Caledonian Sleeper

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, out of the two I'd favour ScotRail - not least because I doubt the Scottish Government would want to let go of it to an English franchise, but also there's something quite cool (and marketable) about "a little bit of Scotland goes to London every night". Though curiously in early privatisation days it was actually operated by ScotRail under contract to ICWC who officially had it in their franchise.

 

[RT4038]

Yes, out of the two I'd favour ScotRail - not least because I doubt the Scottish Government would want to let go of it to an English franchise, but also there's something quite cool (and marketable) about "a little bit of Scotland goes to London every night". Though curiously in early privatisation days it was actually operated by ScotRail under contract to ICWC who officially had it in their franchise.

However, Scotrail also had plenty of operational problems when they ran it. Some of the current issues relate to locomotives, the new rolling stock, and infrastructure, which are just as likely to happen under Scotrail. It is also to be noted that far more mileage of CS trains are run on lines that are not served by Scotrail, than mileage that is!

 

[paul1609]

I think we are all being a bit meladramatic here. I have been using the Fort William sleeper service since it was Mk1s up until last year when I retired and also used the Plymouth to Edinburgh sleeper, fact is the services have always been erratic and unreliable. The worst time was probably the last years of the class 37s, enthusiasts loved it but reliability was dire even compared to now. In Scotrail times food was just a joke it often just didn't exist. Ive even been on one train that had no bed linen.

 

[RT4038]

I agree, it was a huge mistake making CS into a separate franchise, and I’m not sure what the powers that be were thinking when they suggested it. I would personally favour the sleeper going back into the Scotrail franchise, which makes so much sense (at least from a Highlander perspective)- when it was part of Scotrail, the customer service and telesales could be dealt with by the existing (excellent) Scotrail staff, it was under the existing Scotrail management structure, and north of Edinburgh, Scotrail were able to use guards who were part of the regular links and who could work day trains as well. The sleeper under Scotrail could also probably use existing catering supplies at terminal stations in Scotland for most items except a few hot dishes unique to the lounge car (and there is no need for that pretentious on-board menu that Serco insist on, which again is needlessly labour intensive for on-train staff). Having the sleeper as part of Scotrail would also make sense as it is required to act as a day train between Edinburgh and Fort William and Kingussie and Inverness. It just didn’t, doesn’t, and never will make sense having to create all these jobs (and associated management) from scratch. The new stock is fantastic (when it works) but I am not convinced about Serco’s ability to run the service effectively day in, day out. I’m also not convinced that management have the right attitude (it almost feels like they take their passengers for granted), and I wonder if this is reflected in some of the more truculent members of front-line staff (on the train and in the lounge at Inverness) I’ve encountered recently (though there are many excellent and committed staff too).

I agree that the decision to have a separate franchise was not a good financial or operational move. However, although you quite right about shared Control, customer service and telesales functions, Scotrail also had their share of truculent members of front-line staff. The sleeper acting as a day train is pretty irrelevant really, it must represent a tiny fraction of the business and is quite unreliable anyway.
The real problem is the bespoke nature of the business, with unusual locomotives requiring specialist knowledge, coupling/uncoupling portions (one bit delayed and everyone delayed), fragile remote infrastructure, specialist rolling stock. The current day railway just cannot cope with this at a sensible cost.
I would not be surprised if Serco management do not have the right attitude - faced with almost overwhelming problems and serious financial loss, much outside their immediate control and which show few signs of resolution.

 

[RT4038]

I think we are all being a bit meladramatic here. I have been using the Fort William sleeper service since it was Mk1s up until last year when I retired and also used the Plymouth to Edinburgh sleeper, fact is the services have always been erratic and unreliable. The worst time was probably the last years of the class 37s, enthusiasts loved it but reliability was dire even compared to now. In Scotrail times food was just a joke it often just didn't exist. Ive even been on one train that had no bed linen.

You are quite right, but there is a far greater expectation of customer service now. (not only on the Sleeper, I might add!)

