Could a Sleeper service run to Wick?

[deltic]

What I mean is:

1) The marginal cost of running a sleeper train to the far north from the central belt would be significant. At least £4m a year, probably more.

2) the number of people who want to travel from Inverness and souththereof to the far north is, frankly, small. Rather less than 200,000 single rail trips pa north of Dingwall, and only around half of those are north of Tain. This includes all trips ‘internal’ to the FNL.

3) Kirkwall airport handles around 150,000 people a year to and from the central belt, Inverness and Aberdeen, of which well over a third are to/from Aberdeen.

4) The Scrabster ferry carries about 150,000 passengers a year, which includes all those in cars and coaches. It’s reasonable to assume that a significant majority are in cars or coaches, and a good proportion of them are to and from Caithness rather than further south.

5) even if we pretend that all of the ferry passengers, and all of the rail passengers, are in the same market as the potential sleeper, it’s a total of around 400,000 single trips a year. Let’s be honest, it’s going to be rather less than half that that are travelling to Inverness and south thereof. But let’s say 200,000, being very optimistic.

6) the London to Scotland market has around 11 million passengers a year travelling by air and rail alone. Caledonian Sleper has a little less than 2 % of the market.

7) continuing with the optimistic mood, with a following wind, and rose tinted spectacles, let’s assume that a Far North Sleeper could capture double this share, ie 4% of the market. That would be 8,000 a year (about 12 each way per train). A cost of £500 each, at best.

8) even if every passenger was willing to pay double the standard single price from Glasgow to Wick (£71) it would need a subsidy of £350+ per single trip.

9) this compares to a single trip bus cost of £21.60 from Wick to Inverness, and typical air fares of around £120 from Kirkwall to Inverness, or £200 from Kirkwall or Wick to the central Belt.

So, on a whole set of (very) optimistic assumptions, we can see that such a service would require a very significant subsidy, with alternatives that are far cheaper, and generally quicker.

If the assumptions were set more realistically (smaller market, similar 2% share for sleeper) it is likely that the subsidy per passenger would be well north of £1000. And then we are in the territory of offering chauffeur driven Range Rovers as a more cost effective alternative. Hell, even private helicopters.

That is socio-economic reality.

Spot on

 

[Clansman]

At the end of the day, if there's regular demand for a sleeper service that will fill most nights, then there's a case for subsidising it. After all, as much as people like to pretend that rail should exist entirely for profit, at the end of the day it's a public service and thus if there is consistent high demand then there is a reasonable case for subsidy on that alone. Let's not forget that a profit driven rail industry would see Scotland with only 2 cities connected by rail and none else. So there is scope to be flexible with our assumptions re Far North sleeper.

Whether the Far North fits the bill I've no idea since I dont live there nor do I have any sufficient knowledge or experience to gauge the interest akin to that of fellow members. But for what it's worth - trialing such a service for a year or two would settle the whole debacle once and for all. Especially given the finances required would be a doddle compared to the likes of an Orkney tunnel or bridge to Northern Ireland.

What I mean is:

1) The marginal cost of running a sleeper train to the far north from the central belt would be significant. At least £4m a year, probably more.

2) the number of people who want to travel from Inverness and souththereof to the far north is, frankly, small. Rather less than 200,000 single rail trips pa north of Dingwall, and only around half of those are north of Tain. This includes all trips ‘internal’ to the FNL.

3) Kirkwall airport handles around 150,000 people a year to and from the central belt, Inverness and Aberdeen, of which well over a third are to/from Aberdeen.

4) The Scrabster ferry carries about 150,000 passengers a year, which includes all those in cars and coaches. It’s reasonable to assume that a significant majority are in cars or coaches, and a good proportion of them are to and from Caithness rather than further south.

5) even if we pretend that all of the ferry passengers, and all of the rail passengers, are in the same market as the potential sleeper, it’s a total of around 400,000 single trips a year. Let’s be honest, it’s going to be rather less than half that that are travelling to Inverness and south thereof. But let’s say 200,000, being very optimistic.

6) the London to Scotland market has around 11 million passengers a year travelling by air and rail alone. Caledonian Sleper has a little less than 2 % of the market.

7) continuing with the optimistic mood, with a following wind, and rose tinted spectacles, let’s assume that a Far North Sleeper could capture double this share, ie 4% of the market. That would be 8,000 a year (about 12 each way per train). A cost of £500 each, at best.

8) even if every passenger was willing to pay double the standard single price from Glasgow to Wick (£71) it would need a subsidy of £350+ per single trip.

9) this compares to a single trip bus cost of £21.60 from Wick to Inverness, and typical air fares of around £120 from Kirkwall to Inverness, or £200 from Kirkwall or Wick to the central Belt.

So, on a whole set of (very) optimistic assumptions, we can see that such a service would require a very significant subsidy, with alternatives that are far cheaper, and generally quicker.

