Caledonian Sleeper

[alistairlees]

I can’t help thinking that earlier/later departures are more likely than any variation to the sleeper service.

Swansea (not a perfect comparison, size wise, though used to have a sleeepr service) has a 2148 from Paddington arriving 0044 (and a 2248 arriving 0203, which may be more use for Cardiff). Perfectly adequate for anyone spending a business day in London and having dinner. In the morning there is a departure at 0341 arriving in London at 714, and (better) an 0458 getting in at 0744. No problem making a 9am meeting.

Would it be possible to have a 440 from Edinburgh arriving in London before 9 am? Or a departure at around 2000, arriving back at about 0020-0030 (before 1 am)? Is overnight track work a barrier to that?

Sure it would be possible. But there probably isn't the demand (the 05.40 Flying Scotsman from Edinburgh to London Kings Cross is apparently not very busy until Newcastle), so what would be the point? There is no need for everywhere, no matter how far away, to have a pre-09.00 arrival in London. Anyway this is all getting massively off-topic. This is really a thread about today's Caledonian Sleeper operation, not for speculation on what service they could offer, bus services, stuff abroad etc. etc.

 

[MrEd]

I think expectation management is the big thing. The promotion material suggests a luxury experience, as do many of the prices, when in reality they provide a 'Premier Inn' on rails. That's nothing against Premier Inn, I use them regularly and rate them highly for providing basic, clean, comfortable accommodation. But they're not a luxury experience and the price reflects that. There's tales of couples paying nearly £1000 return on the sleeper, the service offered is worth nothing like that.

The seats are perhaps a little different as often they're very good value. The problem there is that they're bloody uncomfortable (especially when compared to the old stock).

In summary - cabins pleasant but over priced for what they offer, seats cheap but unpleasant.

I agree entirely. I think that this is the nub of the issue. It is not that the service in its current form is particularly bad (in fact it’s probably better overall than in First Group days with the very tired Mk2s/Mk3s, although consistency remains an issue)- at the end of the day, it’s a very comfortable overnight train offering a very comfortable bed for the night (and the Mk5s are an improvement in comfort and facilities over what went before), but it simply is not, and can never be, the ’luxury experience’ that it’s marketed as. The result is a lot more travellers who end their journey feeling underwhelmed/ripped off given the high fares. This is a serious problem, because these speculative travellers (who booked it specially as an ’experience’, rather than as a functional means of getting between London and Scotland) are very likely to take to social media to vent their frustration and bring negative publicity to the service. In First Group days, the (more low-key) marketing was at least honest- passengers were not expecting 5* hotel comfort or service (they knew, for instance, that they might have to share their cabin with a stranger) nor fine dining in the lounge car, as the marketing showed the service for what it was. That meant that the service tended to meet their expectations, or that they were in some cases pleasantly surprised. Sadly the opposite is the case now, with a noticeable number of disappointed passengers (who were disappointed by a lot more than just the 100 minute late arrival at Inverness).

 

[Meerkat]

Sorry, but this is just illogical. They need to charge high prices so they have to market it to justify that. If demand drops then price will drop.
Are people seriously suggesting they market it as ‘a really expensive average quality night journey’?

 

[philthetube]

I frequently travel between the Highlands and London. I have limited means and I would prefer to travel by train, an Eco-friendly mode of travel. I am happy for some folk to have an experience of luxury, but as a normal rail passenger I would like the choice to use the sleeper for overnight travel. I find the options of a berth reduced (as it is being booked up) and of a higher price. I also need to be absolutely sure of arriving in time for morning meetings in London.
The basics are reasonable options of sleeper accommodation, and cost and reliability of time of arrival. The seating coach seats are dire. The day train is a much better option for seats..

I don't see how you solve both these issues?

 

[Norther Monkey]

Sorry, but this is just illogical. They need to charge high prices so they have to market it to justify that. If demand drops then price will drop.
Are people seriously suggesting they market it as ‘a really expensive average quality night journey’?

No, but they need to match the experience to the expectations they create, otherwise long term they'll fail (or demand ever more subsidy).
To be fair, the online reviews appear to be getting better, but show that they still aren't delivering a consistently good service.
I may be somewhat biased though, as I'm now priced off a service that I regularly enjoyed using to make best use of my time.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don’t pretend to understand the full economics of the aviation and rail industries.

I have family the other end of the sleeper route who I like to visit on a fairly regular basis (monthly or so).

