Caledonian Sleeper discussion

[Mordac]

Air Passenger Duty?

Yes, sorry.

 

[adrock1976]

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.

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.

Regarding the bits I have highlighted in bold, could you please explain what they refer to?

I believe it is a long standing policy of the forum not to use acronyms/abbreviations/jargon without first saying what it means.

 

[TimboM]

92038 back out with the Mk5s I believe tonight.

 

[47271]

It could be the two Dundee PSO routes that ran in 2017 (STN and AMS), along with the Barra PSO .

I sincerely hope that the useless Flybe didn't receive a penny of public money in 2017 for Dundee-Schipol considering they chaotically pulled out of the route just before Christmas 2016, having only started it in May of that year. And let's not think about the so called competition they tried to create on the Orkney and Shetland routes and then pulled out of after not much longer, having damaged both themselves and Loganair in the process. Just search online for both stories.

Off topic I know, but this sort of unpredictability reminds you that the subsidy paid to the sleeper might be not such bad value for money after all...

 

[gordonjahn]

Regarding the bits I have highlighted in bold, could you please explain what they refer to?

I believe it is a long standing policy of the forum not to use acronyms/abbreviations/jargon without first saying what it means.

I believe...

* PSO: public service obligation
* HIAL: Highlands and Islands airports Ltd
* STN: Stansted (ICAO - International civil aviation organisation - code for The airport in Essex)
* AMS: Amsterdam (ICAO code)

 

[mullac30]

Regarding the bits I have highlighted in bold, could you please explain what they refer to?

I believe it is a long standing policy of the forum not to use acronyms/abbreviations/jargon without first saying what it means.

Sorry about that, I'm more used to aberrations in aviation circles, to add to the above:
INV = Inverness ICAO
HIE = Highlands and Islands Enterprises

 

[GW43125]

Reported that one of the seats is out of use on 1S25 tonight.

 

[Mag_seven]

Reported that one of the seats is out of use on 1S25 tonight.

I assume the person booked to sit in that seat was assigned another seat or given a berth.

 

[ScottDarg]

Reported that one of the seats is out of use on 1S25 tonight.

Looks like the Glasgow seats were also out of use. Coach was in darkness this morning

 

[GW43125]

I assume the person booked to sit in that seat was assigned another seat or given a berth.

Very good.

 

[jagardner1984]

Does anyone know the breakdown by carriage of the different berth types ? Ie could it be an option to return to more shared berths

Clearly not going to happen any time soon, but it does strike me with CAF having Mk5 orders for a while, with some political pressure and regulatory changes, it’s theoretically possible for some addition or modification to the sets to occur ?

If we take CS’ figures at face value (26% passenger growth in the future), is it even conceivable there could be seperate Lowland trains in the future ?

Presumably in either instance, expansion helps to reduce subsidy ?

 

[TimboM]

Does anyone know the breakdown by carriage of the different berth types ? Ie could it be an option to return to more shared berths

Clearly not going to happen any time soon, but it does strike me with CAF having Mk5 orders for a while, with some political pressure and regulatory changes, it’s theoretically possible for some addition or modification to the sets to occur ?

If we take CS’ figures at face value (26% passenger growth in the future), is it even conceivable there could be seperate Lowland trains in the future ?

Presumably in either instance, expansion helps to reduce subsidy ?

There's no difference to how it is now - apart from the new Club Suites with double beds in, all other berths whether "Club" (First with en suite) or "Classic" (Standard with sink only) have two bunks in. If they're configured for shared use, both bunks are down. If used for sole occupancy, the top bunk is folded against the wall (as is the case with First Class in the Mk3s).

I expect like now due to mattresses etc. they won't be able to be chop and changed every night, but if there's a consistent increase in demand for more shared rooms in either class, the standard set ups could be altered as they can be now in Mk3s.

With all the challenges so far with the Mk5s I think it's a reasonable assumption there will be no late changes to configurations of the stock in this current order from CAF.

For reference, the new Mk5s will comprise:

Sleeper coaches: 6x Club Twin Rooms [i.e. single bed or twin bunks (see above) + en suite] then 4x Classic Twin Rooms [i.e. single bed or twin bunks (see above) + sink only]
Sleeper PRM coaches: 1x Accessible Classic Twin; 2x Suites (Double beds + en suites); 2x Classic Twin Rooms; 1x Accessible Double [Neither accessible rooms have en suites, but both are adjacent to the WCs - one at each end of the coach]
Seated coach: 31 seats + 1 wheelchair space. Seats arranged 2 + 1 (10 rows) with a further 1 single seat opposite the wheelchair space.
Club Carriage (aka Lounge): Booths / tables / bar stools / kitchen etc.

Each portion will have seats, lounge and at least one PRM/Doubles coach. As there needs to be 2x PRM coaches in the half-set which splits Aberdeen and Fort William, this means when "reunited" one of the Lowlander half-sets each way will have 2x PRM coaches.

