Caledonian Sleeper

[popeter45]

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.

Yea feel it would have been much cheaper to procure a bunch of class 800's in 5 and 9 car configurations, would have to split lowlander into 2 but would also open up what platforms they could use at Euston so could have worked out, do feel one reason they went like for like was to ease transition to new sets as could do any day not just at timetable change

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Cheers.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Yea feel it would have been much cheaper to procure a bunch of class 800's in 5 and 9 car configurations, would have to split lowlander into 2 but would also open up what platforms they could use at Euston so could have worked out, do feel one reason they went like for like was to ease transition to new sets as could do any day not just at timetable change

Well yes, with hindsight, if the new CAF sleepers had come in on a new timetable day it would have been even worse an introduction that it was/is.

But I do think an opportunity was lost. Bi-modes with the engines in a separate body (like the 755s) would have been quiet enough. And lets not forget the original spec out of the IEP was for IETs without small engines spread all along the units but bigger engines in the end coaches. So the end coaches could have been half engine and half seated/kitchen. But I do like loco hauled.

The 'units' we now have don't seem to be as flexible as loco hauled anyway !.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

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...

But if you have that how do you vary the formations according to the seasons on the Highlander where individual coaches are more flexible.

Outside high season it’s 3 sleepers to Fort William and 3 to Aberdeen in high season it’s 4 sleepers to Fort William and 2 to Aberdeen.

That has worked well in recent years and tailors capacity to demand.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Cheers.

Found it on the Transport Scotland website in the form of a .pdf from Rail Magazine. Unfortunately I can't quote from it in that format!

https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/27800/mugridge-peter.pdf

There was a bit of discussion on this thread at the time, but it's spread across multiple posts; the link should go to the first post in which the subject came up, which I have quoted below:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...il-2014-consultation.55413/page-4#post-879148

Funnily enough, about two months ago I wrote a full length article ( which I submitted to one of the railway magazines ) suggesting a Sleeper Multiple Unit, the difference is mine is bi mode with a diesel at one end ( luggage space at that end ) and electric at the other end ( seated accomodation in that end ) with three Sleeper cars in between, sized so that four of these five car sets would occupy the same length as a loco + 16 Caledonian rake. No power axles under the sleeping accomodation in it either.

But if you have that how do you vary the formations according to the seasons on the Highlander where individual coaches are more flexible.

Outside high season it’s 3 sleepers to Fort William and 3 to Aberdeen in high season it’s 4 sleepers to Fort William and 2 to Aberdeen.

By simply sending a different number of units to each destination at the Edinburgh split.



Bear in mind, though, that it is now irrelevant that those three senior CS people I mentioned earlier told me they wished TS had chosen my suggestion; they didn't so we are now stuck with the current operation methods and the resulting pitfalls that have led to the present discussion on this thread in the first place.

We should therefore not get side-tracked into discussing the suggestion again, instead we should merely note that it was made and that for whatever reason the politicians decided on a straight "like for like" replacement.

 

[BRX]

Effectively each 'multiple unit' has a diesel loco in it. So 1/5 of every train, however long, is lost as loco, and 1/5 is seats. And you don't get any lounge cars.

 

[BRX]

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.

Sure.
But in the discussion of what an acceptable level of customer service is, how much money Serco are losing, or how much more it would cost them to provide it, isn't relevant. What is relevant is the level of service that is stated in the franchise agreement - that's what they said they'd provide. And the whole point of their bid was to do with the 'hotel on wheels' concept - to raise it above a functional service train. Indeed wasn't the idea that this would decrease the level of subsidy required!

 

[Dr Hoo]

Sure.
But in the discussion of what an acceptable level of customer service is, how much money Serco are losing, or how much more it would cost them to provide it, isn't relevant. What is relevant is the level of service that is stated in the franchise agreement - that's what they said they'd provide. And the whole point of their bid was to do with the 'hotel on wheels' concept - to raise it above a functional service train. Indeed wasn't the idea that this would decrease the level of subsidy required!

Apologies if it has already been done earlier in the thread but could anyone post the relevant sections of the franchise agreement in relation to the committed ‘hotel on wheels’ bit? Presumably this includes things like the double beds, en suites, refreshment offer, alternative transport, refunds and so forth.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Effectively each 'multiple unit' has a diesel loco in it. So 1/5 of every train, however long, is lost as loco, and 1/5 is seats. And you don't get any lounge cars.