I am aware of the environmental consequences of flying.

I normally have a limited timeframe to get to the other end of the country; maximise time with them and come back again. Losing roughly half a day at the start and end of my trip on a Pendolino crawling into Wigan is rather unfortunate.

The sleeper is a perfectly logical, reasonable choice for me.

What I don’t fully understand is why the current pricing / taxation system means I pay a very significant premium to not make the environmentally awful choice.

I don’t dispute the subsidy that is paid to CS. I actually think there is a real opportunity to impose a tariff on air passengers to achieve the twin aim of making the sleeper and day rail services a more cost competitive option, and to expand the sleeper provision. (More rolling stock to run full sets to each lowlander destination perhaps ? More expansive seat, “Premium Economy” options ? I would still question if with the correct political/technical will some form of reclining chair/pod/bed could not be designed to meet the correct standards. If anyone is serious about killing off domestic air travel, and particularly the rush of flights arriving Heathrow/Gatwick/City at 0730-0900, the answers to that problem can’t be provided with the current speeds of day trains. (0300 service from Waverley anyone ?) However it is achieved, night services on whatever mode of transport and of whatever flavour will need to be the solution.

Given the limited capacity of the Sleeper seats, the complaints about comfort and the relatively limited number of destinations served, Im a little surprised someone hasn’t come up with some kind of luxury overnight coach (reclining comfortable leather seats, decent legroom, refreshments, Wi-fi, sleep kit etc) with pricing well above the megabus pricing and well below the sleeper berth pricing. I think, to go over the oft repeated couchette arguments, there is a market. Few pickups through the central belt with a departure from Buchanan Bus Station/St Andrews Bus Station at 11pm into some London terminal/London hotel/gym facility with decent shower arrangements at 7am.

A few points here.

1) the U.K. has the longest standing and highest air passenger taxes anywhere in Europe. Many other european nations have recently, or are about to start charging similar taxes - Germany started last year, France starts next year. Typically the rate for a short haul economy passenger is about half that levied in the U.K. Of course, there is an argument to raise them further.

2) notwithstanding the taxes, it is a lot, lot more efficient on a financial basis to operate frequent flights for Scotland to London (or Birmingham) than trains. Not much infrastructure to pay for, and that is a key factor.

3) the sleeper is just about the least efficient way of running a passenger train service. A small capacity train, used once a day, with much higher servicing and staffing requirements than a regular train. Hence the subsidy level.

4) environmental credentials. Depending where you are going, the sleeper may not be as clean cut as you think. Clearly the lowlander is all electric, however the highlander is diesel hauled for quite a distance, and lugging several hundred tonnes of metal up Drumochter and Slochd or over Rannoch Moor does create a lot of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases, notably NOx). And because the emissions are divided by a (relatively) small number of passengers, the per passenger rate will be quite high. I’ve never seen any calculations for this, but it wouldn’t surprise me if a London - Inverness sleeper trip generated something like half the CO2 of a London - Inverness flight, per passenger.

5) Easyjet has announced that it is now offsetting all carbon from the fuel it uses for flights. Now there are differences of opinion on the efficacy of the carbon offsetting process, nevertheless at face value there is at least an argument that flying with Easyjet is carbon neutral. Other airlines may well follow suit. This makes it potentially difficult for Government to raise APD to reduce Carbon emissions, as the airlines (or at least some of them) can claim they are carbon neutral. Or, at least, more carbon neutral than the (subsidised) rail service. (The subject of another thread, perhaps).

 

[bobbyrail]

A few points here.

1) the U.K. has the longest standing an highest air passenger taxes anywhere in Europe. Many other european nations have recently, or are about to start charging similarly taxes.

2) notwithstanding the taxes, it is a lot, lot more efficient on a financial basis to operate frequent flights for Scotland to London (or Birmingham) than trains. Not much infrastructure to pay for, and that is a key factor.

3) the sleeper is just about the least efficient way of running a passenger train service. A small capacity train, used once a day, with much higher servicing and staffing requirements than a regular train. Hence the subsidy level.

4) environmental credentials. Depending where you are going, the sleeper may not be as clean cut as you think. Clearly the lowlander is all electric, however the highlander is diesel hauled for quite a distance, and lugging several hundred tonnes of metal up Drumochter and Slochd or over Rannoch Moor does create a lot of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases, notably NOx). And because the emissions are divided by a (relatively) small number of passengers, the per passenger rate will be quite high. I’ve never seen any calculations for this, but it wouldn’t surprise me if a London - Inverness sleeper trip generated something like half the CO2 of a London - Inverness flight, per passenger.

