• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Caledonian Sleeper

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
But you wouldn't have sink, doors showers and all the other furniture associated with a room so capacity per coach would have been higher.
It would be higher than for a sleeping car of entirely single-occupancy compartments, but I suspect probably lower than for one with double occupancy throughout. First guess would be 16 to 18 pods per coach, hardly something to write home about.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It would be higher than for a sleeping car of entirely single-occupancy compartments, but I suspect probably lower than for one with double occupancy throughout. First guess would be 16 to 18 pods per coach, hardly something to write home about.

Why? In a 2+1 layout you could get roughly half the number as you would get with First Class seating. Typically an all-bay First Class coach might have 42 seats (7 bays, 6 seats per bay), so that gives you 21 as a minimum.
 
Joined
7 Aug 2011
Messages
245
Why? In a 2+1 layout you could get roughly half the number as you would get with First Class seating. Typically an all-bay First Class coach might have 42 seats (7 bays, 6 seats per bay), so that gives you 21 as a minimum.

It would be good to get a definite on what the planned pod capacity was - we're all guessing at the moment. Anyone in the know?
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,208
Hasn't Inverness now got gates, so day passengers would need to get tickets?
They tried an early commuter train from Speyside, but the numbers can fit in the seats.
 

WesternLancer

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
6,996
The apparent disregard for 'day' passengers comes as no surprise. From the start of the franchising process it's been obvious that tourism and 'experience' were the focus. As a London to Scotland commuter I didn't feel my 'type' of passenger was being considered.

The pods I thought would provide the ideal solution for me - reasonable sleep at a price affordable for 3-4 return trips a month. Whatever the safety concerns were I doubt they were insurmountable and the impression I have is that they were given up without much of a fight. This only reinforced my opinion on the priority of commuters in the whole process.

I'm now largely priced out of the berths. The seats are affordable but don't guarantee I'll sleep. Thus I might need to write the morning off at the other end to sleep before I work, drive etc.

I feel we're left with a subsidized Royal Scotsman 'Light' with some steerage class tacked on the back. As a working man who simply wants to get to and from home efficiently and affordably it offers me less than before - almost by design. Ultimately the blame must lie with the Scottish Government who wrote the requirements and oversee the franchise.
I bet you are spot on - no doubt endless meetings with civil servants saying or being told ' anyone who wants to do this for work flies (like we do...) so the only marker for this is tourists and they don't want to share or have cramped accommodation etc etc - can only make this pay with premium fares etc'

Then when you learn Serco runs stuff like the Ghan - which is obv in that market surely - this is the model they pitched and got adopted. Again I suspect it is a case of if the stock was being commissioned by 'real railway people' not Scottish govt equivalents of the DfT they would have perhaps done a more focussed job at providing a mix of accommodation types for more markets, and had greater emphasis on the need for the day carriage accommodation to cater for early morning departures as mentioned.

After all, if govt were serious about actually accepting there was indeed a 'climate emergency' as parliament voted recently, then knocking internal UK flights on the head would be a quick win....
 

Highlandspring

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2017
Messages
2,778
Then when you learn Serco runs stuff like the Ghan - which is obv in that market surely - this is the model they pitched and got adopted.
I see the Caledonian Sleeper as being more analogous with the Serco operated and Transport Scotland specified Northlink Ferries concession, which performs a similarly ill-fitting dual role of basic level public transport and luxury tourist travel ‘hotel experience’. You’ve got cheap seats for the locals, single premium cabins are marketed and priced at a similar level as the new CS Club rooms and I think the Northlink premium sleeping pods* were what was being aimed for with the new stock before they gave up the idea for whatever reason. My personal feeling is that the Scottish Government when they were writing the Caledonian Sleeper Franchise Specification had the idea of replicating Northlink very firmly in mind. It’s even marketed in a very similar way - “take a journey of a lifetime to the magical frozen north” etc..