Yeah, I don't think I'd have gone for "mini sets", I'd have gone for sets about half the length of a present set and including a lounge car. I'd also put the diesels under the floor of the lounge and seated cars.

 

[BRX]

The thing is that most of the problems with the new stock seem to be related to things that wouldn't necessarily be solved with a MU solution. Plumbing and so forth. Issues with coupling - and the fact that apparently it's not possible to make a properly automatic coupling because of the extra power requirements. Wouldn't these things also have been present with a MU arrangement?

And would you need a larger quantity of "spare" stock? At the moment if there's a problem with a loco (or an individual coach) then just that one can be swapped out. Presumably an engine failure on an MU would mean the whole thing being taken out of service until it was fixed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The thing is that most of the problems with the new stock seem to be related to things that wouldn't necessarily be solved with a MU solution. Plumbing and so forth. Issues with coupling - and the fact that apparently it's not possible to make a properly automatic coupling because of the extra power requirements. Wouldn't these things also have been present with a MU arrangement?

The autocoupler issue wouldn't apply to a MU arrangement as each MU would have its own pantograph/diesel engines to generate hotel power.

 

[alistairlees]

Agreed. The fact of the matter is £150m has just been spent on new rolling stock. So it’s going to be made to work, not replaced by multiple units or completely reconfigured with couchettes or something. At least not for a long time anyway.

Maybe all the speculative stuff should go in a thread in the speculative section, then it would be much easier to see all the normal day to day stuff like operations, trip reports etc that does belong in this thread.

 

[hwl]

The autocoupler issue wouldn't apply to a MU arrangement as each MU would have its own pantograph/diesel engines to generate hotel power.

The aurocouplers on the sleeper don't handle power or comms at the moment. The coupling issues are somewhat down to cheap connector components used by CAF for manual connection at the moment. (e.g. 7 coach wheel flat incident!)

 

[TimboM]

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.

The Mk5s ARE effectively fixed formation loco-hauled (E)MUs [in the TCMS' brain at least...] - that's half the problem with them.

Sure.
But in the discussion of what an acceptable level of customer service is, how much money Serco are losing, or how much more it would cost them to provide it, isn't relevant. What is relevant is the level of service that is stated in the franchise agreement - that's what they said they'd provide. And the whole point of their bid was to do with the 'hotel on wheels' concept - to raise it above a functional service train. Indeed wasn't the idea that this would decrease the level of subsidy required!

The Franchise Agreement has clearly defined service deliverables both in terms of what's provided on board, at stations and targets for punctuality etc. There are penalties for not achieving these. Serco have spent (and continue to spend) a lot of money attempting to meet these and have no doubt suffered financial penalties on top of this when the requirements still haven't been met despite the additional outlay (the delayed stock being the most obvious).

The level of service is stated in the Franchise Agreement and defined by objective requirements and deliverables, not fluffy marketing spin or what any given punter deems to be "acceptable". Those requirements are either met; or not met and the franchisee suffers the resulting financial (and PR) consequences.

How much the Sleeper costs to run, particularly when the answer is "lots", is very relevant to what level of service there is - if a business/franchise is losing millions, those funding it (Serco/Transport Scotland) will not pay any more than necessary to meet (or attempt to meet) their contractual requirements.

 

[BRX]

We were talking about what level of service should be deemed 'acceptable' though. In my opinion what's acceptable is what is defined in the franchise agreement. I don't think we disagree about that.

 

[williamn]

Just booked my first trip on the new sleeper to Aberdeen. Two classic rooms with single occupancy - £128 for one single (Senior Railcard) and £195 for the other single. Not cheap! Bit miffed to read after I book (my fault I admit) that this no longer includes lounge access and that the spare bed won't be folded up (always used to be, and they still do on the Night Riviera). We'll see what its like come May!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just booked my first trip on the new sleeper to Aberdeen. Two classic rooms with single occupancy - £128 for one single (Senior Railcard) and £195 for the other single. Not cheap! Bit miffed to read after I book (my fault I admit) that this no longer includes lounge access and that the spare bed won't be folded up (always used to be, and they still do on the Night Riviera). We'll see what its like come May!

