Caledonian Sleeper

[JamieL]

Head (or feet) first travel would mean the cabins would need to completely reconfigured. It would mean cabins both sides of the corridor (meaning only one window accessible for viewing the scenery. Where would the ensuite go? The cabin window would be at your back.when using the bed as a chair. Etc

 

[BRX]

Head (or feet) first travel would mean the cabins would need to completely reconfigured. It would mean cabins both sides of the corridor (meaning only one window accessible for viewing the scenery. Where would the ensuite go? The cabin window would be at your back.when using the bed as a chair. Etc

No-one is suggesting cabins should be reconfigured. The system I shared details of is proposing something like the "pods" once considered for the CS. Something higher density than cabins but more comfortable than regular seats. A reason given at the time for that concept not being pursued is that it would be unsafe to have people lying parallel with the direction of travel.

 

[JamieL]

No-one is suggesting cabins should be reconfigured. The system I shared details of is proposing something like the "pods" once considered for the CS. Something higher density than cabins but more comfortable than regular seats. A reason given at the time for that concept not being pursued is that it would be unsafe to have people lying parallel with the direction of travel.

Understood. Could be an option for the Lowlander I suppose. But for the Highlander it would mean cabin capacity would probably have to be reduced. The train needs a buffer car and a seated carriage (for day pessengers). Infrastructure limits the length of the train in the North (as far as I know). So that would mean the pod coach would be at the expense of proper beds in proper cabins.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Understood. Could be an option for the Lowlander I suppose. But for the Highlander it would mean cabin capacity would probably have to be reduced. The train needs a buffer car and a seated carriage (for day pessengers). Infrastructure limits the length of the train in the North (as far as I know). So that would mean the pod coach would be at the expense of proper beds in proper cabins.

My understanding from the discussions in the past was that this was talked about in relation to an ADDITIONAL but cheaper sleeper catering for those who cannot afford the Caledonian Sleeper and are happy to pay for a simpler more basic offering.

 

[BRX]

Understood. Could be an option for the Lowlander I suppose. But for the Highlander it would mean cabin capacity would probably have to be reduced. The train needs a buffer car and a seated carriage (for day pessengers). Infrastructure limits the length of the train in the North (as far as I know). So that would mean the pod coach would be at the expense of proper beds in proper cabins.

Yup a "pod" coach would have to be at the expense of a sleeper coach but would provide more capacity overall and more price points to offer.
Of course it all depends on the intended purpose of the service. But these discussions have been done to death before!

 

[Bald Rick]

My understanding from the discussions in the past was that this was talked about in relation to an ADDITIONAL but cheaper sleeper catering for those who cannot afford the Caledonian Sleeper and are happy to pay for a simpler more basic offering.

But not much cheaper, if at all.

 

[RGM654]

I seem to recall sleeping coaches in Australia having longitudinal cabins both sides of a central corridor.

 

[Flying Snail]

I seem to recall sleeping coaches in Australia having longitudinal cabins both sides of a central corridor.

As do Amtrak and probably numerous others, there was even a style of lie-flat seats for planes with some facing backwards.

This supposed safety issue is either entirely fictitious or yet another example of British railways ability to manufacture safety BS that nobody else anywhere sees a problem with.

The bigger issue with this accommodation is that while it provides more capacity than sleeper cabins the difference is small, at most 30 pods versus 20+ beds per coach.

 

[styles]

I'd prefer a 6-berth tiered arrangement really - I reckon there's a sizeable market for people who want to travel London to Scotland overnight, happy to pay extra for the ability to lie down to sleep in a basic bed in a shared cabin, but can't afford the current CS bed offerings. Small shelf/caddy, plug socket/USB socket and night light for each bed.

Not dissimilar to what you'd get travelling AC3 in India, but with a door instead of a curtain, and without someone coming past every 30 minutes selling food, snacks, or chai.

It won't happen on the current Caledonian Sleeper arrangement though - it's a premium offering and I get the impression they'd do away with the seated coach if they could get away with it.

 

[Mainliner]

Wasn’t one of the issues on the CS the reversal of direction of travel of some coaches during the journey, e.g. at Carstairs on the Lowlander? Does this proposal address that?