5) Easyjet has announced that it is now offsetting all carbon from the fuel it uses for flights. Now there are differences of opinion on the efficacy of the carbon offsetting process, nevertheless at face value there is at least an argument that flying with Easyjet is carbon neutral. Other airlines may well follow suit. This makes it potentially difficult for Government to raise APD to reduce Carbon emissions, as the airlines (or at least some of them) can claim they are carbon neutral. Or, at least, more carbon neutral than the (subsidised) rail service. (The subject of another thread, perhaps).

1) "the U.K. has the longest standing an highest air passenger taxes anywhere in Europe. Many other european nations have recently, or are about to start charging similarly taxes."

That's great as that means we in the UK have been taking climate change seriously, our European partners are now following suit.


2) notwithstanding the taxes, it is a lot, lot more efficient on a financial basis to operate frequent flights for Scotland to London

That's fine, let those environmental vandals continue as we are better than those that sometimes shout louder.

3) the sleeper is just about the least efficient way of running a passenger train service. A small capacity train, used once a day, with much higher servicing and staffing requirements than a regular train. Hence the subsidy level.

That's because the sleeper is not a bog standard "passenger train service" it's a gateway to the highlands and islands of the north of Scotland with most of the passengers spending big money in the regions they visit.

4) environmental credentials. (see points 1,2 &3 above.

5) Easyjet has announced that it is now offsetting all carbon from the fuel it uses for flights.

That's great could you explain EXACTLY how Easyjet are doing this, is it the offset of carbon emissions? Well if it is then please do let those using the sleeper service know how they are helping Easyjet to achive this offset.

 

[jagardner1984]

I used it once, it was quite good if a little cosy. I think it just didn't really find its market - it wasn't budget enough (budget travellers would use the seated Megabus) and it wasn't premium enough ("I'm not getting on a bus").

This is precisely my point. I feel there is probably some luxury coaches sitting somewhere doing nothing overnight that could perhaps enter into that market, as the Sleeper seats offer relatively poor comfort to some people, and the sleeper berths offer relatively poor value to others (clearly both subjective).

I fully take the point of the much more limited environmental benefits of a sleeper vs day train. I do think the limitation of the day train being even the most ambitious fully fledged plans for HS2 (comments on likelehood of that for another thread) mean that passengers would be leaving around 5am to get to London for 9. In 20 years time. Right now I can leave my house at 5.45-6am (I do live somewhere with easy access for the airport to be fair). So as for the climate emergency NOW, look on Flightradar24 about 6.30-7.30am for either Glasgow or Edinburgh airports and see the size of issue and the number of 150-200 seat aircraft taking off for London destinations. As a solution to those wanting/needing to travel for a morning start, the sleeper is the only green(er) option available to them. Again, the cost of making that choice rather than flying is substantial, which is evidently why so few, particularly those who have to justify their expenditure at work, do it.

I do think the next few years will necessitate some innovative methods of travelling in more sustainable ways, and as someone who enjoys using the service, I hope the sleeper operator and Scottish government can be agile and flexible in playing their part in that.

 

[gingerheid]

I used it once, it was quite good if a little cosy. I think it just didn't really find its market - it wasn't budget enough (budget travellers would use the seated Megabus) and it wasn't premium enough ("I'm not getting on a bus").

To me the biggest problem was the idea that you could end up sharing what was very similar to a double bed with a stranger (in the second variant of the service). The first variant must have given enough hope that it would be a success that the bought the coaches for v2, and I think that might be the problem that made the difference between success and failure!

 

[MrEd]

Sorry, but this is just illogical. They need to charge high prices so they have to market it to justify that. If demand drops then price will drop.
Are people seriously suggesting they market it as ‘a really expensive average quality night journey’?

The problem is, while they obviously need to justify the fares that they charge, I do feel that CS are creating false expectations with some of their more pretentious/inflated marketing. For instance, do they really need to call their passengers ’guests’ or suggest that their passengers have ’hotel quality’ accommodation? Surely calling them ’passengers’ on a ’sleeping car train’ (with three classes of sleeper accommodation available) is selling the product (people must surely find the idea of a sleeper train appealing) while at the same time showing it for what it is? Yes, the staff are generally very friendly, but the check-in is often very brief- the idea that you have a personal ’host’ is again stretching it a wee bit. The idea that there are ’attendants’ or ’stewards’ who can provide room/lounge car service and assist you during the journey is much closer to the mark.