The lounge access rules are the same as they always were - "First Class" (i.e. Club rooms) comes first but if there's room you can go in.

 

[MrEd]

Just booked my first trip on the new sleeper to Aberdeen. Two classic rooms with single occupancy - £128 for one single (Senior Railcard) and £195 for the other single. Not cheap! Bit miffed to read after I book (my fault I admit) that this no longer includes lounge access and that the spare bed won't be folded up (always used to be, and they still do on the Night Riviera). We'll see what its like come May!

By lounge access, do you mean access to the lounge car on the train? If you’re in a classic room, you can still use the lounge car in the evenings and mornings if space is available. Those in club rooms ostensibly get priority, but in practice, it’s generally a policy of first come first served, at least in the evenings, as there’s no way at present to reserve a table. Those with first class tickets should be aware of this too- don’t (from my experience) generally expect a reserved table or first choice of tables in the evenings, unless the train is fully booked and the team leader has taken some action to manage demand in the lounge (some do, many will not and will keep it as a free-for-all- the Aberdeen crews tend to be a pretty laid-back bunch so tend to leave it as a free-for-all). In the mornings, you are free to sit at any space which has not been laid up for breakfast for a first class passenger (if you’re first class you can book breakfast in the lounge; if you’re in a classic room the staff will bring your breakfast to your room but you’re welcome to take it along to the lounge car and eat it at one of the bar stools or a spare table if there are any free). The only passengers not allowed to use the lounge car at any point are those in the seated coach. In practice it’s pretty rare for access to the lounge car to be restricted to first class, but it may be a possibility if the train is very busy (e.g. on a Friday night northbound in the height of summer) and the team leader feels that this is necessary to avoid massive waiting lists for tables. I wouldn’t worry about this too much- as I say, it’s not an especially likely scenario. May is still slightly out of season, particularly if you’re travelling midweek, and the Aberdeen section is arguably the quietest of the Highlander portions, although you will share the lounge northbound out of Euston as far as Edinburgh with the Fort William-bound passengers. That said, I’ve never found the northbound Aberdeen/Fort William lounge to be anywhere near as packed as the Inverness one, which always tends to fill up very quickly. I’m fairly sure that you’ll be fine!

 

[RLBH]

That said, I’ve never found the northbound Aberdeen/Fort William lounge to be anywhere near as packed as the Inverness one, which always tends to fill up very quickly.

Is there anything preventing a northbound Inverness passenger walking through the train to use the Aberdeen/Fort William lounge if there's a serious mismatch in loadings?

 

[williamn]

Ah, I meant the station lounge, but nevertheless the above is very good to know! Seems like same kind of arrangement as on old stock re lounge car access.

 

[alistairlees]

Ah, I meant the station lounge, but nevertheless the above is very good to know! Seems like same kind of arrangement as on old stock re lounge car access.

You won't get into the Euston Avanti West Coast lounge unless you have Club or Caledonian Double rooms. The new Fullers pub ("The Signal Box", I think), next to the Avanti lounge, is much nicer anyway.
On the train it's now called the Club Car, rather than Lounge Car.

 

[Grumpy Git]

You won't get into the Euston Avanti West Coast lounge unless you have Club or Caledonian Double rooms. The new Fullers pub ("The Signal Box", I think), next to the Avanti lounge, is much nicer anyway.
On the train it's now called the Club Car, rather than Lounge Car.

Interestingly having used the Avanti lounge last week for the first time, I thought it was much tidier and generally more pleasant than when I last used it in October?

 

[alistairlees]

To be fair I haven’t used it since about October either. So it may well be nicer now.

 

[Grumpy Git]

To be fair I haven’t used it since about October either. So it may well be nicer now.

It doesn't appear to have been redecorated as far as I can tell, it just seemed better organised and tidyier with more staff?

 

[47271]

Is there anything preventing a northbound Inverness passenger walking through the train to use the Aberdeen/Fort William lounge if there's a serious mismatch in loadings?

It depends on who's in charge of the Aberdeen lounge. I've heard one or two strange stories of territorialism which are best not repeated here.

