Caledonian Sleeper

[BRX]

If you're a non drinker, finding that a couple of whiskies are included in your ticket price might leave you feeling like maybe you're not getting the best value out of what you've paid.

 

[Robertj21a]

If you're a non drinker, finding that a couple of whiskies are included in your ticket price might leave you feeling like maybe you're not getting the best value out of what you've paid.

Absolutely !

It's quite difficult to see why people pay so much for the sleeper. I can understand it once, for the experience but, surely, most will now fly ?

 

[Facing Back]

If you're a non drinker, finding that a couple of whiskies are included in your ticket price might leave you feeling like maybe you're not getting the best value out of what you've paid.

lol don't be such a killjoy. It's included in first on Avanti and LNER - nobody complains - well not normally about the drinks anyway. If I get on a business class flight, I don't see all of the people who go to sleep as soon as they board asking for a discount. It seems like a fairly normal way to make the offer feel like a slightly more premium offer at very limited cost.

 

[Kite159]

If you're a non drinker, finding that a couple of whiskies are included in your ticket price might leave you feeling like maybe you're not getting the best value out of what you've paid.

Agreed. If people want to get drunk they can pay for it themselves, and not from the Scottish taxpayer

 

[Techniquest]

If you're a non drinker, finding that a couple of whiskies are included in your ticket price might leave you feeling like maybe you're not getting the best value out of what you've paid.

Agreed. If people want to get drunk they can pay for it themselves, and not from the Scottish taxpayer

Absolutely. Surely the idea is to use the train for sleep, or at the least somewhere to rest out of the cold overnight.

By all means, offer the alcohol for sale on board, but I'd be mighty offended if I had some put in my berth!

 

[BRX]

lol don't be such a killjoy. It's included in first on Avanti and LNER - nobody complains - well not normally about the drinks anyway. If I get on a business class flight, I don't see all of the people who go to sleep as soon as they board asking for a discount. It seems like a fairly normal way to make the offer feel like a slightly more premium offer at very limited cost.

I hardly drink these days. Not quite teetotal, but only really do it occasionally when it seems worth the price I'll pay in hangover. When I was younger, that included long journeys - yes it was quite enjoyable to spend a train journey getting a bit drunk. Nowadays that would still be enjoyable but I'd pay for it by feeling dreadful for several days after.

I also occasionally consider paying for a first class ticket. Usually that'll be in one of those scenarios where an advance 1st is not a lot more than the best priced standard. Or, maybe I'll have a go at one of those Seatfrog upgrade auctions. Most commonly for me this would be on LNER.

When I'm working out how much extra I'm willing to pay I'll have a look at what's included. If it's a long journey and it includes one or two meals, I'll make some kind of judgement on what it would cost to buy them at the buffet or get something before getting on board. Perhaps I'll also factor in a cup of tea or two, and of course things like having a bit more space. Very often, it just doesn't add up for me.

For someone else, where the 1st class price includes some alcoholic drinks, and they want to have a couple, they'll add the equivalent cost of those in too, and maybe it'll make the upgrade worth it for them. Fine.

LNER's pricing must take this into account. They wouldn't be pricing their drinks-inclusive 1st class tickets such that the amount of alcohol that most people drink would leave them out of pocket. They've presumably got some idea about how much most people actually drink, on average, and priced to cover it.

Point being, the price, in reality, of the 1st class ticket includes some amount that covers the supply of alcoholic drinks, and that's the price that's presented to someone like me who's not going to want those drinks, and the result is that I'm not going to buy it! LNER may well take the commercial decision that this doesn't matter - enough of their potential customers are attracted to the free drink, so it's part of the offer and they don't care if it's not attractive to a small number of killjoy non-drinkers like me.

Maybe CS have taken a slightly different approach. Maybe that's because they are selling something a bit different - not "here's how we're going to make your fundamentally boring journey pass more quickly" but "here's a journey you've chosen to do because you want to experience the journey itself". The potential customer deciding to pay for the more expensive berth is more interested in having more space, or the double bed, or priority access to the lounge car, than they are about whether they get some free glasses of wine.