 

[BRX]

I suspect that there is no more money available for more spare staff to cope with failures and disruption, either front line or customer serving.

That is probably true - but Serco have a contract. What does the franchise agreement they signed up to say about an acceptable level of customer service? Serco is a big company and has plenty of money "available" - as well as a commercial incentive (seeing as it appears unlikely they'll want to renew the franchise) to spend as little of it as they can get away with. If their bid underestimated the complexity of the operation, meaning that they need to employ more staff than they want to, in order to make it run effectively, then that should be their problem, not the service users'.

 

[RT4038]

That is probably true - but Serco have a contract. What does the franchise agreement they signed up to say about an acceptable level of customer service? Serco is a big company and has plenty of money "available" - as well as a commercial incentive (seeing as it appears unlikely they'll want to renew the franchise) to spend as little of it as they can get away with. If their bid underestimated the complexity of the operation, meaning that they need to employ more staff than they want to, in order to make it run effectively, then that should be their problem, not the service users'.

I expect that the service users definition of 'acceptable level of customer service' and that actually defined in the franchise agreement will be more than a little different. It is also likely that there was some negotiation at the time of franchise award to get the price down...... Serco might be a big company, but they certainly won't want to be funding losses if they can possibly avoid it.
The CS is just costing too much money as presently structured, and it is the service users who will suffer in the end.

 

[47271]

Speaking as someone who was a regular user of the sleeper under Scotrail, I'm not sure that it was a mistake to separate the franchises in 2015. Equally I'm not saying that it would be a mistake to bring them back together in the future.

The problem with First Scotrail (and National Express before them) was that they had no management focus on the sleeper being as it was so far removed from the core operation. I'm less sure about NEX, but I know for a fact that First regarded it as a damned nuisance. Their 2014 bid for the sleeper franchise pretty much said that, and certainly didn't include a proposal for new trains.

Serco was as keen as mustard when they started, with managers all over everything and massive improvements in hospitality but, sadly, not a clue about the railway. This cluelessness continued with the specification and build of the new trains, delivered massively late and incurring huge losses through the need to keep the old stock going way longer than expected.

Setting aside operational resilience, which I agree is an important part of the mix, let's think about where we'd be now if the sleeper had been held within the Scotrail franchise in 2015. We have to assume that the presence of the sleeper wouldn't have been enough to deter Abellio from bidding in the first place.

We'll never know now, but the chances of them having thought enough about it to propose a new build fleet would've been very slim. So the mk3 sleepers would've joined a very long queue of rustbuckets at Doncaster. They might still not have been done now (and that's being charitable) and would've been most unlikely to have been converted to have ensuites. Arguably this work would've created a common fleet with the HSTs of refurbed and compliant mk3s, but with them all in urgent need of scrapping all at the same time in another few years.

There would've been as big a flourish at the start as there was the daytime trains. In other words, no flourish. Bad food, bad bedding, and bad service from crew who would've hated Abellio even more than they dislike Serco. They would've run it in the same dim witted penny wise pound foolish way as the rest of the Scotrail network and everyone would've been up in arms, just as they are now, but for different reasons.

At least now we have a fleet of brand new trains offering modern standards of accommodation. Okay, there are a few avoidable problems like build quality, badly laid out cabins and pantries, uncomfortable seats and knocking bogies, but none of those are as insurmountable as vehicles way beyond the end of their design life. Whoever runs the sleepers, Scotrail or a separate franchise holder, and to whatever business model and fare structure, will have that stock available to them in the future.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong and Abellio would've proposed new trains which would've been built perfectly within 18 months by someone other than CAF.

 

[Roger B]

Speaking as someone who was a regular user of the sleeper under Scotrail, I'm not sure that it was a mistake to separate the franchises in 2015. Equally I'm not saying that it would be a mistake to bring them back together in the future.

