Caledonian Sleeper

[Krokodil]

Why would that boost revenue, though?

They're more dense - the standing space in a compartment is wasted space, you get one standing space per four berths rather than one standing space per two berths in a conventional sleeper. Roughly a 50% uplift.

 

[Western Gaffer]

They're more dense - the standing space in a compartment is wasted space, you get one standing space per four berths rather than one standing space per two berths in a conventional sleeper. Roughly a 50% uplift.

Surely the point was that they'd have to be sold at a cheaper price, i.e. more people with a lower average price doesn't necessarily equate to higher overall revenue?

 

[35B]

Surely the point was that they'd have to be sold at a cheaper price, i.e. more people with a lower average price doesn't necessarily equate to higher overall revenue?

Precisely my thought - especially where someone is comparing early 2000s bargain berths with today's fare structure.

The sad fact is that, given the capacity constraints and high demand on the sleeper, it is arguably underpriced right now.

 

[Krokodil]

Surely the point was that they'd have to be sold at a cheaper price, i.e. more people with a lower average price doesn't necessarily equate to higher overall revenue?

You'd price it so that it filled up at the same rate. Bearing in mind that the service is subsidised for the economic benefit of Scotland, the more passengers you carry who will be spending money in the Scottish economy the better. I'm not advocating losing existing sleeper berths though, they're filling well. It's the sort of thing that you'd do if there was an opportunity to add extra carriages (which can only really come if the Highlander gets split into separate departures). Some hope.

 

[Bald Rick]

There are still a few regular passengers who travel for business purposes but this has certainly declined in recent years, mainly since the introduction of the new coaches added in with unreliability of arriving on time as well as the increase in prices.

unreliability?

arrivals at all stations within 15 minutes is 92% (comparable to other long distance operators), within 30 minutes is 98% (better than all other long distance operators). Cancellations are roughly a third of that of long distance operators.

 

[SteveM70]

Bearing in mind that the service is subsidised for the economic benefit of Scotland, the more passengers you carry who will be spending money in the Scottish economy the better

Yes, but it's never as simple as that. The average spend per person is likely to be a lot higher for someone who can afford a berth compared to someone who is in a couchette

 

[Bletchleyite]

unreliability?

arrivals at all stations within 15 minutes is 92% (comparable to other long distance operators), within 30 minutes is 98% (better than all other long distance operators). Cancellations are roughly a third of that of long distance operators.

That may be so, but because of the nature of it a cancellation is going to be catastrophic to the passenger's trip rather than merely a bit annoying.

 

[The Planner]

Agree, however that route via Bescot and Aston is a tad slow in places and a bit of a bottleneck with plenty freight to contend with as well. The diamond crossings at both Bescot Stadium and Coventry stations are extremely loud and bumpy at line speed.

Paths for the Highlander have already been sorted, and have been for some time.

 

[swaldman]

77Bearing in mind that the service is subsidised for the economic benefit of Scotland

I have the distinct impression that while in Scotrail days it might have been subsidised for the benefit of people who live in Scotland, wheras now it is subsidised for the benefit of tourists who want to visit Scotland. (which is, I realise, still for the economic benefit of Scotland)

Of course, the cynic in me says that it is mostly subsidised for the benefit of MPs who use it to travel between London and constituencies on expenses. (they don't care how much it costs, but it must keep running)

It's largely the same as all rooms can be occupied by two people now; so 1st Class (Club and Double) capacity has effectively increased. I did post a comparison ages back, but can't find it.

Do you mean that they've started letting people share with a stranger again? (Presumably only in the bunks, not the double beds)

Or are you just saying that all rooms could, hypothetically, be occupied by two people, if no solo traveller were to book?

 

[Indigo Soup]

I have the distinct impression that while in Scotrail days it might have been subsidised for the benefit of people who live in Scotland, wheras now it is subsidised for the benefit of tourists who want to visit Scotland. (which is, I realise, still for the economic benefit of Scotland)

A reasonable number of people living in Scotland viewed the Scotrail sleeper service as one provided so that they could travel to London, and points beyond, at reasonable cost without the need to spend an entire day on the journey. The current sleeper service is seen as catering to rich tourists who want to treat Scotland as a theme park.

The latter might be economically valuable, but is viewed as a reduction in useful service (as well as somewhat demeaning) by the first group of people.

Do you mean that they've started letting people share with a stranger again? (Presumably only in the bunks, not the double beds)

Or are you just saying that all rooms could, hypothetically, be occupied by two people, if no solo traveller were to book?

The reverse, I believe - compartments on the Mark 3 stock that were configured for First Class passengers couldn't accommodate two people. So, at full occupancy, the new trains can accommodate more people.

I suspect that an all-Standard Mark 3 rake could (in theory) accommodate still more.

 

[swaldman]

A reasonable number of people living in Scotland viewed the Scotrail sleeper service as one provided so that they could travel to London, and points beyond, at reasonable cost without the need to spend an entire day on the journey. The current sleeper service is seen as catering to rich tourists who want to treat Scotland as a theme park.

