Caledonian Sleeper Mk5 Discussion

[Bald Rick]

But without ETCS L3 (i.e. moving block) what purpose does it serve? Track circuits and axle counters handle it quite well enough.

It means you can get most of the benefit of L3 without having to equip every train with L3. It also enables the removal of muc( (but not all) trackside equipment.

 

[_toommm_]

There is a VSTP in the system for the stock to return from Longsight to Polmadie, although it, at the time of writing, hasn't set off yet:

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O15439/2019/06/19/advanced

 

[hwl]

It means you can get most of the benefit of L3 without having to equip every train with L3. It also enables the removal of muc( (but not all) trackside equipment.

Which would be pretty attractive in remote locations especially on the highlander routes when resignalling is due...

 

[_toommm_]

From Twitter:

All services are due to return to normal from (and including) Friday 21 June onwards. Our sincere apologies to all guests affected by our recent cancellations.

https://twitter.com/CalSleeper/status/1141638462518509568?s=09

 

[Clansman]

Was fortunate enough that my journey down south a few nights ago wasn't booked on the set caught up in the series of cancellations over the past week.

I feel that the Mk5s are a mixed bag - there are good points and bad points about them that don't really offer much improvement beyond PRM compliance, general ambiance, and basic facilities.

Good points (outwith the obvious):

• As photos show, the Mk5s are a lot more hotel like, aside from the usuals that we're all aware of like key card access and what not, the decor and ambience in public areas of the coaches generally is an improvement on the Mk3s and Mk2s given the interior is completely sealed from the outdoors (ie no droplights or open gangways)
• Smarter rooms with more of an open, bright, contemporary feel to them
• Better ambience controls with light switches being replaceed with nodes to control brightness, and the same approach with temperature (which I never found to be an issue)
• More accessable plug points and USB ports in both berths, lounge car, and seated coach
  
• Slighly longer and wider beds with comfier matresses that are locked in place by the structure of the beds themselves (ie no more sliding off the bottom bunk's wooden frame as with the Mk3s)
• Carriages built to fit the interior, rather than vice versa (for example the windows in the lounge car don't align on both sides as they are built around each lounge booth and stool layouts - not a massive improvement but a nice touch which emphasises the whole specialisation aspect of what Caledonian Sleeper are trying to achieve)
• Contrary to the worries of people who are fussy about seats on any new stock, the seats in the seated coach - despite being smaller at the base but taller at the back - are much comfier than that of the Mk2s. They are well equipped with a well padded base and lots of room to manouver. Whilst in photos they appear to look like a downgrade from the Mk2s, having a smaller base allows much greater flexibility to space out and get comfy. The recline on them is roughly the same to that of the Mk2s, and the fold down tables do not inhibit leg space like the Mk2s do. Having travelled first class on the Eurostar the next day on an unrefurbished e300, then back on an e320 a few days later, the experience of the seats on the Mk2s and Mk5s are akin to one another as they are on Eurostar. A bigger base with bigger armrests doesn't always mean a comfier journey - a comfy journey is much about the space you have to adjust rather than maximising the seat size.
  
• Lounge car is on the whole, an improvement, with better accomodation for groups and solo travellers alike with greater capacity for restaurant style seating and solo seats. The addition of booth style seating surrounding the windows in two booths, is a welcome addition - although it does nothing to improve capacity beyond 4 people - perhaps 5 at a push for families with small children although legroom doesn't allow much flexbility.
  
• Better sound-proof walls in the berths to minimise the sound of people walking down the corridor and in and around their own berths.
• Gangway and brakes designs successfully minimises jolting during acceleration, deceleration, and during uncoupling and decoupling to other portions.
• Sealed design (ie no droplights or open gangways) and the mood lighting in the corridor is very welcoming when waking up to go to the loo in the middle of the night. Beats the Mk3s by a country mile where you'd exit the berth to a waft of freezing cold air and a harsh light to burn the eyes. Even though I never had an en-suite berth, I felt ten times more refreshed and clean compared to the Mk3s - definitley due to the better temperature control and warmer atmosphere.
  