 

[BRX]

Wasn’t one of the issues on the CS the reversal of direction of travel of some coaches during the journey, e.g. at Carstairs on the Lowlander? Does this proposal address that?

It implies it's a non-issue, because it has people lying in both directions and says that they comply with all relevant UK safety requirements.

 

[Indigo Soup]

But not much cheaper, if at all.

If there's a subsidised sleeper service (and there is), it's not unreasonable to suggest that the subsidy should be used for the benefit of as many ordinary people as possible, rather than a few rich tourists.

The bigger issue with this accommodation is that while it provides more capacity than sleeper cabins the difference is small, at most 30 pods versus 20+ beds per coach.

In principle, this kind of arrangement lets you sell 30 berths to 30 solo travellers. The withdrawal of shared occupancy in two-berth compartments, and the reduction in the number of compartments in a sleeping car, means that a Mark 5 vehicle can only accommodate ten solo travellers.

If you can substitute one of these things for a single Mark 5 sleeping car, your capacity increases by a minimum of ten single berths, and potentially twenty depending on how many compartments are sold as single occupancy.

I'd prefer a 6-berth tiered arrangement really - I reckon there's a sizeable market for people who want to travel London to Scotland overnight, happy to pay extra for the ability to lie down to sleep in a basic bed in a shared cabin, but can't afford the current CS bed offerings. Small shelf/caddy, plug socket/USB socket and night light for each bed.

Won't fit in the UK loading gauge unless you go for submarine berths (and possibly not even then) which would be totally unacceptable for paying customers. Four-berth couchettes get you 32 or 36 passengers per sleeping car.

 

[paul1609]

If there's a subsidised sleeper service (and there is), it's not unreasonable to suggest that the subsidy should be used for the benefit of as many ordinary people as possible, rather than a few rich tourists.

Isnt every rail service in Scotland subsidised? I wouldnt be surprised to find that once you include the infrastructure costs the Caledonian Sleeper actually doesnt have the highest subsidy per passenger mile.

 

[Bald Rick]

If there's a subsidised sleeper service (and there is), it's not unreasonable to suggest that the subsidy should be used for the benefit of as many ordinary people as possible, rather than a few rich tourists.

Surely, as with all Governement subsidy, it should be designed to give the most benefit to people, regardless of whether they are ordinary, rich, Scottish, or otherwise?

 

[enginedin]

I reckon there's a sizeable market for people who want to travel London to Scotland overnight

I've always thought this, and I was surprised that the megabus sleeper coach failed so quickly given it got pretty good reviews (even from the upper middle-class media: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/...leeper-service-seven-things-you-need-to-know/)

 

[styles]

I've always thought this, and I was surprised that the megabus sleeper coach failed so quickly given it got pretty good reviews (even from the upper middle-class media: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/...leeper-service-seven-things-you-need-to-know/)

Yes I never actually got a chance to try this - the first time I went to book it I discovered it had stopped running!

I wonder if it was low awareness, a bit like MegaTrain back in the EMT days?

The other thing is that they have the berths arranged 2 next to each other on the bottom, one suspended above. The 2 together on the bottom were right next to each other, as in, like you'd pushed 2 single beds together - if you've travelling solo, you don't want to be sleeping next to somebody else with no gap in between, even if you top-and-tail really.

 

[Deepgreen]

I am pretty sure I would sleep better on a longitudinal axis - the accelerations involved are more natural somehow, possibly related to the subconscious familiarity of seated travel alignment.

 

[sh24]

There is almost no market for people to share accommodation outside of real budget travellers. People simply don't want to.

 

[bleeder4]

There is almost no market for people to share accommodation outside of real budget travellers. People simply don't want to.

Yet people share cabins with strangers on continental sleeper trains, it's perfectly normal. For some reason it's only here in the UK that there is an aversion to sharing with strangers.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I seem to recall sleeping coaches in Australia having longitudinal cabins both sides of a central corridor.

Certainly used to in the USA - see the sleeping car scene in "Some Like it Hot" (1959)

some like it hot sleeping car scene - Search Videos

www.bing.com

 

[irp]

I am pretty sure I would sleep better on a longitudinal axis - the accelerations involved are more natural somehow, possibly related to the subconscious familiarity of seated travel alignment.