The latter might be economically valuable, but is viewed as a reduction in useful service (as well as somewhat demeaning) by the first group of people.

Exactly! (I am in the first group of people)
Both are "subsidy for the economic benefit of Scotland", but they are radically different routes to that benefit.

The reverse, I believe - compartments on the Mark 3 stock that were configured for First Class passengers couldn't accommodate two people. So, at full occupancy, the new trains can accommodate more people.

I suspect that an all-Standard Mark 3 rake could (in theory) accommodate still more.

Ah, I see. My memory of the Mk3s was that the "first class" compartments were the same with the top bunk folded up... but I guess they were sold as solo cabins on the booking system, and hence would never have two in them.

As (again) part of that group of "people in the north of Scotland who want an affordable way to travel south", I would dearly love to be able to book a bunk rather than a cabin again. It's probably coincidence, but Northlink Ferries, run by Serco, have gone the same way and now carry around a lot of empty bunks while fully booked

 

[danchester]

Of course, the cynic in me says that it is mostly subsidised for the benefit of MPs who use it to travel between London and constituencies on expenses. (they don't care how much it costs, but it must keep running)

It may not be the ideal incentive system, but we should probably be grateful for the fact that 600+ MPs have to commute to London from all corners of the country at least twice a week, the vast majority by train. I can say with some confidence that Avanti's poor performance only started to get government attention because the effects of it started to reach MPs.

 

[SteveM70]

I can say with some confidence that Avanti's poor performance only started to get government attention because the effects of it started to reach MPs

Equally, Grand Central's ongoing poor performance was described as "nothing exceptional and nothing I will get involved in" by a former MP who just by coincidence received an annual first class pass from them

But we digress

 

[Mogz]

Precisely my thought - especially where someone is comparing early 2000s bargain berths with today's fare structure.

The sad fact is that, given the capacity constraints and high demand on the sleeper, it is arguably underpriced right now.

So the options are to price off the demand (the UK way) or to have more coaches, more services, more options and longer trains (the continental way).

No prizes for guessing which option is most likely to be adopted here…

The UK way seems to be:

If there’s low demand- kill/ downgrade the service.

If there’s high demand- kill the demand with higher pricing or just pack more people in to the same space.

 

[Krokodil]

Of course, the cynic in me says that it is mostly subsidised for the benefit of MPs who use it to travel between London and constituencies on expenses. (they don't care how much it costs, but it must keep running)

Would you prefer it if they lived full time in London and never showed their face in their constituency? The Cornish sleeper is probably a similar case.

Russia and the USSR before it used to run a number of sleepers to European capitals. It provided a means of transport for diplomatic staff.

So the options are to price off the demand (the UK way) or to have more coaches, more services, more options and longer trains (the continental way).

No prizes for guessing which option is most likely to be adopted here…

The UK way seems to be:

If there’s low demand- kill/ downgrade the service.

If there’s high demand- kill the demand with higher pricing or just pack more people in to the same space.

There are two schools of thought on the sleeper. The first is that it has a wider benefit to Scotland so should be subsidised. The second is that it's a tourists' plaything and should pay its way. It should be possible to do both - the Caledonian Doubles and Club class accommodation should be run at a profit to cross-subsidise the classic sleeper and the seats.

 

[PG]

Of course, the cynic in me says that it is mostly subsidised for the benefit of MPs who use it to travel between London and constituencies on expenses. (they don't care how much it costs, but it must keep running)

These days though why would the Scottish government view that as a good use of funds since it doesn't benefit  MSPs?

 

[swaldman]

Would you prefer it if they lived full time in London and never showed their face in their constituency? The Cornish sleeper is probably a similar case.

Of course not. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Krokodil]

Of course not. Don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't put any words in your mouth. I asked a question.

 

[35B]

So the options are to price off the demand (the UK way) or to have more coaches, more services, more options and longer trains (the continental way).

No prizes for guessing which option is most likely to be adopted here…

The UK way seems to be:

If there’s low demand- kill/ downgrade the service.

If there’s high demand- kill the demand with higher pricing or just pack more people in to the same space.

No, my observation is supply & demand 101. Demand exceeds supply at the current price, so the price is less than the economic maximum. Given the constraints on the service - train length, fleet size, capacity - any decision to reduce fares for one market segment will almost certainly reduce total revenue, and therefore increase the subsidy requirement.

I'd love the sleeper market to grow. Unfortunately, the reality is that it is highly constrained and there is very limited scope for expansion without dramatic increases in cost, which need to come from somewhere. That leaves some very difficult choices to be made.