The same is true of the catering- the meals in the lounge car are extremely pleasant indeed, and eating on a train is great fun and a great experience, but the marketing (’taste the very best of Scotland’s produce’ etc) together with the verbose, pretentious, slightly OTT menu descriptions tend to suggest (slightly misleading in my view) that the passengers are going to get chef-cooked, restaurant-quality meals made using fresh produce in a silver-service restaurant car, and the prices of the meals reflect that. The reality is still very nice, but perhaps a wee bit more mundane- oven-cooked but pre-packed meals of the sort which you might get in a Brewers Fayre type chain pub. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the meals, they’re extremely nice, very tasty, well presented and keep the passengers well fed (as long as there isn’t a staff shortage), but it’s not a fine dining experience. Some of the meals are perhaps a wee bit expensive, in my view, for what they are. I myself greatly enjoy the food, but I appreciate it for what it is, as do other travellers who are familiar with the train. Those newly attracted to the on-train catering by CS’ marketing may find the reality a little underwhelming, and that may be an issue going forward.

At the end of the day, if CS can fill the train night in, night out, even on midweek nights in the depths of winter, they probably don’t need to change anything. But I do worry about the potential for newcomers to the service to be disappointed/underwhelmed by various elements. I suppose loadings, and how busy the lounge car is, will be the test going forward. Maybe I have nothing to worry about.

 

[jagardner1984]

I suppose loadings, and how busy the lounge car is, will be the test going forward.

But surely with 1000+ people flying to/from each of the two main Scottish cities each morning, the WCML being effectively full, and the wide acknowledgment those flights need to basically not happen (or be a hugely more expensive worst case scenario, rather than the norm), surely the ambition for Anglo-Scottish services needs to extend beyond the (significantly reduced from Mk3 days) capacity on the Sleeper half sets ?

 

[alistairlees]

But surely with 1000+ people flying to/from each of the two main Scottish cities each morning, the WCML being effectively full, and the wide acknowledgment those flights need to basically not happen (or be a hugely more expensive worst case scenario, rather than the norm), surely the ambition for Anglo-Scottish services needs to extend beyond the (significantly reduced from Mk3 days) capacity on the Sleeper half sets ?

Capacity is actually not reduced by very much. Although there are fewer rooms now, all rooms can be sold in twin (or solo) form, whereas before first class could be sold only in solo form. Further, although some mk3 coaches had 13 rooms, these could not be sold as it could not be reliably predicted which services they would be on. So they effectively always ran empty.

 

[Bald Rick]

But surely with 1000+ people flying to/from each of the two main Scottish cities each morning, the WCML being effectively full, and the wide acknowledgment those flights need to basically not happen (or be a hugely more expensive worst case scenario, rather than the norm), surely the ambition for Anglo-Scottish services needs to extend beyond the (significantly reduced from Mk3 days) capacity on the Sleeper half sets ?

The issue is that a great many people don’t actually like using the sleeper. I’m one of them. I’ve used it twice recently to give the new stock a try, and whilst it is a considerable improvement on the old, I’d still rather day train/hotel or fly. The sleeper would have to be considerably cheaper than day train + hotel for me to amend that view.

I genuinely don’t think that’s the sleeper is the way to ‘redirect’ the number of people flying between London and the Central belt. It’s much more effective to do it with quicker (and potentially cheaper) day trains.

 

[matacaster]

The issue is that a great many people don’t actually like using the sleeper. I’m one of them. I’ve used it twice recently to give the new stock a try, and whilst it is a considerable improvement on the old, I’d still rather day train/hotel or fly. The sleeper would have to be considerably cheaper than day train + hotel for me to amend that view.

I genuinely don’t think that’s the sleeper is the way to ‘redirect’ the number of people flying between London and the Central belt. It’s much more effective to do it with quicker (and potentially cheaper) day trains.

I'd give couchettes a try. Cost would be much reduced as capacity increased in overall length and can cater for a larger range of clientele. I doubt any full spec sleeper service, apart from vsoe-style will make money.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'd give couchettes a try. Cost would be much reduced as capacity increased in overall length and can cater for a larger range of clientele. I doubt any full spec sleeper service, apart from vsoe-style will make money.

