There's a demand for it, might not be a need. However, if the majority of people using it are tourists then the overall economic contribution might well be positive.
-
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
- Thread starter Essexman
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Why are daytime services being used by far higher numbers of people being cut? Lack of cash in the overall rail expenditure pot.
If you’ve not had a look at the ScotRail timetable consultation, it’s probably worth doing so. Here’s the document that lists the average subsidy per journey for daytime services in 2019/20 https://www.scotrail.co.uk/sites/de...rail_route_by_route_key_metric_assessment.pdf
Routes around Glasgow where the subsidy per journey is of the order of £2-3 are having severe frequency cuts, fast trains removed and many evening services reduced to 1TPH (some inner suburban stations are having their daytime frequency cut to 1TPH). Even Edinburgh to Aberdeen which loses 23 pence per journey and the normally profitable E&G route are being cut to save money.
I strongly suspect that if you ran a survey of rail users in Scotland on whether the public would prefer the sleeper to be retained or daytime services restored to something close to 2019 levels, the result would probably be overwhelming. I don’t want the sleeper cut either, but it’s very much a niche service used by a minuscule fraction of the people that use daytime trains.
If this sort of analysis hasn’t been done then it definitely needs to be: it’s the one thing (other than Scottish MPs using the service…) that could heavily tip the balance in favour of retention.
Only if the tourists wouldn't otherwise have travelled at all.
paul1609
Established Member
I would say that in terms of Fort William and the wider West Highland area thats probably quite significant. A lot of the American ( and Southwest London) families I've met in the lounge car over the years are travelling in to the area because of the train. A 5 hour trip up to Glasgow followed by an awkward cross city connection followed by another 4 hours on a dmu is probably not that an attractive option for most non enthusiast travellers. I think that for many other travellers "Scotland" is a couple of nights in Edinburgh and a day trip to Stirling/Trossachs/Loch Lomond.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
That is my belief (hope) - that the sleeper makes Scotland and particularly the Highlands a tempting prospect for a foray away from a base in London for tourists. Though I wish CS was instead aimed at cheap overnight travel......
norbitonflyer
Established Member
Not necessarily - when we were unable to use the sleeper because of the recent strike, the Scottish hotel industry got an extra two nights value out of us.
The existance of the sleeper incited me to have a go with weekend backpacking in the highlands year ago which is feasible from where I live in the SE. Unfortunately the prices keep going up and up and I can't justify spending hundreds of pounds on travel for a weekend over just taking a week's leave and travelling by day for a much lower price.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
That is how I feel. I would not consider the sleeper at that price.
But if I was an international tourist, who has spent a lot of money getting to the UK, I would be prepared to spend more money to make better use of my valuable holiday time. With the present poor standards said tourist would never do it again though !. But then said tourist might not be coming anywhere near the UK twice anyway as there are plenty of other destinations to visit !.
‘With the present poor standards…’. I’m deliberately drawing those words rather than aiming this at the poster.
I use the service, not enough to be a regular but when I choose to travel to the north of Scotland. I’m not international, not wealthy, probably I could be considered a tourist in that I spend money in Scotland but don’t live there. I don’t book journeys based on a hotel on wheels or luxury. I do it because for me it‘s an efficient and relatively green way to travel. I book early. I’ve had various positive journeys and a few less so, almost all of which have been because of external factors. When I’ve complained to CS, by email or phone not twitter, they’ve typically responded fairly and positively from my point of view. My last journey mid-July was very late starting but arrived only minutes late. Contact with staff was good. The berth was spotless and quiet. I slept well. As a vegan I expected nothing much for breakfast but was very pleasantly surprised (apart from the coffee, which was poor). Every journey I’ve had on the new stock has been better than that on the old. I read some comments here and they don’t match my experiences. Maybe not everyone has bad experiences? I’m not defending the way certain services are currently being handled, but those are not the only journeys (just as Inverness isn’t). Is it perfect? No, but that won’t stop me rebooking. No train I’ve ever been on has been perfect.
Well said. It is the nature of such things that more people will complain about where something didn’t meet expectations rather than praise when it did. Particularly so where what you are buying is expensive (relative to other options).
I was pretty impressed by my Mk5 experience. Possibly helped by me never having tried the Mk3 variation, so judgment not clouded.
I suspect the passengers that CS wants to attract won't have extensive prior sleeper experience.
fgwrich
Established Member
So was I - I would describe my journey as 75% happy with the Mk5 experience. The design of them is excellent, bright, comfortable and miles better than the refurbished Night Riviera. But, and my only negative, was having a berth over the bogie. Nothing for me can and will beat the ride quality of a BT10 under a Mk3. The knocking noises were a little disappointing, particularly over pointwork. Otherwise I would do it again, and would recommend the highland breakfast.