 

[jagardner1984]

With a train order like this, is there usually a period after completion during which further orders could be made ? You so often see the phrase "options" on airline orders, but less so for trains ...

For a unique service that is likely to have this rolling stock for 30-40 years, it seems one hell of a crystal ball to predict the service demands that far into the future.

Has there been any talk of replacement sleeper stock for the Night Riviera ? I assume not for a while given the recent refurbishment ...

 

[TimboM]

With a train order like this, is there usually a period after completion during which further orders could be made ? You so often see the phrase "options" on airline orders, but less so for trains ...

For a unique service that is likely to have this rolling stock for 30-40 years, it seems one hell of a crystal ball to predict the service demands that far into the future.

Has there been any talk of replacement sleeper stock for the Night Riviera ? I assume not for a while given the recent refurbishment ...

Any "options" clauses would be specific to each rolling stock order / contract.

At over £1m per coach, I think there's an element of budget and buying what's needed with a handful of spares; rather than speculatively buying surplus just in case demand changes.

The Night Riviera refurbs done very recently (some still on-going?) were to extend the life of the stock by at least another 10 years I think, so very unlikely there'd be any orders from GWR in the near future.

 

[Indigo Soup]

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).

You can do 4-per-compartment couchettes in the UK loading gauge. I reckon that replacing the seated car and one sleeping car with two of them would have allowed the sleepers to maintain capacity despite all the luxury hotel stuff, and offer much cheaper fares to people not suffering from a surfeit of wealth....

 

[BRX]

T
For reference, the new Mk5s will comprise:

Sleeper coaches: 6x Club Twin Rooms [i.e. single bed or twin bunks (see above) + en suite] then 4x Classic Twin Rooms [i.e. single bed or twin bunks (see above) + sink only]
Sleeper PRM coaches: 1x Accessible Classic Twin; 2x Suites (Double beds + en suites); 2x Classic Twin Rooms; 1x Accessible Double [Neither accessible rooms have en suites, but both are adjacent to the WCs - one at each end of the coach]
Seated coach: 31 seats + 1 wheelchair space. Seats arranged 2 + 1 (10 rows) with a further 1 single seat opposite the wheelchair space.
Club Carriage (aka Lounge): Booths / tables / bar stools / kitchen etc.

Each portion will have seats, lounge and at least one PRM/Doubles coach. As there needs to be 2x PRM coaches in the half-set which splits Aberdeen and Fort William, this means when "reunited" one of the Lowlander half-sets each way will have 2x PRM coaches.

Overall maximum berth capacity takes quite a hit compared to current -

Currently max no. of berths for a 6-car sleeper portion is 24 x 6 = 144 (might actually be more as some coaches have 13 rather than 12 cabins?)
New trains max. no of berths for a 6-car sleeper portion is (20 x 5) + 10 = 110

For a 3-car sleeper portion, max no currently is at least 72
On the new trains that will reduce to 50.

 

[swaldman]

Overall maximum berth capacity takes quite a hit compared to current -

Currently max no. of berths for a 6-car sleeper portion is 24 x 6 = 144 (might actually be more as some coaches have 13 rather than 12 cabins?)
New trains max. no of berths for a 6-car sleeper portion is (20 x 5) + 10 = 110

For a 3-car sleeper portion, max no currently is at least 72
On the new trains that will reduce to 50.

There's an additional hit to the practical capacity (though this has already come in) from not allowing strangers to share. Now for every solo traveller there must be an empty bunk - where previously that would only have been for *some* solo travellers who chose to pay the extra.

 

[47271]

A CS mk3 can't hold more than 18 passengers under current configuration, even if every Standard cabin has two people in it, which is most unlikely.

Rooms 1-6 have one bed and rooms 7-12 have two.

 

[Essexman]

From the above posts it seems that new sleeper coaches will have 10 berths & PRM (not sure what that stands for) will have 6.
A set of three made up of two sleepers & one PRM would have 26 berths compared to 36 on current trains.

In theory all the berths in the new trains could be double occupied which would give a capacity of 52 for the set of 3, compared to current 54, however in practise some will undoubtedly be single occupied so reducing capacity of the coach.

Presumably as now some will be set up for single occupancy class with only one bed in use. If half the twin rooms (excluding accessible) are set up for single occupancy (as at present) then that takes 11 off the capacity of a set of three, reducing it to 41.

The balance of single / double occupancy may change a little as those who were willing to share either pay extra for single or don't travel, and the double might increase for leisure traffic, but it looks to me as if the new trains will hold about 25% fewer passengers than the old ones.

This is likely only to be a real issue for busier summer trains, especially Fort William, (although the reduced capacity will mean more trains become fully booked), but obviously Serco will be expecting to cover the loss of income on these trains by either increased fares or increased patronage on all routes across the year - or both.