*https://www.northlinkferries.co.uk/on-board/accommodation/
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I see the Caledonian Sleeper as being more analogous with the Serco operated and Transport Scotland specified Northlink Ferries concession, which performs a similarly ill-fitting dual role of basic level public transport and luxury tourist travel ‘hotel experience’. You’ve got cheap seats for the locals, single premium cabins are marketed and priced at a similar level as the new CS Club rooms and I think the Northlink premium sleeping pods* were what was being aimed for with the new stock before they gave up the idea for whatever reason. My personal feeling is that the Scottish Government when they were writing the Caledonian Sleeper Franchise Specification had the idea of replicating Northlink very firmly in mind. It’s even marketed in a very similar way - “take a journey of a lifetime to the magical frozen north” etc..

*https://www.northlinkferries.co.uk/on-board/accommodation/

Those pods certainly seem to be the same ones shown in early CS publicity.
 

Essexman

Established Member
Joined
15 Mar 2011
Messages
1,380
Tourists are only likely to use the sleeper once a year.
I hope that Serco will keep a reasonable Flexipass price for regular users.
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
Why? In a 2+1 layout you could get roughly half the number as you would get with First Class seating.
With a 2+1 layout, you can't get to the second pod, so you'd have to go to 1+1.

If what was being proposed was the fully reclining seats used on Northlink (which I wouldn't call pods) then 2+1 would work, and you could get 21 to 24 seats in. Which is still just barely reaching the level of a Mark 3 sleeping car, and loses out to a Mark 5 sleeping car only because of the showers in the latter.
 
Joined
7 Aug 2011
Messages
245
'Reasonable' is, of course, a subjective measure. £310 return (£1,240 per month if I travel every week), the current price, does not meet my measure of reasonable for my circumstances.
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
Joined
7 Aug 2011
Messages
245
I bet you are spot on - no doubt endless meetings with civil servants saying or being told ' anyone who wants to do this for work flies (like we do...) so the only marker for this is tourists and they don't want to share or have cramped accommodation etc etc - can only make this pay with premium fares etc'

Then when you learn Serco runs stuff like the Ghan - which is obv in that market surely - this is the model they pitched and got adopted. Again I suspect it is a case of if the stock was being commissioned by 'real railway people' not Scottish govt equivalents of the DfT they would have perhaps done a more focussed job at providing a mix of accommodation types for more markets, and had greater emphasis on the need for the day carriage accommodation to cater for early morning departures as mentioned.

After all, if govt were serious about actually accepting there was indeed a 'climate emergency' as parliament voted recently, then knocking internal UK flights on the head would be a quick win....

Unless you're near London flights often don't work to north Scotland after a day's work, but a train to Euston (or Watford, Crewe or Preston) is often available to make the sleeper.
 

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
19,157
Location
West of Andover
Hasn't Inverness now got gates, so day passengers would need to get tickets?
They tried an early commuter train from Speyside, but the numbers can fit in the seats.

Last few times I've used the sleeper into Inverness, the gates for P1/P2 have been left open.
 

haggishunter

Member
Joined
25 Aug 2016
Messages
349
Is there a good reason for the inverness 'day' seats only to be available from Kingussie rather than from edinburgh as with the fort william one?

Going back to when they started allowing day passengers from Kingussie northwards, it was done to provide a commuter service without requiring to tie up a unit. From outdoor activities perspective getting the Inverness sleeper from the Central Belt North would be quite useful and there was certainly discussions about this at the time, but the issue that was raised was disturbance to overnight passengers, which was not an issue for the Fort William seats because people had to get up and change coach anyway. There was some chat about adding (a)coach(es) at Edinburgh, but disturbance of the seated sleeper passengers by people from the day coach trudging back and fore to the lounge car was cited, along with the impracticability of shunting the seated sleeper off the lounge to insert a day coach.

Splitting the Highlander into an Inverness train and a Fort William + Aberdeen train would allow greater flexibility on capacity, allow day travel from Edinburgh to Inverness and a significantly improved service on the Fort William sleeper, particularly the seats. Could this in any way be managed as 3 departures from Euston, but the 2 Highlanders shunted together after leaving so as to have one 18-20 coach train through to Edinburgh?
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,602
Going back to when they started allowing day passengers from Kingussie northwards, it was done to provide a commuter service without requiring to tie up a unit. From outdoor activities perspective getting the Inverness sleeper from the Central Belt North would be quite useful and there was certainly discussions about this at the time, but the issue that was raised was disturbance to overnight passengers, which was not an issue for the Fort William seats because people had to get up and change coach anyway. There was some chat about adding (a)coach(es) at Edinburgh, but disturbance of the seated sleeper passengers by people from the day coach trudging back and fore to the lounge car was cited, along with the impracticability of shunting the seated sleeper off the lounge to insert a day coach.