  

Major downpoints:

• Having travelled in Classic Sleeper accomodation with no-ensuite, I had to use the public loo, which wasn't a problem. However it did prove a challenge due to the fact that there is only 1 and it is non gender specific, which may present an issue for other travellers. Strangely, the toilet has an unessessary layout as it is situated sideways along the corridor, rather than being situated in the vestibule area facing towards the doorway and thus against or facing direction of travel. Furthermore, the toilet door is the only one of its kind anywhere on UK rolling stock, as it slides and folds into itself when opening, and unfolds as you slide it shut - this presents major issues for locking the door as it has to be fully flat to be able to lock. This mechanism takes some getting used to, and there was 2 coaches with locked out toilets due to the lock being unable to function as a result of the design of the doors. A simple fixed door would have been just fine. The space taken by the new toilet design is suitable for two toilets of the same basic layout as to that on the Mk3s, and suitable for gender specific toilets. Instead, the new design creates unnesessary issues.
  
• The design of the berth doors on the outside are such that the handles are not indented into the door itself (as is the case on the Mk3s), and therefor extent outwards into the corridor. In addition to the longer and greater number of windows along the berth corridor, which naturally requires grab rails, combined, with the berth door handles, these present a much greater hazard than the Mk3s. I found myself bumping into them and ramming them into my hip (unintentionally of-course). This is simply not an issue on the Mk3s given there is no grab rail supports and less pertruding door handles. As someone who is of slim build, I worry for those who are of larger builds trying to safely walk up each corridor.
  
• The lounge car is very much a mixed bag. Whilst the sofa style booths are a welcome addition, the stools for solo travellers are far from adequate. They feel as if they are the same size seats you'd find at a primary school, and are too high to properly sit comfortabley, and the footrest is too high up the stool to adopt a comfier position. The swivelling functioning allowing the stools to face into the direction of travel is a welcome feature, but unfortunatley the benefit is off-set by the design of the stools themselves.
  
• Unlike the Mk2s, there is no shop counter on the Mk5s for seated passengers to use. Whilst seated passengers are still able to walk into the lounge car and order food and drink to take back to their seat, there is a lack of clarity for seated passengers over whether they are still able to make use of this on the new rolling stock by accessing the lounge car.
• Whilst the noise and ambeince is a significant improvement in the lounge and seated coaches vs the Mk2s, unfortunatley the noise levels in the berths are a significant downgrade. As others have mentioned, the Mk3s are built for quality and noise reduction. Whilst this is the case in the Mk5s, with padded sponges strategically placed in the bin and table trays to reduce vibrations, as well as improved inter-berth sound reductions in better quality walls, ultimatley, these fail to prevent the berth door rattlling over curves and junctions and the bunk bed ladder rattling against the screws holding it in place. The worst part is that the noise of the brakes intrude the Mk5 berths in the same way those on the Mk2s do, the sound is of the same ambience, just a lower hum but of the same noise magnitude (whatever the word is). The ride quality is much poorer but it is not substantial, as I still managed to sleep soundly, possibly due to the better beds, but for those who need a smooth quiet ride in the berths, I'm afraid the Mk5s are a massive downgrade on this front. I hope this is just teething issues that will pass once the Mk5s get a proper run in over the next few years. As others are familiar with the Mk3s, the suspension absorbs the movement but at the price of being a bit more bouncy in the direction of travel (particularly on the boggies), however I feel this trade off is a benefit to the ride quality on the Mk3s. The lack of this on the Mk5s results in a ride with more violent shaking over curves and junctions, and in particular, during breaking, in all parts evenly in the carriage. Whether this will settle and improve as millage accumulation increases, I have no idea - but one can only hope so anyway.
  
• The design of the berths ommits essential features which are largely underrated in the Mk3s. Firstly, the lack of luggage rack is a major issue, as everything can only go under the bottom bunk as indicated by a thin blanket on the bottom bunk - however larger itself will only fit in the gap underneath the sink. There is plenty of space for a luggage rack above the window. In addition, whilst a fixed sink is an improvement to the old fold up sink on the Mk3s, the lack of 'bar' stretching across the bottom bunk is a massive downgrade to luggage provision. It was extremely useful for leaving smaller items on such as folded clothes and other small general stuff. Again, the lack of this is extremely detrimental when you factor in the lack of luggage rack. This really is extremely dissappointing, as the luggage rack and the bar were essentials in my opinion. The sinks are actually made of a strange plastic material and look metal from a distance, but when you get close up they still show dirt which sticks to it much tougher than the material used in the sinks on the Mk3s.
  