Even if couchettes were put in place, and you could get 3 times as many ‘berths’ in per length of train as the sleeper, and fill them, and charged the same fares as now, it wouldn’t make money. But the market for couchettes would be relatively small, given the competition.

 

[Steddenm]

Tried to make a booking on the website last night for mid Feb in a Club Double, EUS-FTW and it gave me a price (£590) for two. When I went to pay and make the booking it changed the Club Double to a Twin so I cancelled it.

Stupid system!

 

[JonathanH]

The issue is that a great many people don’t actually like using the sleeper. I’m one of them. I’ve used it twice recently to give the new stock a try, and whilst it is a considerable improvement on the old, I’d still rather day train/hotel or fly. The sleeper would have to be considerably cheaper than day train + hotel for me to amend that view.

I genuinely don’t think that’s the sleeper is the way to ‘redirect’ the number of people flying between London and the Central belt. It’s much more effective to do it with quicker (and potentially cheaper) day trains.

As I've written before though, what sort of hotel allows you to check in at 2am for the rest of the night if there was a later day train than the ones which currently run - indeed if you aren't going to the centre of Glasgow or Edinburgh how do you get to your destination?

I know that most office workers have a bit more flexibility than they might once have had to leave early or work remotely to fit in with early departures from London but not everyone does.

 

[BRX]

1) "the U.K. has the longest standing an highest air passenger taxes anywhere in Europe. Many other european nations have recently, or are about to start charging similarly taxes."

That's great as that means we in the UK have been taking climate change seriously, our European partners are now following suit.

While at first sight it seems (pleasantly) surprising that the UK seem to be ahead of other Europen states on this - when you bear in mind the fact that the UK has no significant land borders, the reasons become a little more apparent - most continental countries have the issue that if they put tax on departures from their airports, their citizens will start using the often easily accessible airports just over the border in neighbouring countries. I think several countries have had trial schemes that were abandoned for this reason. I also think I'm right in saying that there's now talk of an EU-wide tax to get around this issue.

5) Easyjet has announced that it is now offsetting all carbon from the fuel it uses for flights.

That's great could you explain EXACTLY how Easyjet are doing this, is it the offset of carbon emissions? Well if it is then please do let those using the sleeper service know how they are helping Easyjet to achive this offset.

Of course - carbon offsetting (planting trees to absorb the additional CO2 the flights are producing, when there's already a massive surplus of CO2 to absorb) is essentially nonsense - if it could solve the climate crisis, we wouldn't have a climate crisis. Easyjet aren't doing it because it'll actually solve anything to do with climate change - they are doing it so that they can sell apparently guilt-free tickets to people, perhaps even resulting in an increase in flights taken.

 

[AlbertBeale]

While at first sight it seems (pleasantly) surprising that the UK seem to be ahead of other Europen states on this - when you bear in mind the fact that the UK has no significant land borders, the reasons become a little more apparent - most continental countries have the issue that if they put tax on departures from their airports, their citizens will start using the often easily accessible airports just over the border in neighbouring countries. I think several countries have had trial schemes that were abandoned for this reason. I also think I'm right in saying that there's now talk of an EU-wide tax to get around this issue.

Of course - carbon offsetting (planting trees to absorb the additional CO2 the flights are producing, when there's already a massive surplus of CO2 to absorb) is essentially nonsense - if it could solve the climate crisis, we wouldn't have a climate crisis. Easyjet aren't doing it because it'll actually solve anything to do with climate change - they are doing it so that they can sell apparently guilt-free tickets to people, perhaps even resulting in an increase in flights taken.

Taxes on flying are peanuts compared to the damage caused.

Remember that (1) aviation fuel doesn't carry a fuel tax; fuel for other transport does; and (2) under EU law the one and only thing that has to be zero-rated for VAT purposes in all member states [and in many states it's virtually the only thing that's zero-rated] is ... air travel.

All signs that those in charge aren't taking the environmental crisis seriously.

 

[Bald Rick]

As I've written before though, what sort of hotel allows you to check in at 2am for the rest of the night if there was a later day train than the ones which currently run

Pretty much any chain hotel! I’ve regularly checked in after 0100 at hotels in Scotland, having arrived on a late train.

 

[Furrball]

Pretty much any chain hotel! I’ve regularly checked in after 0100 at hotels in Scotland, having arrived on a late train.