 

[Facing Back]

I hardly drink these days. Not quite teetotal, but only really do it occasionally when it seems worth the price I'll pay in hangover. When I was younger, that included long journeys - yes it was quite enjoyable to spend a train journey getting a bit drunk. Nowadays that would still be enjoyable but I'd pay for it by feeling dreadful for several days after.

I also occasionally consider paying for a first class ticket. Usually that'll be in one of those scenarios where an advance 1st is not a lot more than the best priced standard. Or, maybe I'll have a go at one of those Seatfrog upgrade auctions. Most commonly for me this would be on LNER.

When I'm working out how much extra I'm willing to pay I'll have a look at what's included. If it's a long journey and it includes one or two meals, I'll make some kind of judgement on what it would cost to buy them at the buffet or get something before getting on board. Perhaps I'll also factor in a cup of tea or two, and of course things like having a bit more space. Very often, it just doesn't add up for me.

For someone else, where the 1st class price includes some alcoholic drinks, and they want to have a couple, they'll add the equivalent cost of those in too, and maybe it'll make the upgrade worth it for them. Fine.

LNER's pricing must take this into account. They wouldn't be pricing their drinks-inclusive 1st class tickets such that the amount of alcohol that most people drink would leave them out of pocket. They've presumably got some idea about how much most people actually drink, on average, and priced to cover it.

Point being, the price, in reality, of the 1st class ticket includes some amount that covers the supply of alcoholic drinks, and that's the price that's presented to someone like me who's not going to want those drinks, and the result is that I'm not going to buy it! LNER may well take the commercial decision that this doesn't matter - enough of their potential customers are attracted to the free drink, so it's part of the offer and they don't care if it's not attractive to a small number of killjoy non-drinkers like me.

Maybe CS have taken a slightly different approach. Maybe that's because they are selling something a bit different - not "here's how we're going to make your fundamentally boring journey pass more quickly" but "here's a journey you've chosen to do because you want to experience the journey itself". The potential customer deciding to pay for the more expensive berth is more interested in having more space, or the double bed, or priority access to the lounge car, than they are about whether they get some free glasses of wine.

Thank you for the reply and I apologise about the killjoy.

I am quite similar to you in that I will travel on the best price first class fair for leisure. If that starts to get towards to £500 return then I don't travel or at least on those times. In fact, we've stopped travelled like that as a business too. The free booze and food was explained to me as a way for business travellers to avoid having to worry about expenses. It costs the businesses bugger all if they already have the cost of the hosts and having the stock on board so is seen as an easy and cheap way to offer a premium service. If they do away with the hosts of course the cost drops.

Yes of course the bigger bed et al is more important - but why should a passenger paying x hundred quid had to choose?

The margin on a full first class fair is incredible. If they throw in a few glasses of wine - or frankly gold, frankinsense and myrrr then they are still quids in.

I don't believe it will make any difference to the fares if they were to remove it.

CS is unique. I can't quite believe that I haven't tried it yet.

 

[driverd]

I'm surprised at what people expect for their money. On the sleeper, you've a maximum of 20 people in a carriage, compared to circa 40 in a first class coach. For a single occupancy, classic berth, you'd pay around £230 at most. Effectively, that's occupying 4x first class seats, therefore, around £57.50 per seat (roughly the same as seated). To me - that's exceptional value. It seems as if people are just looking at the headline cost, but when you consider the amount of "train" you get for your money, I'd say its very reasonable.

Ultimately, it'll never compete with easyjet, cost wise. But you're not taking the sleeper if you want the cheapest option - you're taking it to be comfortable, have a bit of sleep and be whisked with minimal stress from city centre to city centre without losing the useful part of your day.