 

[MrEd]

On the train it's now called the Club Car, rather than Lounge Car.

Officially yes, but the breakfast cards that you fill in still refer to it as the ’lounge car’, and I’m still yet to come across a staff member who uses the term ’club car’. They all still, in practice, refer to it (in front of passengers) as the ’lounge car’, just as they still use ’first’ and ’standard’ instead of ’club’ and ’classic’. Old habits die hard I suppose. Even the new staff members who joined after Mk5 introduction seem to use the time-honoured phraseology from BR/Scotrail days rather than Serco’s new corporate terms.

 

[MrEd]

Is there anything preventing a northbound Inverness passenger walking through the train to use the Aberdeen/Fort William lounge if there's a serious mismatch in loadings?

This is against company policy, so far as I can see, and is generally not allowed- generally a lounge car host will ask for the passenger’s carriage and berth number, and if an Inverness passenger is in the Aberdeen/Fort William lounge, or vice versa, they will generally be politely directed to the lounge car in their own portion. Often passengers in coaches E, F and G (with the new stock, these are the Fort William coaches in the middle of the train) end up in the Inverness lounge car because this is actually closer than the Aberdeen one they’re supposed to use, and are redirected to the Aberdeen one.

Most team leaders are insistent that this policy is upheld- but @47271 I know exactly what you’re referring to- one or two team leaders from various crew bases are not especially pleasant when enforcing this rule (the woeful host manning the Inverness lounge back in November treated some stray folk from the Aberdeen/Fort William portions like they’d just escaped from a high security prison, whereas others just politely point the passengers in the direction of the correct lounge- the staff need to remember sometimes that not every passenger is familiar with the train or its layout). I believe that this has been policy after a notorious incident, perhaps in the early Scotrail era, whereby a young lass ended up in a lounge car in the wrong portion of the train, and after an extended drinking session, realised that she was beyond Edinburgh, the train had split and that she had no accommodation (and that her belongings were hurtling north towards Aberdeen without her...). The only time this rule is relaxed is when one of the two lounge cars on the northbound Highlander cannot provide a full service, due to either electrical faults or a staff shortage. When this happens, the staff are very careful to ensure that everyone returns to the correct portion well before Edinburgh.

In any case, the mismatch in loadings may not always be particularly great.

 

[BRX]

Officially yes, but the breakfast cards that you fill in still refer to it as the ’lounge car’, and I’m still yet to come across a staff member who uses the term ’club car’. They all still, in practice, refer to it (in front of passengers) as the ’lounge car’, just as they still use ’first’ and ’standard’ instead of ’club’ and ’classic’. Old habits die hard I suppose. Even the new staff members who joined after Mk5 introduction seem to use the time-honoured phraseology from BR/Scotrail days rather than Serco’s new corporate terms.

Good to hear!

 

[MrEd]

Good to hear!

I like to think that the pretentious terminology might soon be scrapped, and a spade called a spade by the management once again! The crews probably have no interest in using it because it seems pompous and prissy (and not at all ’railway’), whereas ’first’ and ’standard’ are universal across the industry, and the sleeper had a ’lounge car’ for nearly 30 years before anyone felt the need to rename it. I have also heard instances whereby passengers with ’club’ tickets were, at least initially, refused access to the Euston first class lounge because they didn’t say ’first class’ on them. While I hope that this has now been rectified with staff training, it does go to show the issues caused by non-standard terms (and why they’ll never endure).

 

[Grumpy Git]

I like to think that the pretentious terminology might soon be scrapped, and a spade called a spade by the management once again! The crews probably have no interest in using it because it seems pompous and prissy (and not at all ’railway’), whereas ’first’ and ’standard’ are universal across the industry, and the sleeper had a ’lounge car’ for nearly 30 years before anyone felt the need to rename it. I have also heard instances whereby passengers with ’club’ tickets were, at least initially, refused access to the Euston first class lounge because they didn’t say ’first class’ on them. While I hope that this has now been rectified with staff training, it does go to show the issues caused by non-standard terms (and why they’ll never endure).

These hipster terms get used / brought about because some PR firm has been paid £millions to come up with the guff. If the management spent money on tangible stuff that actually improves the service, they would do everyone a favour.