03:15 at a Premier Inn in London

 

[47271]

Just to prove the point, I know someone who had the southbound Highlander cancelled from under them at Waverley at 3am, walked down to the Premier Inn Hub in East Market Street and managed to check in to get a few hours sleep before joining a 7am ish VTEC service.

The alternative laid on by CS was to sit in the grim breakfast room of the Jury's Inn until the 0550 VTEC departure.

The Delay Repay from CS more than offset the cost of the hotel room. He had to do a bit of explaining to the VTEC guard because he wasn't on the 0550, but in the end the guy just rolled his eyes and moved on.

 

[MrEd]

But surely with 1000+ people flying to/from each of the two main Scottish cities each morning, the WCML being effectively full, and the wide acknowledgment those flights need to basically not happen (or be a hugely more expensive worst case scenario, rather than the norm), surely the ambition for Anglo-Scottish services needs to extend beyond the (significantly reduced from Mk3 days) capacity on the Sleeper half sets ?

I don’t think there will ever be a need for more overnight services between London and Scotland than there are currently. The current business model relies significantly on leisure travel, which is often fickle and seasonal. There can only be so many people who want to travel to Fort William on a Wednesday night in January. Perhaps the Lowlander sees more business travel, but how often is the existing Lowlander sold out in the winter (I very rarely use the Lowlander and have no recent experience of it)? It could well be that a number of travellers have been priced out of the market, or do not use it because they cannot get a good sleep on a train (particularly in the seated coach). Also, the sleeper does not make a profit as it is, so it’s hardly likely that any TOC would be interested in running a second train. There were many more overnight sleepers from London to Edinburgh and Glasgow in BR days, but these were cut back in the late 80s/early 90s, the main reason being that the demand was not there and that they were uneconomical to run.

 

[theironroad]

As I've written before though, what sort of hotel allows you to check in at 2am for the rest of the night if there was a later day train than the ones which currently run - indeed if you aren't going to the centre of Glasgow or Edinburgh how do you get to your destination?

I know that most office workers have a bit more flexibility than they might once have had to leave early or work remotely to fit in with early departures from London but not everyone does.

I don't really understand this. I have often checked into hotels at 0200ish, havimg made a reservation prior. You still have to check out at the regular check out time though.

Only places are those that don't have 24hr reception which Inclides a lot of Airbnb style places.

Finding a hotel with space (and a reasonable price) can be harder after midnight as most booking apps won't allow it as it sees it as previous day.

 

[Peter Sarf]

A few points here.

1) the U.K. has the longest standing and highest air passenger taxes anywhere in Europe. Many other european nations have recently, or are about to start charging similar taxes - Germany started last year, France starts next year. Typically the rate for a short haul economy passenger is about half that levied in the U.K. Of course, there is an argument to raise them further.

2) notwithstanding the taxes, it is a lot, lot more efficient on a financial basis to operate frequent flights for Scotland to London (or Birmingham) than trains. Not much infrastructure to pay for, and that is a key factor.

3) the sleeper is just about the least efficient way of running a passenger train service. A small capacity train, used once a day, with much higher servicing and staffing requirements than a regular train. Hence the subsidy level.

4) environmental credentials. Depending where you are going, the sleeper may not be as clean cut as you think. Clearly the lowlander is all electric, however the highlander is diesel hauled for quite a distance, and lugging several hundred tonnes of metal up Drumochter and Slochd or over Rannoch Moor does create a lot of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases, notably NOx). And because the emissions are divided by a (relatively) small number of passengers, the per passenger rate will be quite high. I’ve never seen any calculations for this, but it wouldn’t surprise me if a London - Inverness sleeper trip generated something like half the CO2 of a London - Inverness flight, per passenger.

5) Easyjet has announced that it is now offsetting all carbon from the fuel it uses for flights. Now there are differences of opinion on the efficacy of the carbon offsetting process, nevertheless at face value there is at least an argument that flying with Easyjet is carbon neutral. Other airlines may well follow suit. This makes it potentially difficult for Government to raise APD to reduce Carbon emissions, as the airlines (or at least some of them) can claim they are carbon neutral. Or, at least, more carbon neutral than the (subsidised) rail service. (The subject of another thread, perhaps).