I wouldn't be expecting freebies - actually I find the free water and biscuits along with the sleep pack and breakfast juice/hot drink atleast equivalent to what is generally offered in most first classes (and, indeed, very equivalent to what a flagship airline would offer). If you're in the seats, you're paying a little above megabus prices for a seat that anywhere else would be first class - I'd say that's more than fair.

 

[LowLevel]

I'm surprised at what people expect for their money. On the sleeper, you've a maximum of 20 people in a carriage, compared to circa 40 in a first class coach. For a single occupancy, classic berth, you'd pay around £230 at most. Effectively, that's occupying 4x first class seats, therefore, around £57.50 per seat (roughly the same as seated). To me - that's exceptional value. It seems as if people are just looking at the headline cost, but when you consider the amount of "train" you get for your money, I'd say its very reasonable.

Ultimately, it'll never compete with easyjet, cost wise. But you're not taking the sleeper if you want the cheapest option - you're taking it to be comfortable, have a bit of sleep and be whisked with minimal stress from city centre to city centre without losing the useful part of your day.

I wouldn't be expecting freebies - actually I find the free water and biscuits along with the sleep pack and breakfast juice/hot drink atleast equivalent to what is generally offered in most first classes (and, indeed, very equivalent to what a flagship airline would offer). If you're in the seats, you're paying a little above megabus prices for a seat that anywhere else would be first class - I'd say that's more than fair.

Previously though it was much cheaper so it is no surprise people will judge against that offering. OK, the most premium rooms are very different.

However it was quite possible under the previous model to get a berth for 20 quid one way booked in advance.

The mobile hotel model was choice they took which diverged from the traditional railway sleeper.

 

[JamieL]

Previously though it was much cheaper so it is no surprise people will judge against that offering. OK, the most premium rooms are very different.

However it was quite possible under the previous model to get a berth for 20 quid one way booked in advance.

The mobile hotel model was choice they took which diverged from the traditional railway sleeper.

I am not sure the 'traditional' sleeper option whereby people share a room with complete strangers is tolerable in the 21st century. I am a semi-regular CS user and I certainly wouldn't use it if I had to share a sleeping compartment with a stranger. I agree with what Driverd says but would add that, in my experience, tickets aren't normally priced over £200 - in most cases the cost is entirely comparable with a First Class Anytime ticket - and on occasion sometimes cheaper.

 

[Trainbike46]

I am not sure the 'traditional' sleeper option whereby people share a room with complete strangers is tolerable in the 21st century. I am a semi-regular CS user and I certainly wouldn't use it if I had to share a sleeping compartment with a stranger. I agree with what Driverd says but would add that, in my experience, tickets aren't normally priced over £200 - in most cases the cost is entirely comparable with a First Class Anytime ticket - and on occasion sometimes cheaper.

In the old system you could still book a room all to yourself, but you had the option of sharing if you wanted the cheaper ticket and didn't mind. Now you have to share. Personally I don't think that is an improvement.

Also, CS is pretty unique in not allowing sharing.... It happens on every other sleeper train

 

[JonathanH]

However it was quite possible under the previous model to get a berth for 20 quid one way booked in advance.

While it was great that it was so cheap on 'quiet nights', it was a marketing strategy that failed because a) people came to place a lower value on the sleeper than it cost, and b) those people didn't think the change of rolling stock is worth an uplift in fares.

Also, CS is pretty unique in not allowing sharing.... It happens on every other sleeper train

Ah yes, there was that as well. Sharing was abolished on the Cornish sleeper first, and there are some issues that can't be overcome about passenger safety as well.

 

[Gonzoiku]

My first trip in the mk5 seats tonight. Was interested to see how the lighting is dealt with, as others have mentioned it being too bright.

Getting on the train, it was fairly bright. There are lights up by the luggage racks which reflect off the ceiling and provide general lighting over the centre of the coach. Then there are the ones directly above the windows that shine downwards, lighting up the edges of the coach at the window seats.

An hour or so into the journey the lighting was dimmed somewhat by turning off the ceiling lights, but leaving on the over-window lights. As per photo below.