The problem with First Scotrail (and National Express before them) was that they had no management focus on the sleeper being as it was so far removed from the core operation. I'm less sure about NEX, but I know for a fact that First regarded it as a damned nuisance. Their 2014 bid for the sleeper franchise pretty much said that, and certainly didn't include a proposal for new trains.

Serco was as keen as mustard when they started, with managers all over everything and massive improvements in hospitality but, sadly, not a clue about the railway. This cluelessness continued with the specification and build of the new trains, delivered massively late and incurring huge losses through the need to keep the old stock going way longer than expected.

Setting aside operational resilience, which I agree is an important part of the mix, let's think about where we'd be now if the sleeper had been held within the Scotrail franchise in 2015. We have to assume that the presence of the sleeper wouldn't have been enough to deter Abellio from bidding in the first place.

We'll never know now, but the chances of them having thought enough about it to propose a new build fleet would've been very slim. So the mk3 sleepers would've joined a very long queue of rustbuckets at Doncaster. They might still not have been done now (and that's being charitable) and would've been most unlikely to have been converted to have ensuites. Arguably this work would've created a common fleet with the HSTs of refurbed and compliant mk3s, but with them all in urgent need of scrapping all at the same time in another few years.

There would've been as big a flourish at the start as there was the daytime trains. In other words, no flourish. Bad food, bad bedding, and bad service from crew who would've hated Abellio even more than they dislike Serco. They would've run it in the same dim witted penny wise pound foolish way as the rest of the Scotrail network and everyone would've been up in arms, just as they are now, but for different reasons.

At least now we have a fleet of brand new trains offering modern standards of accommodation. Okay, there are a few avoidable problems like build quality, badly laid out cabins and pantries, uncomfortable seats and knocking bogies, but none of those are as insurmountable as vehicles way beyond the end of their design life. Whoever runs the sleepers, Scotrail or a separate franchise holder, and to whatever business model and fare structure, will have that stock available to them in the future.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong and Abellio would've proposed new trains which would've been built perfectly within 18 months by someone other than CAF.

Thanks 47271 - great read - considered, balanced and thought-provoking.

It would be interesting to get a feel for the cost of the overheads of a separate sleeper franchise (finance, HR, compliance, reporting functions, marketing, PR, bidding for contract, etc). Combining each of these functions within a single franchise, rather than duplicating each function within two franchises, would surely save a considerable amount, that together with better asset and people utilisation, adds up to a tidy sum, some of which could be used to strengthen service resilience (catering, staffing, providing better information when things go awry, etc) - and still leave money over for other service improvements.

 

[paul1609]

Thanks 47271 - great read - considered, balanced and thought-provoking.

It would be interesting to get a feel for the cost of the overheads of a separate sleeper franchise (finance, HR, compliance, reporting functions, marketing, PR, bidding for contract, etc). Combining each of these functions within a single franchise, rather than duplicating each function within two franchises, would surely save a considerable amount, that together with better asset and people utilisation, adds up to a tidy sum, some of which could be used to strengthen service resilience (catering, staffing, providing better information when things go awry, etc) - and still leave money over for other service improvements.

Wont many of those functions be either carried out as part of SERCO group or outsourced and presumably factored in to the cost of the franchise?
It maybe that SERCO can provide them at a cheaper cost than Abelio.

 

[6Z09]

The most telling sentence from 47271 is "not a clue about the railway " and that seems to still be the case, all about hotel on wheels but a distinct lack of technical or operational knowledge available during the night! And it's when things go wrong enroute such knowledge is needed and needed promptly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The most telling sentence from 47271 is "not a clue about the railway " and that seems to still be the case, all about hotel on wheels but a distinct lack of technical or operational knowledge available during the night! And it's when things go wrong enroute such knowledge is needed and needed promptly.

Yet it's the "premium hotel" part of the service that seems to me to be lacking.

 

[DelW]

The most telling sentence from 47271 is "not a clue about the railway " and that seems to still be the case, all about hotel on wheels but a distinct lack of technical or operational knowledge available during the night! And it's when things go wrong enroute such knowledge is needed and needed promptly.