That's certainly my experience having taken the Cally Sleeper, The Cornish Sleeper (Both having beds at 90 degrees to the direction of travel), As compared to the Sleeper Services in Australia and Canada that offer longitudinal beds

 

[Indigo Soup]

Surely, as with all Governement subsidy, it should be designed to give the most benefit to people, regardless of whether they are ordinary, rich, Scottish, or otherwise?

One might reasonably argue that thirty people is more than ten people, and therefore there's a greater benefit in subsidising the travel of twenty additional people rather than allowing the ten who'd do so anyway to enjoy more comfort.

I am pretty sure I would sleep better on a longitudinal axis - the accelerations involved are more natural somehow, possibly related to the subconscious familiarity of seated travel alignment.

There is a strong preference for longitudinal beds on ships for precisely this reason. On ships that are expected to operate in heavy seas, it's almost mandatory.

 

[sh24]

Yet people share cabins with strangers on continental sleeper trains, it's perfectly normal. For some reason it's only here in the UK that there is an aversion to sharing with strangers.

Do they really though My impression from Railjet is that the demand primarily for solo cabins and private spaces, not for a dorm on wheels.

 

[Peter Sarf]

But not much cheaper, if at all.

It would be lacking the subsidy I assume so it would be a difficult proposition before you ever worry about potential demand.

Some might argue that a subsidy should also apply to a budget couchette service.
BUT my feeling is that the subsidy is to attract lucrative tourists and also to enable MPs to operate until late in the evening in Westminster.

I'd prefer a 6-berth tiered arrangement really - I reckon there's a sizeable market for people who want to travel London to Scotland overnight, happy to pay extra for the ability to lie down to sleep in a basic bed in a shared cabin, but can't afford the current CS bed offerings. Small shelf/caddy, plug socket/USB socket and night light for each bed.

Not dissimilar to what you'd get travelling AC3 in India, but with a door instead of a curtain, and without someone coming past every 30 minutes selling food, snacks, or chai.

It won't happen on the current Caledonian Sleeper arrangement though - it's a premium offering and I get the impression they'd do away with the seated coach if they could get away with it.

I still hanker for a cheap sleeper train to Scotland. I would expect it to be a separate overnight service NOT a coach replacing a coach in the existing sleeper. But I really wonder if the market is there.

Yes I never actually got a chance to try this - the first time I went to book it I discovered it had stopped running!

I wonder if it was low awareness, a bit like MegaTrain back in the EMT days?

Perhaps you never even knew of the SWR MegaTrain ?. I managed to book that for Waterloo to/from Southampton (June 2012) and Bournemouth (circa 2012) trips at £1 each way for two people.

I tried to sample the EMT offering but the web site seemed to be steering me to Megabus wherever possible.

The sleeper coach looked potentially good. I know because I used it during the day on its services London to and from Cardiff called MegaBus Gold. They were in-between night services to maximise use of the stock (coach) I suppose. The beds folded away leaving seats (facing across a table iirc). So why did I never try to use it overnight to Scotland.......

 

[Bald Rick]

One might reasonably argue that thirty people is more than ten people, and therefore there's a greater benefit in subsidising the travel of twenty additional people rather than allowing the ten who'd do so anyway to enjoy more comfort.

One might also reasonably argue that as Government already subsidises the travel of thousands of daily passengers between Scotland and Euston every day, that the sleeper should be directed to minimise subsidy overall.

Put another way, no point spending more cash to attract more people to the sleeper who are going to be paying less for their tickets if it more leaves empty seats on Avanti that are already paid for.

 

[mcmad]

One might also reasonably argue that as Government already subsidises the travel of thousands of daily passengers between Scotland and Euston every day, that the sleeper should be directed to minimise subsidy overall.

Put another way, no point spending more more to attracting more people to the sleeper who are going to be paying less for their tickets if it more leaves empty seats on Avanti that are already paid for.

Although since the sleeper is subsidised by the Scottish Government and Avanti by Westminster I wouldn't put it past the current Scottish Government to do just that.

 

[styles]

Do they really though My impression from Railjet is that the demand primarily for solo cabins and private spaces, not for a dorm on wheels.

Opposite of my experience.

Perhaps you never even knew of the SWR MegaTrain ?. I managed to book that for Waterloo to/from Southampton (June 2012) and Bournemouth (circa 2012) trips at £1 each way for two people.