• The inability to remove the bunk bed ladder is extremely dissapointing, as this severely constricts the space available in the bottom bunk, and makes it feel much more cramped and uncomfortable - especially when waking up in the middle of the night all groggy and then bumping into (as others have told me). The fact that it is fixed created much more problems with screws causing rattling, as outlined. I much prefer the way GWR have inovated their ladder design. As we all know, on the Mk3s the ladder rattles constantly when hung on spare coathangers, unless the top bunk is unoccupied which is where I normally store it. But retaining it when the top bunk is set reduces the space in the bottom bunk to move about - however this is more prominant on the Mk5s due to the Mk5 ladder being completely verticle and fixed onto the bottom bunk's underframe, whereas on the Mk3s, they were angled, which allowed for more room in the bottom bunk. GWR's design on their refurbished sleeping carriages of having the ladder fold into the wall for use as needed, is an extremely efficient and useful piece of inovative design. It's little things like this which go a long way to improving passenger experience. Unfortunatley, the general trend on the Mk5s is that every improvement over the Mk3s has a trade off, or the improvements are overshadowed by aspects of design and provision that were present on the Mk3s but completely bypassed for the design on the Mk5s.

All in all I could write much more on the Mk5s, but what I've experienced and wrote above is pretty much the essentials from my point of view. As I pretty much illustrated, to summarise, I feel that most shortfalls of the Mk3s are resolved in the Mk5s design, but the shortfalls in the Mk5 design are otherwise pretty much resolved in the Mk3 design. It feels as if the Mk5s were designed with a completely new approach and design in mind (which is completely fine, but) to the extent where the designers failed to appreciate some of the basic aspects which helped to make travelling on the Mk3s more pleasureable than what they would have expected it to be for 35 year old rolling stock.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having travelled first class on the Eurostar the next day on an unrefurbished e300, then back on an e320 a few days later, the experience of the seats on the Mk2s and Mk5s are akin to one another as they are on Eurostar.

Interesting you mention Eurostars, as aren't the Mk2 seats actually the same as the original Eurostar first class seat? I thought they were.

Re the "shop counter" I've found some crews didn't bother with it anyway, particularly in one of the sets where the lounge car was the wrong way round for a good while (so you'd reach the lounge before the counter anyway).

 

[Clansman]

Interesting you mention Eurostars, as aren't the Mk2 seats actually the same as the original Eurostar first class seat? I thought they were.

Re the "shop counter" I've found some crews didn't bother with it anyway, particularly in one of the sets where the lounge car was the wrong way round for a good while (so you'd reach the lounge before the counter anyway).

The seats are not too disimilar, definitley made by the same company and have the exact same base, with variance in seat back height, recline, and arm rest size, but pretty much the same.

My comparison of the Sleeper to Eurostar comfort isn't comparing the seats directly between Caledonian Sleeper and Eurostar, but to compare the difference in comfort from Mk2s to Mk5s and from the e300s to 320s sets in the context that just because a seat is bigger and more padded (not to get it into a seating debate) doesn't make it better. With a chunkier seat base etc comes less room to move about. From my experience on the Sleeper and on the Eurostar, having more room to move about was far more important to comfort than a bigger seat. Thus in my opinion, the seats on the Mk5s are a step up for that very reason, in the same way that those on the e320s are a step up from the e300s - if that makes sense?

 

[BRX]

A very detailed review @Clansman

You are not even a wee bit sentimental about the loss of the droplights, then?

 

[jopsuk]

• there is only 1 and it is non gender specific, which may present an issue for other travellers..

just the one is poor, but the "gender specific" designations on the old stock are complete nonsense given the two loos are identical (and indeed when the one marked "male" is in use, I've used the "female" one anyway). On day trains all loos are gender neutral, this seems to cause no problems

 

[TheLastMinute]

As reported in the main CS thread, the southbound Lowlander 1M11 was terminated at Acton Bridge this morning, getting in at 0647. At least ticket acceptance was arranged with London Midland and Virgin, with passengers continuing their journey via a change a Crewe.

I believe this is the set that contains the coaches that were damaged in last week's incident and were on their first passenger run since.

Does anyone know the cause of the failure this morning?