I've thought for some time from what I've read on here and elsewhere, that most or even all CS management appears to work daytime hours only. I'm sure there are many CS staff who do work normal hours, like ticket sales, train servicing and repair, procurement and advertising, but the company's main "customer contact hours" are from around 9pm to 8am, and there appears to be little or no senior management presence then.

Maybe Transport Scotland, as client and funder of the sleeper, should insist that there is a senior manager, maybe up to deputy MD level, in the control office overnight. On the good nights he or she might not have too much to do, but on the bad nights there would be someone to quickly authorise sending out information, to arrange ticket acceptance on other services, to arrange taxis, buses or hotels, and to coordinate service recovery where possible. At present it appears that the on-board staff have little or no backup when things go wrong, and are left to do the best they can on top of their normal workload. If that's the case, it's not surprising that morale is low.

Is this an issue, or am I wrong and there is a senior management presence overnight?

 

[Dr Hoo]

I've thought for some time from what I've read on here and elsewhere, that most or even all CS management appears to work daytime hours only. I'm sure there are many CS staff who do work normal hours, like ticket sales, train servicing and repair, procurement and advertising, but the company's main "customer contact hours" are from around 9pm to 8am, and there appears to be little or no senior management presence then.

Maybe Transport Scotland, as client and funder of the sleeper, should insist that there is a senior manager, maybe up to deputy MD level, in the control office overnight. On the good nights he or she might not have too much to do, but on the bad nights there would be someone to quickly authorise sending out information, to arrange ticket acceptance on other services, to arrange taxis, buses or hotels, and to coordinate service recovery where possible. At present it appears that the on-board staff have little or no backup when things go wrong, and are left to do the best they can on top of their normal workload. If that's the case, it's not surprising that morale is low.

Is this an issue, or am I wrong and there is a senior management presence overnight?

I am all in favour of having 'adequate' resources to deal with services whilst they are running but if the Deputy Managing Director has to be physically present to authorise a taxi or phone another TOC there is something seriously wrong with operational planning, empowerment, etc. Isn't that what supervisors, controllers or whatever do as part of their normal job?
When I worked nights as a shift Traffic Manager (not dealing with sleepers) it was a matter of pride never to even contact the 'on call' member of the area management team unless there had been a really serious incident.

 

[Darandio]

But is £400+ a high price, considering the low number of club passengers per coach and huge subsidy for the CS service in general? Perhaps the cost of really good customer service would make the price £500+ ?
I don't see what the difference between a physical thing or service makes. A complicated medical procedure costing 100 times the cost of an economy return to New York then ...... should I get fantastic customer service, or is the price just reflecting the costs of provision?

Strange concept. Over £400 for what they describe as luxury travel/accomodation but if people want really good customer service they should be paying more?

You can bang on about subsidy and cost of provision as much as you like, but when someone forks out over £400 for a journey they couldn't give a jot about these things.

 

[6Z09]

I am all in favour of having 'adequate' resources to deal with services whilst they are running but if the Deputy Managing Director has to be physically present to authorise a taxi or phone another TOC there is something seriously wrong with operational planning, empowerment, etc. Isn't that what supervisors, controllers or whatever do as part of their normal job?
When I worked nights as a shift Traffic Manager (not dealing with sleepers) it was a matter of pride never to even contact the 'on call' member of the area management team unless there had been a really serious incident.

Given how long things take to be actioned at CS clearly not the same environment that you worked in!

 

[RT4038]

Strange concept. Over £400 for what they describe as luxury travel/accomodation but if people want really good customer service they should be paying more?

You can bang on about subsidy and cost of provision as much as you like, but when someone forks out over £400 for a journey they couldn't give a jot about these things.