I tried to sample the EMT offering but the web site seemed to be steering me to Megabus wherever possible.

The sleeper coach looked potentially good. I know because I used it during the day on its services London to and from Cardiff called MegaBus Gold. They were in-between night services to maximise use of the stock (coach) I suppose. The beds folded away leaving seats (facing across a table iirc). So why did I never try to use it overnight to Scotland.......

I became aware of the SWT MegaTrain offering after it ended!

Bearing in mind that the times I was looking at MegaBus and the cheapest train tickets, I was a student willing to make all sorts of compromises to get a cheap fare. There would have been 100x as many students who would've googled for train tickets, ended up on Thetrainline website, and been none-the-wiser (not to mention Thetrainline didn't offer split tickets back then).

I reckon you could fill a whole train London<->Scotland with 4-berth sleeper compartments and a buffet car and sell out.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Opposite of my experience.


I became aware of the SWT MegaTrain offering after it ended!

Bearing in mind that the times I was looking at MegaBus and the cheapest train tickets, I was a student willing to make all sorts of compromises to get a cheap fare. There would have been 100x as many students who would've googled for train tickets, ended up on Thetrainline website, and been none-the-wiser (not to mention Thetrainline didn't offer split tickets back then).

I reckon you could fill a whole train London<->Scotland with 4-berth sleeper compartments and a buffet car and sell out.

Rolling back to the 1980s (and 1990s maybe) there were all sorts of overnight seated train services - "NightRider" rings a bell as a name. I think what did for them was
Speeding up of day trains,
The advent of budget airlines and
A desire to enable more overnight engineering work to be convenient,

 

[Indigo Soup]

One might also reasonably argue that as Government already subsidises the travel of thousands of daily passengers between Scotland and Euston every day, that the sleeper should be directed to minimise subsidy overall.

If the number of carriages remains the same, which is my assumption, the subsidy would largely remain the same. From your perspective, the desire is therefore to get more revenue from thirty lie-flat seats than from ten compartments. A lie-flat bed probably ought to be more expensive than a conventional seat, but definitely cheaper than a sole-occupancy compartment. Obviously dynamic pricing complicates matters. But in big handfuls, we can probably establish the bands that would be revenue neutral on the busiest and the quietest nights.

The minimum income (i.e. all single occupancy at the lowest price) from a ten-compartment sleeper is £1,790. If you can fill thirty lie-flat beds at a minimum fare of £59.67, you're up on the deal. The maximum income on the same basis is £4,540, suggesting that the upper bound price for revenue-neutrality is probably £151.34 or thereabouts.

That gives us a reasonable indication of where the revenue-neutral price range lies. It's not obviously ridiculous. In fact, I suspect the fares could be somewhat higher, since the upper bound undercuts the Anytime Single from Inverness to London.

If there were a serious possibility of doing something along these lines, then the fares would of course be worked up in more detail, along with an assessment of how many sleeping cars should be replaced with (well, reconfigured as) lie-flat seat cars, and whether or not people in the lie-flat seats should be permitted to use the lounge car.

Since there's no such possibility, this is of course all entirely academic.

Put another way, no point spending more cash to attract more people to the sleeper who are going to be paying less for their tickets if it more leaves empty seats on Avanti that are already paid for.

It's certainly possible that increased sleeper capacity might cannibalise day trains on the Lowland routes, though the level of competition (Avanti, LNER, Lumo, and air travel) does suggest that an extra 40 people a day in each direction would be a drop in the bucket to other providers.

On the Highland routes, the day trains require loss of a full day to travel (Inverness, Aberdeen) or aren't at all credible (Fort William), and additional, affordable capacity on the sleeper would be invaluable.

If, on the other hand, the Scottish Government has formed a view that the role of the sleepers is to facilitate rich tourists coming to Scotland to spend lots of money on whisky and shortbread, well, they're probably going the right way about it. That doesn't mean that the people of the Highlands have to like it.

 

[tumbledown]

Rolling back to the 1980s (and 1990s maybe) there were all sorts of overnight seated train services

Ah, 7-day All Line Rover, waking up at Fishguard Harbour, the smell of some squaddie's vomit. The romance of train travel.