 

[route:oxford]

Major downpoints:

• Having travelled in Classic Sleeper accomodation with no-ensuite, I had to use the public loo, which wasn't a problem. However it did prove a challenge due to the fact that there is only 1 and it is non gender specific, which may present an issue for other travellers.

There is a lot of work being done by the Scottish Government at the moment around gender. In consultations, 60% of people believed that Scots should be able to self-declard gender. 62% believed that there should be a third official non-binary gender.

The likely outcome is that gender will be entirely flexible and you will self-declare at point of need.

So when it comes to the Caledonian Cludgies, unless there is space for three, it's best to keep them universal.

 

[Elecman]

As reported in the main CS thread, the southbound Lowlander 1M11 was terminated at Action Bridge this morning, getting in at 0647. At least ticket acceptance was arranged with London Midland and Virgin, with passengers continuing their journey via a change a Crewe.

I believe this is the set that contains the coaches that were damaged in last week's incident and were on their first passenger run since.

Does anyone know the cause of the failure this morning?

It’s Acton Bridge not Action Bridge

 

[TheLastMinute]

It’s Acton Bridge not Action Bridge

Whoops! Sorry, didn't spot my phone's helpful auto-correct there! Post now edited.

 

[TimboM]

It’s Acton Bridge not Action Bridge

It was definitely Action Bridge yesterday morning!!

I believe this is the set that contains the coaches that were damaged in last week's incident and were on their first passenger run since.

It was, but no indications there's a direct link.

There are only two rakes in operation currently (one in each direction on the Lowlander) - so any issues currently have a 50:50 chance of being with the same rake the last issue was with (if that makes sense). I wouldn't read too much into it being the same one - it's not like the other one is perfect and it's just this one that's rogue!

 

[Clansman]

just the one is poor, but the "gender specific" designations on the old stock are complete nonsense given the two loos are identical (and indeed when the one marked "male" is in use, I've used the "female" one anyway). On day trains all loos are gender neutral, this seems to cause no problems

I don't think the idea poor at all - though I do get your point of the Mk3s distinctions. There's no difference as you pointed out. There's an Mk3 sleeper coach operating that I was in that has the male toilet on the window side - which I believe is the only one - which proves the whole zero difference thing.

The designations don't present any issues to me in particular, and I doubt having gender seperation would trouble most people - but I understand the concerns of those who'd rather have them. It's not about having different provisions, but it's just more about having that added privacy that you don't normally get on a public service.

A very detailed review @Clansman

You are not even a wee bit sentimental about the loss of the droplights, then?

Haha, I'm not the most sentimental of people on here but the sleeper is an exception to this. Nothing like a waft of minus 1 degree air at stupid o'clock in the morning to make you feel like you own the place for the brief 5 minutes before leaving the train! I can certainly see where nostagic bashers and spotters get it from, though it's never been a personal indulgence of mine. Maybe a wee bit for old times sake though I'm keen to avoid the stereotypes

It's strange though. As many of us who have used the sleeper way before it was seperated from ScotRail, nowadays it's lost that belongning and association. Not so much to do with ridiculous sentimentalities of droplights and old stock being phased out with the Mk5s etc, but as service has become more proffessional and tourist marketed particularly over the past 5 years, it's lost that culture - which is compounded by the Mk5s etc to further mark that transition and disasociate what used to be. In the words echoed from somebody in the bothy; "It doesn't feel like ours anymore" - an opinion shared by many a ScotRail staff member. who used to work them right up until Serco staff took over 2 year ago.

 

[kingqueen]

Watching some YouTube videos, and I'm very disappointed to note that many Windows are polluted by damned Contravision.
Imagine waking up on the beautiful wilds of Rannoch or Horseshoe Curve, and attempting to peer at it through this:

Or going to the lounge and having your view obscured by these:

I hate Contravision. It should be banned. Especially on scenic routes.
If a hotel had a Room With A View / Room With Sea View advertised, would they put this rubbish over the window?

 

[Clansman]

I agree, it's ridiculous. Should have stuck to the intiial livery with the antlers under the windows.