 

[31160]

I asked a few weeks ago about the Ft William sleeper being diverted into Oban next year, and someone said it would be in the back half of the year, would anybody be able to say what month this may be in please

 

[alistairlees]

From the above posts it seems that new sleeper coaches will have 10 berths & PRM (not sure what that stands for) will have 6.
A set of three made up of two sleepers & one PRM would have 26 berths compared to 36 on current trains.

PRM = Persons with Reduced Mobility
You're getting confused between berths and compartments (or beds and rooms as they are now referred to). The Mk5 coaches have 10 rooms (compartments); these have 20 beds (berths) in them.

In theory all the berths in the new trains could be double occupied which would give a capacity of 52 for the set of 3, compared to current 54, however in practise some will undoubtedly be single occupied so reducing capacity of the coach.

A set of six Mk5s going to Inverness, Edinburgh or Glasgow will have a capacity of 20*5 + 12*1 (in the PRM) making 112. This compares to today where the capacity is 18*5 + (I think) 16*1 (in the disabled) making 106.

Presumably as now some will be set up for single occupancy class with only one bed in use. If half the twin rooms (excluding accessible) are set up for single occupancy (as at present) then that takes 11 off the capacity of a set of three, reducing it to 41.

Nothing will be "set" to be single occupancy or twin occupancy; the beds can be up / down without needing to remove the mattress. So it will be much more responsive to demand. People need to get away from thinking "must be solo or shared" to the type of accommodation (with en-suite / without en-suite) that it will be.

The balance of single / double occupancy may change a little as those who were willing to share either pay extra for single or don't travel, and the double might increase for leisure traffic, but it looks to me as if the new trains will hold about 25% fewer passengers than the old ones.

This is likely only to be a real issue for busier summer trains, especially Fort William, (although the reduced capacity will mean more trains become fully booked), but obviously Serco will be expecting to cover the loss of income on these trains by either increased fares or increased patronage on all routes across the year - or both.

 

[Essexman]

Thanks.
So what is lost with fewer 'rooms' is regained by greater flexibility.

 

[BRX]

A set of six Mk5s going to Inverness, Edinburgh or Glasgow will have a capacity of 20*5 + 12*1 (in the PRM) making 112. This compares to today where the capacity is 18*5 + (I think) 16*1 (in the disabled) making 106.

To be clear, what you're comparing here is the mk5's potential *maximum* capacity (ie with all bunks folded down) with the mk3's capacity as currently set up (ie with several bunks folded up) - is that right?

 

[alistairlees]

I am comparing the maximum bookable capacities of both, as they will (or currently, do) run in the real world. Like for like.

My numbers might be out by a couple by the way - I haven't had time to do it in detail. But the principle is correct.

 

[BRX]

I am comparing the maximum bookable capacities of both, as they will (or currently, do) run in the real world. Like for like.

My numbers might be out by a couple by the way - I haven't had time to do it in detail. But the principle is correct.

Fair enough - I hadn't appreciated that the new stock will provide more on-the-day flexibility compared with current.

 

[Flying Snail]

I am comparing the maximum bookable capacities of both, as they will (or currently, do) run in the real world. Like for like.

My numbers might be out by a couple by the way - I haven't had time to do it in detail. But the principle is correct.

In the real world the capacity will not be higher because every single occupancy will take out 2 beds. Based on current usage and the removal of sharing with strangers the capacity will probably be considerably lower as a high % are single travellers.

Of course this will be countered by their pricing policy pushing out a lot of current users in favour of the mythical creatures willing to shell out the guts of half a grand for a room that may be replaced at short notice by a seat on a road coach or a spot in a hotel lobby.

 

[alistairlees]

In the real world the capacity will not be higher because every single occupancy will take out 2 beds. Based on current usage and the removal of sharing with strangers the capacity will probably be considerably lower as a high % are single travellers.

The capacity will be as I described. Usage - well, we'll have to see. Remember, every room in the new train has the capacity to be a twin (or double) room; unlike today, where a significant number of rooms have the capacity to be solo rooms only. It's a much more flexible arrangement.

 

[yorkie]

This thread is not intended to be a 'master thread' about anything and everything to do with Caledonian Sleeper.

If anyone has any ideas/suggestions for changes in provision, please create a thread in the Speculative Ideas section.

To discuss any major project, such as new stock, please create a thread, or use an existing one if there is one, in the relevant section e.g. Traction & Rolling stock.

 

[Caleb2010]

No lounge car on 1M16 tonight and everything a**e about face with the SLED (usually coach J) becoming coach N - looks like the seats are locked out too! Diverted via Aberdeen as well as the HML is closed.

 

[Scotrail84]

92018 on 1S25 and possibly 90 042 on 1S26