 

[miami]

No, my observation is supply & demand 101. Demand exceeds supply at the current price

There are two solutions to that. Either increase price to reduce demand, or increase supply.

is there a signifiant increase in cost for each extra car added? Especially if they were couchette cars? An extra attendant at say £300 per trip, or £30 a cabin with one attendent per car. Some extra fuel, but surely not a great deal. Setting aside rolling stock lease costs that seems a no brainer,

I guess the larger problem is the platform space at Euston. You can't add 6 couchettes to the Highland sleeper, the platform isn't long enough.

For rolling stock cost -- trains carriages are very expensive. A sleeper carriage is used for about 60 hours a week, or about 1/3rd of the time. I guess trains are just too quick / UK too small and dense for many 18 hour journeys.

Are European couchettes used for separate day services?

 

[SteveM70]

These days though why would the Scottish government view that as a good use of funds since it doesn't benefit  MSPs?

Scotland still returns MPs to Westminster and there are a lot of non-devolved issues dealt with there - of course it's in Scotland's interests to be properly represented there

 

[Bald Rick]

That may be so, but because of the nature of it a cancellation is going to be catastrophic to the passenger's trip rather than merely a bit annoying.

Agreed, although note that a ‘cancellation’ might be as little as missing one booked stop.

is there a signifiant increase in cost for each extra car added?

Yes, in this case.

 

[BRX]

Ah, I see. My memory of the Mk3s was that the "first class" compartments were the same with the top bunk folded up... but I guess they were sold as solo cabins on the booking system, and hence would never have two in them.

Your memory is correct I think. Although designed so that the top bunk could be up or down, in practice it didn't work to do this on the fly so the cabins set up as solo couldn't be used by two people.

On the new stock it's kind of the reverse: they always have the top bunk down, so if you are a solo traveller you just have a room with an empty bed in it. But that room can always be sold to a pair of travellers.

As far as I know the same policy could have been adopted on the Mk3s (increasing their sellable capacity), but it wasn't.

So, this change in policy, combined with lower-capacity stock, results in a similar-ish number of beds being sellable each night.

 

[alistairlees]

Your memory is correct I think. Although designed so that the top bunk could be up or down, in practice it didn't work to do this on the fly so the cabins set up as solo couldn't be used by two people.

On the new stock it's kind of the reverse: they always have the top bunk down, so if you are a solo traveller you just have a room with an empty bed in it. But that room can always be sold to a pair of travellers.

As far as I know the same policy could have been adopted on the Mk3s (increasing their sellable capacity), but it wasn't.

So, this change in policy, combined with lower-capacity stock, results in a similar-ish number of beds being sellable each night.

On the Mk3s the upper bunk could not be folded up without the mattress / bedding being removed and stored elsewhere. So they ran permanently up or down.

The Mk5s are designed to fold the upper bunk up with the mattress / bedding still present, but operationally this proved difficult to do (resevations, cleaning, last minute swaps, storage etc. etc.)

 

[signed]

and there is very limited scope for expansion without dramatic increases in cost, which need to come from somewhere.

Wouldn't there be some economies of scale gained in adding capacity to cater to demand? Either with a whole new service, or, if technically feasible, added coaches

 

[alistairlees]

Wouldn't there be some economies of scale gained in adding capacity to cater to demand? Either with a whole new service, or, if technically feasible, added coaches

No

 

[norbitonflyer]

It may not be the ideal incentive system, but we should probably be grateful for the fact that 600+ MPs have to commute to London from all corners of the country at least twice a week, the vast majority by train. I can say with some confidence that Avanti's poor performance only started to get government attention because the effects of it started to reach MPs.

Not all MPs have to commute from the furthest reaches of the country though. 75 of them represent London constituencies and many more are within daily commuting distance from Westminster.
There are only 57 MPs representing the whole of Scotland, and eighteen in Devon and Cornwall, and I doubt that all of them would find the Sleeper convenient.

 

[SteveM70]

Wouldn't there be some economies of scale gained in adding capacity to cater to demand? Either with a whole new service, or, if technically feasible, added coaches

Possibly very slightly.

There was a FOI request last year - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/amount_of_staff_that_caledonian - that states they employed 244 people at the time, and looking at the job titles I'd say less than 20 wouldn't need to increase if the service was expanded. Yes, they'd be on average higher paid roles maybe, but its 10% of the CS headcount (and less of the overall when you consider the subcontracted staff they use).

In the context of the level of subsidy, I'd say any economy of scale's impact on the overall bottom line would be negligible

 

[Scotrail84]

unreliability?

arrivals at all stations within 15 minutes is 92% (comparable to other long distance operators), within 30 minutes is 98% (better than all other long distance operators). Cancellations are roughly a third of that of long distance operators.

They only run 4 trains a night, if one runs mega late it can screw yp the other services big time.

 

[JamieL]

It is not just MPs but any business traveller who lives in the North and works in London. The CS is exceptionally time efficient. Get on a train late on a Sunday (which gives the full weekend with the family) and arrive in ample time for a morning start on the Monday. Equally return home Thursday night and be home ready to WFH on the Friday morning.