Splitting the Highlander into an Inverness train and a Fort William + Aberdeen train would allow greater flexibility on capacity, allow day travel from Edinburgh to Inverness and a significantly improved service on the Fort William sleeper, particularly the seats. Could this in any way be managed as 3 departures from Euston, but the 2 Highlanders shunted together after leaving so as to have one 18-20 coach train through to Edinburgh?

I don't think passengers tramping through is the biggest issue as far as undisturbed sleep is concerned in the seated coach!

I guess that what the Inverness portion doesn't have going for it, that the FW one does, is the stop in Glasgow, which has a larger population and takes place at a less horrendous time in the morning.
 

gnolife

Established Member
Joined
4 Nov 2010
Messages
2,028
Location
Johnstone
Going back to when they started allowing day passengers from Kingussie northwards, it was done to provide a commuter service without requiring to tie up a unit. From outdoor activities perspective getting the Inverness sleeper from the Central Belt North would be quite useful and there was certainly discussions about this at the time, but the issue that was raised was disturbance to overnight passengers, which was not an issue for the Fort William seats because people had to get up and change coach anyway. There was some chat about adding (a)coach(es) at Edinburgh, but disturbance of the seated sleeper passengers by people from the day coach trudging back and fore to the lounge car was cited, along with the impracticability of shunting the seated sleeper off the lounge to insert a day coach.
Also, given that the Fort William passengers have to alight the Aberdeen portion, do people think that there would be any scope for allowing local passsengers from Edinburgh to Aberdeen to travel on the sleeper, possibly on a reservation compulsory basis to prevent overcrowding it?
Splitting the Highlander into an Inverness train and a Fort William + Aberdeen train would allow greater flexibility on capacity, allow day travel from Edinburgh to Inverness and a significantly improved service on the Fort William sleeper, particularly the seats. Could this in any way be managed as 3 departures from Euston, but the 2 Highlanders shunted together after leaving so as to have one 18-20 coach train through to Edinburgh?
Would the calls at Crewe and Preston cause any difficulties with that?
 

WesternLancer

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
6,996
Unless you're near London flights often don't work to north Scotland after a day's work, but a train to Euston (or Watford, Crewe or Preston) is often available to make the sleeper.
Of course, but most of these decision makers WILL be close to London / Edinboro / Galsgow - so their thinking point for specifying those things is already starting from that perspective - they only see the further extensions of the service as tourism points or 'socially necessary services' I suspect - not what they would have to use.

I recall some deeply critical comments from a very senior civil servant (perm sec?) not that many years ago about the service - apols tho I can't get a link up on google - but others may also recall it.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
As per the rest of my comment, the Northlink 'pods' are not how I would interpret the term.

They might not be your interpretation, but they are exactly what was shown on the Serco publicity material (other than the very early artist's impressions). That actual model of "seat"; the shape is very distinctive indeed.

Indeed, here you go:
https://www.theedinburghreporter.co...d-to-run-edinburgh-to-london-sleeper-service/

Serco actually used the ferries as an example in their publicity.

A lot of airline business class seats are a bit like that anyway. Not all of them use the herringbone style, quite a number with the seats in pairs.
 

Essexman

Established Member
Joined
15 Mar 2011
Messages
1,380
'Reasonable' is, of course, a subjective measure. £310 return (£1,240 per month if I travel every week), the current price, does not meet my measure of reasonable for my circumstances.

Clearly the sleeper will cost a lot per year if used every week but the current Flexipass fare of £155 single gives a good saving over individual tickets. If the Flexipass rises significantly in line with other tickets then I probably won't get one next year and will travel on the sleeper far less often.
 
Joined
7 Aug 2011
Messages
245
Clearly the sleeper will cost a lot per year if used every week but the current Flexipass fare of £155 single gives a good saving over individual tickets. If the Flexipass rises significantly in line with other tickets then I probably won't get one next year and will travel on the sleeper far less often.