 

[Bald Rick]

Watching some YouTube videos, and I'm very disappointed to note that many Windows are polluted by damned Contravision.
Imagine waking up on the beautiful wilds of Rannoch or Horseshoe Curve, and attempting to peer at it through this:
View attachment 65314
Or going to the lounge and having your view obscured by these:
View attachment 65315
I hate Contravision. It should be banned. Especially on scenic routes.
If a hotel had a Room With A View / Room With Sea View advertised, would they put this rubbish over the window?

I agree, it's ridiculous. Should have stuck to the intiial livery with the antlers under the windows.

I had this stuff across my window the other night. Didn’t make the slightest bit of difference to the view. It looks much worse on camera than in real life.

 

[YorksDMU]

Hello everyone. I’m new to the forum, but have been lurking around for some time.
Regarding contravision. I recall Northern’s 158’s just after Arriva had taken over the Franchise in 2016. They placed it over the end windows of most of those 158’s. It did, unfortunately, block out most of the view. I had to always sit elsewhere to see out of the windows. I don’t know, as yet, if the contravision on these carriages is different enabling you to see out of the windows as stated in the post above this one. I hope it is different so that you can see out clearly.

Best regards,

Rob.

 

[Clansman]

I had this stuff across my window the other night. Didn’t make the slightest bit of difference to the view. It looks much worse on camera than in real life.

To be fair come to think of it, I barely noticed it in the lounge car and didn't even comment on it in my pro and con post, so in that respect the camera does make it look worse.

 

[kingqueen]

Regarding contravision. I recall Northern’s 158’s just after Arriva had taken over the Franchise in 2016. They placed it over the end windows of most of those 158’s. It did, unfortunately, block out most of the view. I had to always sit elsewhere to see out of the windows.

Yes, that's what I was thinking of when I saw the Contravision on the Caledonian Sleeper. I'd be on the 158s on the Settle and Carlisle, and bring a wheelchair user I had no choice where I could sit, it had to be the wheelchair space and the window next to that space had Contravision on. It profoundly affected the view.

I only hope I experience the same as others suggest when I'm on the Caledonian Sleeper, and thus that my view is unimpeded. Though happily having examined closely I think the accessible cabins only have a sliver of the window without Contravision.

 

[TimboM]

Don’t worry, the contravision is already peeling off!

 

[GrimShady]

Don’t worry, the contravision is already peeling off!
View attachment 65326

Good!

 

[kingqueen]

Don’t worry, the contravision is already peeling off!

if it wasn't a criminal offence, and if I did discover its presence all over my bedroom window did affect my view, I would probably be very tempted to help it on its way!

(Not Guilty, before anybody wonders if any peeling is due to me - happily it only covers a tiny sliver of the accessible cabins' windows)

 

[GrimShady]

Is there a spare set available for a maintenance spare?

 

[gsnedders]

Is there a spare set available for as a maintenance spare?

There's various spare coaches, but not an entire set, I believe.

 

[InOban]

Surely, since they had, at least in public, been planning to switch over the Highlander last week, they must have had the two sets for that. Indeed the press release announcing the delay seemed to imply that these sets would be used on alternate nights on the Lowlander, so that each set would have 36 hours time for snagging between duties. Only once the glitches had been ironed out would they introduced on the Highlander.

 

[RLBH]

There's various spare coaches, but not an entire set, I believe.

I believe there's a spare half-set, and an additional seated car since that has the guard's accomodation.

 

[Journeyman]

just the one is poor, but the "gender specific" designations on the old stock are complete nonsense given the two loos are identical (and indeed when the one marked "male" is in use, I've used the "female" one anyway). On day trains all loos are gender neutral, this seems to cause no problems

The designation of male/female is something that appeared at some point during the First ScotRail franchise, and was completely pointless - it worked fine beforehand, and no other train toilets in the country are gendered. They're individual cubicles with locks on them - why the hell do they need to be gendered?

The fact that Mark 5s only have one toilet per vehicle is not likely to be a problem given that there are less people needing to use them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The designation of male/female is something that appeared at some point during the First ScotRail franchise, and was completely pointless - it worked fine beforehand, and no other train toilets in the country are gendered. They're individual cubicles with locks on them - why the hell do they need to be gendered?

Because half asleep, possibly drunk men on a train moving about the place may have a tendency to, er, distribute their waste product all over the seat and floor?

Perhaps there should be only one of the two marked for standing use, either for seated though you may prefer the other one