This doesn't make sense to me. The lights that are annoying if you're trying to sleep in a seat are the ones closest to your eyes...the window ones. So why not switch off these and leave on the ceiling ones?

Anyone who wants extra light can use one of the individual reading lights provided at each seat.

Better still why not just dim the lights, the ones over the window and/or the ceiling ones? Someone who knows about these carriages tells me they each have 4 brightness settings. Why aren't they made use of?

And it was my first Mk5 trip on Wednesday, Lowlander to Edinburgh. I was rather impressed to have a text message during the afternoon to advise that - it being Burns night - thre would be a piper to welcome passengers on board (as well as a range of whiskies and haggis in the club car). I thought that was a nice touch ... would have been even nicer had there actually been a piper in evidence! But I was approached in the AWC First lounge to have a "Priority Boarding" label fixed to my bag. Similar to what you get on checked baggage at teh airport, but it was all of 35x10cm, with space for name, destination, address, which (had it been filled in) would have been obscured by the sticky bit on the other end. What was that all about? Nobody looked at it, and to judge by what disembarked at Waverley, there were only acouple of dozen passengers.

Comfort in the Club cabin was OK, save for the ride - several instances of being half-woken by running on what felt like pebbles, or coarse sand paper. Not impressive at all, save for the wrong reasons.

I notice that breakfasts serve in-cabin now exclude the "full scottish" so I opted for a lorne sausage roll, which I know as "square sausage". Alas it wasn't square, but rectangular - in other wprds, HALF a square sausage, and very well cooked (dry as toast). I also nopticed that breakfast is no longer served on a tray, with china cup, saucer, plate and steel cutlery. Paper sack left at the door, with a paper cup of hot water for the tea in a cardboard carrier. No muffin from Bad Girls bakery in Muir of Ord, either. And, as final insult, the mineral water is no longer from Highland Spring. Harrogate water bottled for Brake Brothers. Signs of the times? Or signs of what is to come after Serco - abandon the pretence of a luxury "journey of a nighttime"?

On the plus side, on time deprture, on time arrival, and the price was less than a night's stay in a central London Travelodge.

GZ

While it was great that it was so cheap on 'quiet nights', it was a marketing strategy that failed because a) people came to place a lower value on the sleeper than it cost, and b) those people didn't think the change of rolling stock is worth an uplift in fares.

While I don't think the change of rolling stock justifies an increase in fares, I don't think teh fares are unreasonable. But I have sverely reduced the business I give to CS, because of the watered-down Flexipass conditions. It was once the case that flexipasses were ... flexible, in that you could cancel without penalty (indeed, in First Scotrail days, you didn't even have to cancel, just no-show!), but now, they are subject to the usual cancel two days in advance rule. More than that, at the end of the 12 month validity, you could put 3 (?) flexipasses in as part-payment for a new flexipass. No longer - you can extend their validity if you buy 10 more. Not the same at all.

And see above for my first Mk 5 trip report. It might be the last for some time ....

GZ

 

[GordonT]

In the context of Caledonian Sleeper fares and what you get for your money there is also the small matter of how heavily the operation is subsidised. Recent analysis quoted in the press suggests that c.£95 per passenger has been paid by the taxpayer since Nicola became FM of Scotland.

 

[driverd]

In the context of Caledonian Sleeper fares and what you get for your money there is also the small matter of how heavily the operation is subsidised. Recent analysis quoted in the press suggests that c.£95 per passenger has been paid by the taxpayer since Nicola became FM of Scotland.

Frankly, I'd suggest that could comfortably be absorbed in some of the fares, but I'd also imagine more recent figures would be much less owing to the increased fares and reported very healthy loadings.

 

[Facing Back]

In the context of Caledonian Sleeper fares and what you get for your money there is also the small matter of how heavily the operation is subsidised. Recent analysis quoted in the press suggests that c.£95 per passenger has been paid by the taxpayer since Nicola became FM of Scotland.