I couldn’t fault my trip in the Mk5 too much, I had a classic room in the accessible coach so it was a pretty comfy ride. Bed was fine. My downside was developing a dodgy stomach before the trip, the use of an en suite would have been preferable to making trips down the corridor!
My only experience with the old stock was the Mk2 seated, which looks like it would be preferable to the new seats.
My only experience with the old stock was the Mk2 seated, which looks like it would be preferable to the new seats.
philosopher
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 1,349
Fort William is tricky to get to from London without using the sleeper. Flying there would involve a long coach journey from Glasgow airport or two buses / coaches from Inverness airport and would probably eat up almost all the daytime. Driving can be done in a day, but I suspect many would want to stop somewhere overnight. The sleeper on the other hand allows almost a full day’s activities in both London and Fort William.
Last edited:
Or fly to Glasgow, hire car from there. Leave London after work, be in Ft Bill for last orders, easy (I’ve done it).
Doesn't the reduction in our carbon footprint require us to cut down or eliminate internal flights?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Also one of the things about CS is because it's interesting to people on here, every single piece of out of course running is reported, however minor. Not downplaying some of the recent issues which are bad, but the Forum would never get the same reports of the 0700 (time made up) Thameslink off Bedford or whatever.
Ideally, yes. Internal flights should become a relative rarity, but we're a ways away from that goal.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I was going to say this. Flying and car hire are certainly an effective way to get there, but surely those are the two modes we really want to heavily discourage - and not just one of them, both together?
I would like to see, in my lifetime (well, post HS2), a complete ban on London-Glasgow flights, which would rather stymie this idea.
Nope. Whilst I wholeheartedly agree we need to reduce carbon emissions, substantially, there is nothing that requires us to cut down or eliminate internal flights. People are free to choose how they travel.
In my experience, people who need to get to the Fort William area in the most time efficient way will fly to Glasgow and hire a car. Particularly if you need a car up there anyway. It’s often the cheapest way too.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I wouldn't say it requires us to do it but we absolutely should do it once HS2 opens fully.
Which is why we have to discourage or even ban this, because it is the most carbon-inefficient method to make a journey that is possible by other means, so bluntly people need to pack it in.
For those requiring a car for their journey around FW, hire on arrival at FW station of a small, ready-charged electric car is the solution we need.
We are drifting away from CS, but the transport people choosing to travel to FW need should determine what’s available, not their journeys be determined by what’s allowed to be available.
Or get an EV at Glasgow airport.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
You are going to get a nasty shock in the coming years. Flying when other viable modes exist has to stop, unless there is a more sustainable Jet-A1 replacement.
Or that, though that does not remove the flight, which is the worst bit.
HS2 to Glasgow thence day train to FW thence EV is probably the non-sleeper "preferred" option. (And it remains my view that HS2 will kill the Lowlander).
Trying to get back on topic, a Luton to Glasgow flight will cause 130kg CO2e per passenger. A hire car with ICE will use about 10 litres of fuel, so another 26kg CO2e.
I wonder how much CO2e the sleeper emits between Edinburgh and Fort William per passenger for its 60 or so passengers in high season? I’d bet there’s not much in it. And in low season, flying will be better.
I wonder how much CO2e the sleeper emits between Edinburgh and Fort William per passenger for its 60 or so passengers in high season? I’d bet there’s not much in it. And in low season, flying will be better.
The market-driven way to handle this would be a carbon tax. Figure out a value that includes the cost associated with emissions and add it to the price of each mode.
Well most of the journey is with electric traction, and NR purchases 100% nuclear energy for traction current. So probably now very much CO2 per passenger.
Between Edinburgh and Fort William they (currently) use diesel traction. Though, it does beg the question what will replace the 73s if the Sleeper survives long enough for the intermittent electrification post 2030.
Mordac
Established Member
Don't bother, the green zealots won't hear of this. I tried pushing this here myself. As ever, the urge to save humanity is a front for the urge to rule.
Just the leg from Edinburgh to Fort William will easily use 1000 litres of diesel, which will produce 2,600kg of CO2e. Add in some more for the shunting either end and the locos idling, and 3000kg CO2 is in the ‘probable’ range. It could be twice that. Not such a good CO2e per passenger number when there’s not many passengers on the sleeper.
Being really provocative, it would be better for the CO2 emissions for all Fort William sleeper passengers to be turfed off at Glasgow* and driven individually by car to their destination, one per car.
*Yes I know the Fort William portion splits at Edinburgh.
Last edited: