offering a big chunk of cash if they matched it?

 

[PaxVobiscum]

...I love the sleeper and want it to succeed, but I am now largely priced off it. I can’t be alone.

For several years my son and I have been having a short London break in February. If we do that in 2019, we won't be going by sleeper as I note the price for the return journey has almost doubled from when I booked it (this time last year) for February 2018. Part of the increase will be due to the end of railcard reductions.

I might just splash out (once) on the new stock when it is finally running and (cough) bedded in.

 

[TimboM]

How much was the new stock then? I thought Gideon called the Jock gov’s bluff by offering a big chunk of cash if they matched it?

Figures on the Serco CS New Trains website vary from £100m-£150m. The Scottish Ministers are keen to point out they provided a £60m grant towards this. However, like you, I understand the DfT (aka "Westminster") have also provided significant funding to the service but make much less song and dance about it.

Meanwhile, talking of new stock, 92038 has just left Polmadie on 5M01 to Carlisle with the first WCML test run for a good few months (8x Mk5s).

 

[swaldman]

All that said, the media (especially the Scotsman) won't present a balanced picture - they'll focus on examples like the family of five and come up with "eye-watering" percentage increases. I've recently booked my family on the Sleeper from Euston to Inverness under the new price regime and it's working out at £50 per person each way (in berths). For an 11 hour overnight Sleeper service I'd say that's decent value and (more than) competitive with day trains (and losing two days of the trip); or driving + hotel (and losing two days...) or flying (and all the hassle/transfers etc).

You've been rather lucky to get that. Whenever I've looked at Aberdeen<>London this year, even booking 5 months ahead, it's been over £200 each way for one person.
Part of this is price rises, but of course the biggest part of it is preventing us from sharing a cabin with a stranger. This has instantly near-doubled the cost for solo travellers.

Re costs and subsidy, I do see both sides of it. Personally I feel that if it's going to be subsidised, it should be affordable for the not-so-wealthy. Subsidising something just enough that only the rich can afford it feels faintly obscene. There is an argument, however, that it's a net benefit for Scotland if it boosts tourist revenue...

Ultimately, a sane transport policy at present would be doing whatever it took to stop people taking domestic flights. There are things that should be done that affect the cost of flights (taxing fuel for at least domestic airlines would be a start), but when it comes to time, the sleeper is the airlines' main competitor: it's the only other way to set off in the evening and arrive at the other end of the country at the start of the next working day, having slept in between. I don't have the answers, but the loss of sleeper services throughout Europe in return for cheap flights is, from an environmental perspective, bonkers.

 

[Meerkat]

The sleeper can’t really compete with flying unless you really have to do a full day somewhere.
I have flown up to Edinburgh and back in a day for meetings - it’s a long day, but still preferable to spending two nights travelling.
An actual sleeper is a luxury product - I just can’t see how you can expect a moving hotel room to be a reasonable price. The bargain version is an overnight seat.

 

[BRX]

Just to get a very rough idea of what the numbers really mean...

Each night there are 48 sleeper carriages in motion. Each of those has up to say 24 berths (if there were no single-occupancy cabins). So each night 1152 berths potentially available. Say 310 nights a year.

310 x 1152 = 357120 berth-nights per year.

That's a subsidy of around £50 per berth each night, if I've got my maths right. Or £100 per cabin.

(All assuming the current stock)

I can see that as a taxpayer, you might think, well, I'd rather the subsidy went towards making a berth in a shared-with-stranger cabin cost £70 instead of £120, rather than making a first class cabin cost £140 instead of £240. Or, in the case of the new stock, given that as well as there being no shared-with-stranger occupancy cabins, each carriage has fewer beds overall, so maybe you are looking at the subsidy making a deluxe cabin cost £200 rather than £320.

All this ignores seated coaches, or other options inbetween seats and couchettes, which would gain you even more people being enabled to travel per £ of subsidy.

And then there's the question of empty berths... which is what you get when you pursue a policy of pricing high at low occupancy rather than gaining full occupancy by pricing low. It may well be that the former can bring in more revenue - but does the end result represent good use of the subsidy that is paid either way?

Of course, I know it's not as simple as that in reality, and more expensive cabins can potentially 'subsidise' cheaper ones and so on. But I do think there's something of a valid question, about whether it's really right for a subsidised service to end up as a luxury tourist train. From my point of view as a taxpayer I think I'd rather pay a bit *more* subsidy to support a service that could offer fares that were more in the reach of most people and which could be competitive with, say, the airlines.

 

[modernrail]

On balance, I think a service so subsisidised has to be more affordable. You can not justify a subsidy of this size on helping wealthy people get somewhere. The principle of a subsidy has to be to help the provision of an essential service. That may mean that the subsidy is greater but that doesn't change the principle.

I also think the ending of sharing is a poor move. I have used the sleepers in Sweden recently and they still have the 6 bed couchettes never mind 2 bed sharing cabins. The Swedes are very safety conscious and are fairly private people. If they can get their head around sharing then we can. The reality is that lots of people are absolutely happy with sharing, so why not allow it and maximise the use of the service by using all capacity up whilst also reducing the subsidy by increasing the income per cabin. Typical solving of a problem that didn't exist and everybody losing.

 

[Meerkat]

Problem is that the Sleeper isn’t a conventional subsidised service. I think it only exists because it has an aura that means it’s too damaging for a politician to do what might be ‘sensible’ and what they want to do (think cap badges and the Red Arrows for the MoD).
There isn’t really a political desire to provide a service for the common person - they just want it to survive for as little cost as possible, and that means moving upmarket.

Ps the fact that prices have gone up doesn’t mean they stop yield managing to keep it as full as possible

 

[swaldman]

I can see that as a taxpayer, you might think, well, I'd rather the subsidy went towards making a berth in a shared-with-stranger cabin cost £70 instead of £120, rather than making a first class cabin cost £140 instead of £240.

<snip>

And then there's the question of empty berths... which is what you get when you pursue a policy of pricing high at low occupancy rather than gaining full occupancy by pricing low. It may well be that the former can bring in more revenue - but does the end result represent good use of the subsidy that is paid either way?

Yes. This.

 

[swaldman]

The sleeper can’t really compete with flying unless you really have to do a full day somewhere.
I have flown up to Edinburgh and back in a day for meetings - it’s a long day, but still preferable to spending two nights travelling.

Different people, different views - but it's the only real alternative that doesn't cost an extra travel day on either side (especially for the Highlander).

An actual sleeper is a luxury product - I just can’t see how you can expect a moving hotel room to be a reasonable price. The bargain version is an overnight seat.

It's fair to say that on the sleeper you're getting overnight accommodation as well as transport... but at the moment I could book a flight from Aberdeen to London, *and* a good hotel in London, and still pay less than the sleeper!

The bargain version ought to be couchette-type arrangements. I never understood why we don't have them (not the continental 6-per-comparment design, I don't imagine that would fit in the loading gauge, but high-density flat beds of some sort). But at the very least, allowing people to share cabins rather than insisting that for every solo traveller, there must be an empty bed transported, would be a start.

 

[Chrism20]

I do understand both sides of the argument on the subsidy front and the fare levels, however I must admit it really does stick in my throat to think that I am subsidising someones holiday whilst at the same time I'm being priced off it myself.

There is no doubt that tourist traffic is needed I'm not disputing that, however if it's being marketed as a tourism attraction rather it really shouldn't be coming out the transport budget imo.

 

[swaldman]

I do understand both sides of the argument on the subsidy front and the fare levels, however I must admit it really does stick in my throat to think that I am subsidising someones holiday whilst at the same time I'm being priced off it myself.

There is no doubt that tourist traffic is needed I'm not disputing that, however if it's being marketed as a tourism attraction rather it really shouldn't be coming out the transport budget imo.

Maybe we need differential pricing? Affordable fares for British residents (or Scottish residents? More controversial perhaps...) subsidised by higher fares for rich tourists.