Not a strange concept, its called 'getting what you paid for'. If the price (fare paid + subsidy paid) is less than the cost of provision, the provision is going to be skimped on. No matter that the customer thinks, perhaps unrealistically, that the price is very high. There are a number of services where I think the price is outrageous and I'm not getting the service that I feel I deserve, but I would have to pay outrageous+ to get that!
Customer Service costs money, and really good costs even more.
The root cause is that this service is costing far too much to run.

 

[RT4038]

I am all in favour of having 'adequate' resources to deal with services whilst they are running but if the Deputy Managing Director has to be physically present to authorise a taxi or phone another TOC there is something seriously wrong with operational planning, empowerment, etc. Isn't that what supervisors, controllers or whatever do as part of their normal job?
When I worked nights as a shift Traffic Manager (not dealing with sleepers) it was a matter of pride never to even contact the 'on call' member of the area management team unless there had been a really serious incident.

But to be fair, the Sleepers are a very resource hungry operation if anything goes wrong. And if 4 trains are going wrong all at once, which would not be unusual due to the complex operational plan of splitting etc. This is very small numbers of passengers to/from a large number of remote wayside stations, often requiring (and expecting) bespoke solutions to their particular travel problems, in areas where alternative transport is hard to come by. On a good night, only one controller required. On a bad night 10, and I would not expect such a small operation to be able to muster such resource. I suspect that 'authorisation' is not the issue here, it is sheer volume of work. You can't expect people who have worked during the day to be called in and then work all night, and they can't afford 10 people on standby every night either. Something has to give.
Hence my comment that the railway just can't cope with this operation nowadays. It is too expensive.

 

[mattyb1405]

I've just done an Aviemore-Euston trip last night with my wife and 2 kids (10 and 8). The first time we'd used the sleeper (and don't use trains that often but am a big fan of using public transport where possible). We only had the seats, for the 4 of us it was £85 using a family and friends rail card. It saved on an extra nights accommodation so I perceived it as good value (as we'd of been paying travel at some point as well!). Did what I hoped for given I was a little apprehensive on reading some reviews. On time from Aviemore and 2(?) minutes late into Euston. Staff were friendly bringing my son a hot chocolate - cheerily I add - when he could of been turned away (about 630 when I believe the restaurant car starts to get busier). I also contacted the "office" the previous night and got prompt courteous responses when I started to get twitched on one or two things - dealt with professionally and in a friendly manner and out my mind to ease.. For me the only main issue was WiFi (poor compared to an Azuma we had going north bound), the head rest in the seats in my mind need to be more curved so you can lean into them (personal choice) and the lights, yes were a bit bright but can't see why they couldn't be dimmed a little. All in all good value for money and did what I wanted of it, no more no less... I appreciate equally we may have had a lucky "break". For the record the 8 year old fell a sleep in the chair and the 10 year old drifted off after reading / on the iPad - biased but they were less up and down or noisy than the adults in the coach!!

 

[TimboM]

That is probably true - but Serco have a contract. What does the franchise agreement they signed up to say about an acceptable level of customer service? Serco is a big company and has plenty of money "available" - as well as a commercial incentive (seeing as it appears unlikely they'll want to renew the franchise) to spend as little of it as they can get away with. If their bid underestimated the complexity of the operation, meaning that they need to employ more staff than they want to, in order to make it run effectively, then that should be their problem, not the service users'.

The latest accounts for Serco Caledonian Sleepers Limited (as at 31 March 2019) show Serco Group has loaned £58 million to the Sleeper operation. In the main this has been to fund / prop-up the loss-making franchise.

The accounts also show the the on-going costs of running the Sleeper in the year to March 2019 were covered 39% by passengers, 38% by govt subsidies and 23% (£14m) by Serco via the losses they incurred.

Those figures clearly show its Serco’s problem and they’re paying a handsome price for it.

 

[Bald Rick]

It would be interesting to get a feel for the cost of the overheads of a separate sleeper franchise (finance, HR, compliance, reporting functions, marketing, PR, bidding for contract, etc). Combining each of these functions within a single franchise, rather than duplicating each function within two franchises, would surely save a considerable amount, that together with better asset and people utilisation, adds up to a tidy sum, some of which could be used to strengthen service resilience (catering, staffing, providing better information when things go awry, etc) - and still leave money over for other service improvements.