Before I ask the question, for context I love the CS, I want it to continue and I am happy that it is subsidised.

Any thoughts though on the £95 subsidy and why it is good value to "the tax payer" for it to continue?

 

[JamieL]

Before I ask the question, for context I love the CS, I want it to continue and I am happy that it is subsidised.

Any thoughts though on the £95 subsidy and why it is good value to "the tax payer" for it to continue?

It provides a connection and tourist link for Northern communities. The £95 subsidy was reported in the Telegraph, so I wouldn't necessarily rate it as a source either TBH.

 

[JonathanH]

The £95 subsidy was reported in the Telegraph, so I wouldn't necessarily rate it as a source either TBH.

It is basically just the total payments to Caledonian Sleeper divided by the number of passengers.

 

[GordonT]

It is basically just the total payments to Caledonian Sleeper divided by the number of passengers.

I wonder how much of the cost of the West Highland Line infrastructure is attributed to the CS operation?

 

[Robertj21a]

I'm surprised at what people expect for their money. On the sleeper, you've a maximum of 20 people in a carriage, compared to circa 40 in a first class coach. For a single occupancy, classic berth, you'd pay around £230 at most. Effectively, that's occupying 4x first class seats, therefore, around £57.50 per seat (roughly the same as seated). To me - that's exceptional value. It seems as if people are just looking at the headline cost, but when you consider the amount of "train" you get for your money, I'd say its very reasonable.

Ultimately, it'll never compete with easyjet, cost wise. But you're not taking the sleeper if you want the cheapest option - you're taking it to be comfortable, have a bit of sleep and be whisked with minimal stress from city centre to city centre without losing the useful part of your day.

I wouldn't be expecting freebies - actually I find the free water and biscuits along with the sleep pack and breakfast juice/hot drink atleast equivalent to what is generally offered in most first classes (and, indeed, very equivalent to what a flagship airline would offer). If you're in the seats, you're paying a little above megabus prices for a seat that anywhere else would be first class - I'd say that's more than

While it was great that it was so cheap on 'quiet nights', it was a marketing strategy that failed because a) people came to place a lower value on the sleeper than it cost, and b) those people didn't think the change of rolling stock is worth an uplift in fares.


Ah yes, there was that as well. Sharing was abolished on the Cornish sleeper first, and there are some issues that can't be overcome about passenger safety as well.

Blimey, you can't even share!

What's the reason for that?

 

[Bald Rick]

In the context of Caledonian Sleeper fares and what you get for your money there is also the small matter of how heavily the operation is subsidised. Recent analysis quoted in the press suggests that c.£95 per passenger has been paid by the taxpayer since Nicola became FM of Scotland.

Plus a decent sum per passenger in ‘subsidy’ by Serco (ie their net losses on the contract).

I wonder how much of the cost of the West Highland Line infrastructure is attributed to the CS operation?

in the £95 per passenger subsidy figure quoted, none.

 

[Facing Back]

Plus a decent sum per passenger in ‘subsidy’ by Serco (ie their net losses on the contract).

Which might suggest that the government subsidy will need to increase when the franchise is retendered. It strikes me as a tiny and quiet inefficient operation which frequently fails and needs to be bailed out by other operators.

Is there a better way to run it and keep it's unique nature? Why was it split out from Scotrail (I believe?) in the first place?

 

[BRX]

Which might suggest that the government subsidy will need to increase when the franchise is retendered. It strikes me as a tiny and quiet inefficient operation which frequently fails and needs to be bailed out by other operators.

Is there a better way to run it and keep it's unique nature? Why was it split out from Scotrail (I believe?) in the first place?

All of this has been discussed many times over during the course of this thread...

 

[Facing Back]

All of this has been discussed many times over during the course of this thread...

It is 453 pages long. If you don't wish to indulge my curiosity with a pithy response then I understand.

Many people here are very generous however.

 

[lachlan]

Blimey, you can't even share!

What's the reason for that?