 

[BRX]

What's notable about the surviving continental sleepers is that they are not the train hotels or luxury type, but quite focused on couchettes and relatively cheap cost (as far as I can see). It will be interesting to see if this applies to the ones that are re-emerging at the moment as well. I don't know quite what this shows, whether it reflects a market demand or whether it's an indication of how subsidy is directed by European governments but it does seem to be going in a different direction from what's happening to the CS.

 

[BRX]

Maybe we need differential pricing? Affordable fares for British residents (or Scottish residents? More controversial perhaps...) subsidised by higher fares for rich tourists.

If it's coming out of scottish government budget then yes maybe discount should apply to Scottish residents. I say that as a Scot resident in London. If the subsidy is to support the highland economy then the money is better spent on enabling people there to connect with London for business purposes rather than subsidising my holidays back home!

 

[Highlandspring]

It’s worth noting that the Scottish Government subsidises residential travel discounts on lifeline flights - through the air discount scheme - and on Northern Isles ferries, as well as through the national concession card scheme for qualifying Western Isles residents.

 

[BRX]

And all the airports in the highlands are subsidised - looks like something in the order of £30-40M per year.

I don't know if there's a way to meaningfully isolate the level of subsidy that effectively goes into making Inverness<>London flights viable.

I'd say the arguments against subsidising the sleeper could also be used against air travel. Both are a way of saving time on the available-anyway option of getting the day train (or bus). And of course, the plane is not an option for those travelling from intermediate points without additional travel expense/time to get to the airport.

 

[gallafent]

What's notable about the surviving continental sleepers is that they are not the train hotels or luxury type, but quite focused on couchettes and relatively cheap cost (as far as I can see).

I think you're right to an extent (it's been a while) … and that seems a shame to me (fond memories of Paris <-> Madrid Trenhotel! but there do seem to be some more luxurious options heading East. From Paris to Moscow, for example, there are https://www.seat61.com/paris-moscow-express.htm and https://www.seat61.com/Russia.htm#Option-3-via-berlin (the latter looking suspiciously trenhotel-like and taking 4 hours less thanks to the excellent gauge-changing tech on the old Talgo rolling stock, which definitely doesn't wake one up at all, no sir …

 

[mullac30]

And all the airports in the highlands are subsidised - looks like something in the order of £30-40M per year.

I don't know if there's a way to meaningfully isolate the level of subsidy that effectively goes into making Inverness<>London flights viable.

I'd say the arguments against subsidising the sleeper could also be used against air travel. Both are a way of saving time on the available-anyway option of getting the day train (or bus). And of course, the plane is not an option for those travelling from intermediate points without additional travel expense/time to get to the airport.

Inverness has no PSO routes, and the parent company, HIAL often put profit back into the Government. Also, Inverness's combined 8 daily A320 flights a day to London have been having very high load factors for the last 2 years, so I highly doubt they'd need to be subsidised as they are seemingly very profitable with BA's recent frequency increases. Although HIE and Highland Council do often campaign for routes from INV.

 

[Mordac]

Inverness has no PSO routes, and the parent company, HIAL often put profit back into the Government. Also, Inverness's combined 8 daily A320 flights a day to London have been having very high load factors for the last 2 years, so I highly doubt they'd need to be subsidised as they are seemingly very profitable with BA's recent frequency increases. Although HIE and Highland Council do often campaign for routes from INV.

No APD from INV, so people often make the trek upthere to skip on it.

 

[Mathew S]

No APD from INV, so people often make the trek upthere to skip on it.

Air Passenger Duty?

 

[BRX]

Inverness has no PSO routes, and the parent company, HIAL often put profit back into the Government.

Here it says that £38M subsidy was put into HIAL in 2017 - is that incorrect?

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/f...dy-given-to-airports-but-nothing-to-aberdeen/

 

[mullac30]

Here it says that £38M subsidy was put into HIAL in 2017 - is that incorrect?

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/f...dy-given-to-airports-but-nothing-to-aberdeen/

It could be the two Dundee PSO routes that ran in 2017 (STN and AMS), along with the Barra PSO .
Also the government owns HIAL, so any money for other things like investment in infrastructure comes from them.

 

[oldman]

The last annual report shows HIAL received about £20m revenue subsidy out of £45m total revenue, but there is no breakdown by airport.