That’s a good question. What you have to seperate out is not the cost of providing all the ‘overhead’ functions such as you describe, but the cost that would be avoided if the franchises were combined. Almost all of the back office activity would still be required. For example, there would still need to be a relatively senior manager in charge of the sleeper activity, and he/she would still need dedicated finance support, HR support etc.

There would of course be some savings; you wouldn’t have a seperate MD or FD, and at working level you wouldn’t need a seperate control (although I’d be surprised if CS control is more than 2 people on shift). With a few other savings you might be in the region of £1-2m a year.

On a slightly different note there wouldn’t be this nonsense of seperate CIS boards / screens at various stations. That does annoy me.

 

[47271]

On a slightly different note there wouldn’t be this nonsense of seperate CIS boards / screens at various stations. That does annoy me.

Or the CS-only lounges. The cost of fitting them out to be used one hour a day is ridiculous when all First Class passengers could benefit from them.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Or the CS-only lounges. The cost of fitting them out to be used one hour a day is ridiculous when all First Class passengers could benefit from them.

It does seem to be bizarre that ScotRail have a lounge at Aberdeen that CS guests can use but doesn't 'buy in' to CS facilities at Dundee, Perth, Inverness and so on for its own customers 'the other way'. Mind you this would seem to be more of a ScotRail issue than CS. Perhaps TfS will tackle this anomaly when the current ScotRail franchise ends.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does seem to be bizarre that ScotRail have a lounge at Aberdeen that CS guests can use but doesn't 'buy in' to CS facilities at Dundee, Perth, Inverness and so on for its own customers 'the other way'. Mind you this would seem to be more of a ScotRail issue than CS. Perhaps TfS will tackle this anomaly when the current ScotRail franchise ends.

It's also bizarre that CS have built their own showers at FW - the ones in the bogs (which I've used) are very good, and to me there's more of a risk now that ScotRail remove them because they're less necessary, leaving other customers without the facility.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Conjecture-Alert

I was thinking about the quantity of each type of coach and the fact that four of the eight 8-car sets have an extra PRM sleeping coach. I know this is to allow for the 8-car sets that split for Fort William and Aberdeen. So four sets have 2 PRM and 4 non-PRM whereas the other four have one PRM and 5 non-PRM. There is the notional ninth 8-car set that also has two PRM sleeping coaches and only four non-PRM.

It occurs to me that, for operational convenience, it would make sense if all nine 8-car sets were identical as in 2 PRM and 4 non-PRM sleeping coaches. The part of my brain that finds a problem to fit the solution has stumbled on the reason four of the non-PRM caches have never been used (granted 15340 was used but got damaged however I think it was replaced by 15337 which had never worked before that). Are these four non-PRM coaches possibly candidates to become PRM coaches ?.

/Conjecture-Alert

I've thought for some time from what I've read on here and elsewhere, that most or even all CS management appears to work daytime hours only. I'm sure there are many CS staff who do work normal hours, like ticket sales, train servicing and repair, procurement and advertising, but the company's main "customer contact hours" are from around 9pm to 8am, and there appears to be little or no senior management presence then.

Maybe Transport Scotland, as client and funder of the sleeper, should insist that there is a senior manager, maybe up to deputy MD level, in the control office overnight. On the good nights he or she might not have too much to do, but on the bad nights there would be someone to quickly authorise sending out information, to arrange ticket acceptance on other services, to arrange taxis, buses or hotels, and to coordinate service recovery where possible. At present it appears that the on-board staff have little or no backup when things go wrong, and are left to do the best they can on top of their normal workload. If that's the case, it's not surprising that morale is low.

Is this an issue, or am I wrong and there is a senior management presence overnight?

In my experience higher management never work unsociable hours but are happy to organise others to do such hours.