It's more the removal of the 'share with a stranger if required' option and consequent price increase that's done for me. The loss of bargain berths also helped drive up the average cost per journey.
Flexipass has always been too expensive (for me) being a first class product. That doesn't stop it being a good value offer.
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,835
I've never understood how the pods were supposed to work. Intrinsically, they have to take up as much room as a bed, or else you can't lie on them. But they can't be double-decked, else you couldn't sit in them. So you're locked in to a passenger capacity (hence cost per seat) comparable to a conventional sleeping car, for an inferior product that has to be priced more cheaply.

That, I imagine, is why Serco didn't make much effort to resolve the issues. They didn't want pods, but had to examine the feasibility. Likewise, they don't really want the seats, but can't get rid of them.

If there was a commitment to sleeper travel for the ordinary person, we wouldn't have Caledonian Doubles, and we'd have couchettes (32 beds to a coach) replacing two or three sleeping cars.
Three years ago I travelled each way between Bangkok and Butterworth (Penang, Malaysia), a 20+ hour trip, on Thai Railways "air conditioned second class" sleepers.

These have a central aisle, and as configured for daytime use, each side of it are 4-seat bays around tables. At night, they are converted like a caravan dinette, the tabletop goes down flat on the seat bases, and the seat and backrest cushions form a mattress, with bedding provided to form a wide single berth. A narrower upper berth is folded down from above the windows, and both berths have their own sets of curtains for privacy. I was concerned about security, but in the event there were family groups around me, and although I put my passport and cards under my pillow, I think it was actually pretty safe. The groups with children seemed to put (at least) two of them into one lower berth. There was an at-seat meal service, as well as local food vendors walking through at several intermediate stops.

They're obviously not as "premium" as having your own cabin, especially now CS ones include en-suite, but they seemed to be a good compromise between space, comfort and price, and I found them quite adequately comfortable and much better than trying to sleep in a seat. Thai Railways prices aren't comparable with UK fares, but I paid around £36 each way.

I wonder if this layout has ever been tried in this country, or if the UK loading gauge prevents it. They didn't seem to me to be much if at all wider than coaches here though.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
DB used to have Talgo sets with these, and I got the best night's sleep I've ever had on a train on them, because you don't get the repeated blood to head/blood to feet issue you get with transverse beds. They're also better for individuals, as each bunk is basically its own unit.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,602
DB used to have Talgo sets with these, and I got the best night's sleep I've ever had on a train on them, because you don't get the repeated blood to head/blood to feet issue you get with transverse beds. They're also better for individuals, as each bunk is basically its own unit.
Same here, probably the best overnight arrangement I've used. Also avoids the awkwardness of 'cabin-mate' scenarios you get with traditional couchettes.

I think those DB talgo sets are no longer around?
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
In principle, since Transpennine have ordered their own Mark 5 fleet, I suspect that Serco could have their own versions of those coach types without too much difficulty. Though adding TSOs or FOs to the fleet (in effect, the Serco seated coaches are BFOs) would of course be more coach types to maintain, which they'd hardly welcome even if they were given away free.

Ideally the new CS stock should have been part of a wider plan to replace Far North and WHL traction with 73s and Mk5 coaches given that WHL trains will now be split into separate services. This would give you a superior traveling environment for all lines plus the ability for spare TSOs to be added to the CS services. As it stands we now have a micro fleet of RETB 156 units and RETB 158s that can't use WHL. Running around can be eliminated using the new Mk5 Driving Trailers.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,602
Ideally the new CS stock should have been part of a wider plan to replace Far North and WHL traction with 73s and Mk5 coaches given that WHL trains will now be split into separate services. This would give you a superior traveling environment for all lines plus the ability for spare TSOs to be added to the CS services. As it stands we now have a micro fleet of RETB 156 units and RETB 158s that can't use WHL. Running around can be eliminated using the new Mk5 Driving Trailers.

How many spare 73s are sitting around waiting for conversion to 73/9s though! I'm not sure if the details of your specific plan would work, but I do think that it would have been preferable (from the point of view of it operating as a public service rather than tourist train operation) for the CS operations to have remained part of the Scotrail franchise.
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894
The Edinburgh portion is "starting at Carstairs" according to the CS Twitter. Which means either there's enough capacity in just the Glasgow portion, or the stock is running empty suggesting an in-service fault (train supply?).
So what happened with the passengers at Waverley?
 

Top