Point 3 yes. But got me thinking. Well does it really need so many staff ?. A more basic service might only require a guard. A reserved bed in an open plan coach is not more complicated than a reserved seat on an intercity train. Granted there is bedding to collect/clean/distribute. But could a very basic service like I have seen in Asia work. No one was worried about sharing a bed room with others because it was a very large compartment. However Megabus Gold did not work out so is there the demand there ?. I used to encounter the coaches on an evening coach service to Cardiff and I guess the coach went straight back to London and then overnight to Scotland - so I assume the assets were being heavily utilised.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The issue is that a great many people don’t actually like using the sleeper. I’m one of them. I’ve used it twice recently to give the new stock a try, and whilst it is a considerable improvement on the old, I’d still rather day train/hotel or fly. The sleeper would have to be considerably cheaper than day train + hotel for me to amend that view.

I genuinely don’t think that’s the sleeper is the way to ‘redirect’ the number of people flying between London and the Central belt. It’s much more effective to do it with quicker (and potentially cheaper) day trains.

Got me thinking. It is a natural by product of day trains being faster that overnight trains have become less necessary. The rise in early morning flights reduces the need for overnight services even further. Reluctantly I suppose sleeper services only work over longer and longer distances. Certainly the Highlander gives access to areas that probably do not see many flights. Ideally a sleeper service would have many stops at the beginning and end of its route with a fairly long slow sleeping stretch in the middle. Without having the facts I assume the Scottish sleepers do not get much business from outside London to Birmingham ?. The only strength the railways have is they tend to serve the centres of population centres better than air does.

 

[Bald Rick]

Point 3 yes. But got me thinking. Well does it really need so many staff ?. A more basic service might only require a guard. A reserved bed in an open plan coach is not more complicated than a reserved seat on an intercity train. Granted there is bedding to collect/clean/distribute. But could a very basic service like I have seen in Asia work.

Part of the high staffing requirement is the length of the journey (in time), meaning drivers, guards etc have to change en route, and with a small number of services this inevitably leads to inefficient diagrams. Add in shunting, the need for servicing at each end, and I think it would be impractical not to offer some sort of staffed refreshment service on such a train. You’d not need so many sleeping car attendants, but in the scheme of things, this doesn’t save much cash. Personally I just don’t see a significant market for couchette style services in this country given the alternatives available.

Got me thinking. It is a natural by product of day trains being faster that overnight trains have become less necessary. The rise in early morning flights reduces the need for overnight services even further. Reluctantly I suppose sleeper services only work over longer and longer distances. Certainly the Highlander gives access to areas that probably do not see many flights. Ideally a sleeper service would have many stops at the beginning and end of its route with a fairly long slow sleeping stretch in the middle. Without having the facts I assume the Scottish sleepers do not get much business from outside London to Birmingham ?. The only strength the railways have is they tend to serve the centres of population centres better than air does.

This just about sums it up. There are a few people who board at Crewe (many of whom may be West Midlands folk), but it is mostly the London / SE area for origin / destination. Not that we should be surprised - well over a quarter of the population of England live in London and the Home Counties, more than a third if you add in Sussex & Hampshire. It is this concentration of population and economic activity, centred on London, that generates the demand to/from Scotland.

One thing that would be interesting to find out is the proportion of passengers on the lowlander who are actually heading for highland destinations, but couldn’t use the highlander because of availability or perhaps timing. I suspect it’s quite a few given the conversations on my recent lowlander trips. I still think that post HS2 the lowlander will be lucky to survive, however the highlander will still be going strong, and there just might be potential to have 2 highlanders at that point. That would still require oodles of subsidy, as the highlander needs a lot more subsidy than the lowlander.

 

[Essexman]

Would it be worth the Highlander going via Birmingham with a pick up at New Street? It would need to leave London half hour or so earlier but I don’t think that would be a problem for most people?
Maybe more difficult southbound with limited paths in the rush hour so perhaps not such a good idea?

 

[Mathew S]

Would it be worth the Highlander going via Birmingham with a pick up at New Street? It would need to leave London half hour or so earlier but I don’t think that would be a problem for most people?
Maybe more difficult southbound with limited paths in the rush hour so perhaps not such a good idea?

You'd have the issue of it not being able then to run via the Trent Valley though, so there would be times when the stop would have to be canned for engineering work. I wonder whether there's enough potential custom, especially for, as you say, a one way service, for it to be worth it.

 

[popeter45]

You'd have the issue of it not being able then to run via the Trent Valley though, so there would be times when the stop would have to be canned for engineering work. I wonder whether there's enough potential custom, especially for, as you say, a one way service, for it to be worth it.

you can always like when they divert via other route and just cancel the call at BNS
for Highlander i can see more customers than if the Lowlander did so