Strange concept. Over £400 for what they describe as luxury travel/accomodation but if people want really good customer service they should be paying more?

You can bang on about subsidy and cost of provision as much as you like, but when someone forks out over £400 for a journey they couldn't give a jot about these things.

Maybe the formula just does not work - as in it costs too much to run. However I suspect the advertising is drawing in a regular supply of one off travellers. I think that the amount of compensation being paid for the unexpectedly bad service will finish the service.

Someone mentioned simplifying the service.
How about Running the Highlander as two trains. First an 8-car set to/from Inverness. Second the to/from Fort William and Aberdeen services as another train - this would keep the the 150xx and 151xx from Fort William all the way to Euston so would be a train formed of two 5-car sets. This would reduce the amount of coupling and shunting required. This would mean that the Lowlander and Highlander might not swap at Euston unless the Glasgow or Edinburgh Lowlander became a 2*5-car. I know the limit is 16 coaches but would it be worth the simplicity to run more shorter trains. Maybe not but then comes the option of strengthening some of the trains - growth !. Given that some on here maintain that the trains are fairly well patronised would it make sense to advertise and get more/enough passengers ?. Has the sleeper operation/formation, over the years, been subject to so many clever efficiency tweaks that is has become a service that is being compromised to death ?.
Well it would increase costs but improve resilience - and how much is that worth if it reduces compensation claims ?.

 

[marks87]

The idea of TOC-specific facilities at any station in Scotland, except Edinburgh Waverley and Glasgow Central, does seem bizarre. It sort of undermines the “Scotland’s Railway” tagline somewhat.

The two exceptions I mention are because it makes sense for LNER and Avanti to have their own facilities.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How about Running the Highlander as two trains. First an 8-car set to/from Inverness. Second the to/from Fort William and Aberdeen services as another train - this would keep the the 150xx and 151xx from Fort William all the way to Euston so would be a train formed of two 5-car sets. This would reduce the amount of coupling and shunting required. This would mean that the Lowlander and Highlander might not swap at Euston unless the Glasgow or Edinburgh Lowlander became a 2*5-car. I know the limit is 16 coaches but would it be worth the simplicity to run more shorter trains. Maybe not but then comes the option of strengthening some of the trains - growth !. Given that some on here maintain that the trains are fairly well patronised would it make sense to advertise and get more/enough passengers ?. Has the sleeper operation/formation, over the years, been subject to so many clever efficiency tweaks that is has become a service that is being compromised to death ?.
Well it would increase costs but improve resilience - and how much is that worth if it reduces compensation claims ?.

I must admit I was amazed that they decided to stick with the current, somewhat awkward operation. If it was me I'd have seriously considered fixed-formation EMUs either loco hauled or with some as bi-modes, even if that meant a need to reconfigure the operation into three trains.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I must admit I was amazed that they decided to stick with the current, somewhat awkward operation. If it was me I'd have seriously considered fixed-formation EMUs either loco hauled or with some as bi-modes, even if that meant a need to reconfigure the operation into three trains.

It was Transport Scotland who opted to continue with locomotive haulage?

Do you remember the unit based proposal I had published in Rail and which was also used in the Sleeper consultations process? I've had at least three senior CS staff in the last couple of years tell me that they wished TS had gone for what I wrote...

 

[Bletchleyite]

It was Transport Scotland who opted to continue with locomotive haulage?

Do you remember the unit based proposal I had published in Rail and which was also used in the Sleeper consultations process? I've had at least three senior CS staff in the last couple of years tell me that they wished TS had gone for what I wrote...

I didn't I'm afraid, I'm mostly a MR reader. Does sound like what I'm saying, though.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I didn't I'm afraid, I'm mostly a MR reader. Does sound like what I'm saying, though.

It's on this forum somewhere as well; I'm afraid I haven't time to search for it right now though as I'm about to go offline but if nobody else finds and posts the link first for you I'll have a look tonight or tomorrow.