Something something "police advice" was what CS said when I asked them a while ago. However my guess is they fill the trains up anyway so there's no incentive to allow sharing. Perhaps also some solo travelers who would have otherwise shared opt for single rooms.

 

[BRX]

It is 453 pages long. If you don't wish to indulge my curiosity with a pithy response then I understand.

Many people here are very generous however.

Sure, it's just that the answer to "a better way to run it" is not one that everyone would agree on!

My understanding of why it was split out -

The sleeper has always required a subsidy and the intention was to reduce the subsidy needed, by marketing it to higher-paying customers hence gaining more revenue from it. So, there was the "hotel on wheels" concept and it was made into a self contained operation so that whoever took the franchise on could focus on this. And the franchisee could be some company with experience of this kind of thing, ie, a different kind of company from the kind needed to run Scotrail as a whole. This was all happening around the time the old trains needed replaced/refurbished anyway, and i think the idea was to redesign the operation somewhat (including the trains themselves) such that it would have a long term future with a new funding strategy ... instead of extending the life of the existing operation for a few more years with it being an unknown what would happen beyond that.

In fact what has happened (in my opinion) is we've ended up with an operation aimed at higher paying passengers but still subsidised - and with fewer options for those who can't afford the high fares (including a bunch of missed opportunities eg. something like a couchette standard, in between a sleeper and a seat... the options here really have been discussed ad nauseum on this thread, and if you are interested you can read back).

There are I guess different views on the social/economic value it provides, that ultimately justifies the subsidy. One view would be that it provides people in the north of Scotland with a connection to (mainly) London. The other would be that it aids and encourages tourism in the north of scotland. Depending on which of these you see as the train's main purpose, you might have different views on what the standard and affordability of the accommodation on board should be.

I live in London but am from the Highlands originally. These days I mainly use it for leisure visits back home. But I do know various people, including family members, who live in the Highlands and use (or have used) it as a means of connection to London & the south, one that lets them avoid flying or a whole day travelling. That includes for non-leisure use ... for example, using it to attend meetings in London, some of them on behalf of "social good" organisations in the Highlands. That *used* to involve the option of attending a meeting during a day in between two nights on the sleeper, in a berth in a shared compartment that used to be relatively affordable. That's no longer available - as a solo traveller your options are a pretty expensive solo cabin or a seat.

Lots of people (including a few who like to pop in on this thread from time to time) regard the justification for the subsidy as pretty tenuous. Maybe it is, in many ways. I would like to see it continue though. It is, in itself, simply something quite special, and some things are worth keeping just for that reason. But also, keeping it alive as a thing means that in changed circumstances (environmental or economic or both) where having sleeper trains in the UK turns out to be genuinely useful and even commercially viable without subsidy ... there's something there to build from. If it went it would probably be gone for good. Many of us are watching current developments with continental night trains (not that long ago assumed to be on their last legs) with much interest.

 

[LiftFan]

Previously though it was much cheaper so it is no surprise people will judge against that offering. OK, the most premium rooms are very different.

However it was quite possible under the previous model to get a berth for 20 quid one way booked in advance.

The mobile hotel model was choice they took which diverged from the traditional railway sleeper.

If anything the rolling hotel image works better for the night riviera IMO, considering the price of a solo berth suddenly seems extremely good value when you see the price of one night in a travelodge in Penzance...

 

[JonathanH]

Blimey, you can't even share!

What's the reason for that?

...with a stranger. You can obviously make a booking for two people.

 

[JamieL]

Which might suggest that the government subsidy will need to increase when the franchise is retendered. It strikes me as a tiny and quiet inefficient operation which frequently fails and needs to be bailed out by other operators.

Frequently fails? It is the most reliable train service running between Scotland and London. Normally arrives on time (or early) at destination, is never overcrowded, never declassified, never terminated at Preston etc.

 

[Robertj21a]

My *impression* is that the sleeper can be unreliable at times on the Scottish lines. That would annoy me.
Are others saying that it's generally reliable?