If the assumptions were set more realistically (smaller market, similar 2% share for sleeper) it is likely that the subsidy per passenger would be well north of £1000. And then we are in the territory of offering chauffeur driven Range Rovers as a more cost effective alternative. Hell, even private helicopters.

That is socio-economic reality.

Absolutely correct

 

[berneyarms]

I disagree that it is more speculative. Thurso sleeper is a complete non starter. A road tunnel between Northern Ireland and Scotland would be a huge political statement, costing about £20bn and there is a market, although not sufficiently large for tolls to recoup cost. The biggest block would be the politics of England and Wales footing the bill if Scotland and / or Northern Ireland leave the UK.

I suspect that you’ll find that the biggest block to a bridge/tunnel between Northern Ireland and Scotland might be the massive amount of munitions dumped in Beaufort’s Dyke (over a million tonnes), along with nuclear waste too by the UK.

But I digress.

 

[Struner]

There's a different assesment here (for what it's worth, but then that goes for yours as well ) https://hitrans.org.uk/Documents/Midnight_Train_to_Georgemas_Presentation.pdf

 

[HSTEd]

An Orkney fixed crossing at least has the advantage that large amounts of public moneybare spent subsidising the Orkney-Mainland ferries.

 

[Bald Rick]

At the end of the day, if there's regular demand for a sleeper service that will fill most nights, then there's a case for subsidising it.

You could say the same by changing the words ‘sleeper’ and ‘nights’ for ‘helicopter’ and ‘several times a day’. Which I suspect would be rather cheaper and more beneficial!

 

[Struner]

& for how many years can you subsidise the Thurso sleeper on the money spent on this very short bridge, called London garden bridge?

 

[Bald Rick]

& for how many years can you subsidise the Thurso sleeper on the money spent on this very short bridge, called London garden bridge?

Well they have the same fate. Try walking across the garden bridge!

 

[Bald Rick]

There's a different assesment here (for what it's worth, but then that goes for yours as well ) https://hitrans.org.uk/Documents/Midnight_Train_to_Georgemas_Presentation.pdf

To be fair, that was more pessimistic on demand than I was.

 

[Struner]

An Orkney fixed crossing at least has the advantage that large amounts of public moneybare spent subsidising the Orkney-Mainland ferries.

There is a year round private (i.e. not subsidised ) ferry service, which is just as reliable. Just beef that up & abandon the Stromness-Scrabster route.

 

[Bald Rick]

An Orkney fixed crossing at least has the advantage that large amounts of public moneybare spent subsidising the Orkney-Mainland ferries.

But has the rather significant disadvantage of a spectacularly large amount of public money spent up front building it. It couldn’t possibly be less than £2bn.

 

[Glenn1969]

There are reasonable connections from the Kyle and Wick lines into the Caledonian Sleeper to Euston at Inverness. How many passengers use them?

I personally think the last train South from Wick is too early and may limit tourism because it restricts the opportunity for day trips on the line to a minimum

 

[Esker-pades]

There are reasonable connections from the Kyle and Wick lines into the Caledonian Sleeper to Euston at Inverness. How many passengers use them?

I personally think the last train South from Wick is too early and may limit tourism because it restricts the opportunity for day trips on the line to a minimum

That 16:00 ex-Wick is very useful for making connections to the 20:16 Glasgow service. I've made that change at Inverness quite often. I agree 4pm is too early for a last train of the day, but braking that established connection is not desirable.

 

[haggishunter]

I was referencing tunnel vs limited capacity of the ferry. Ferry capacity or rather lack of is becoming a major issue for various islands now.

 

[Bald Rick]

I was referencing tunnel vs limited capacity of the ferry. Ferry capacity or rather lack of is becoming a major issue for various islands now.

Buy a bigger ferry then. It won’t cost billions.

 

[Esker-pades]

Buy a bigger ferry then. It won’t cost billions.

The ports at some islands may not be able to accommodate larger ferries.

That doesn't mean they can't run more frequent ferries though.

 

[Bald Rick]

The ports at some islands may not be able to accommodate larger ferries.

That doesn't mean they can't run more frequent ferries though.

Fair point. Or build a bigger port. Still a lot cheaper than a long, deep, tunnel, for about 500 single person trips a day.

 

[haggishunter]

There is a year round private (i.e. not subsidised ) ferry service, which is just as reliable. Just beef that up & abandon the Stromness-Scrabster route.

The Scrabster Stromness route is considered a life-line service and the ferry was specified accordingly, that ferry is also built and fitted out so it can interchange with the Shetland vessels for annual servicing and any other service outages. The Pentalina on the other hand is an open deck catamaran, comparison in present capacity is 30 cars vs 100, and intended to sail the shorter less exposed route round the Eastern side of Hoy. The Shetland vessels that sail from Aberdeen have a capacity of 140 cars.

The Serco contract was due to expire in 2018 but the service is currently operating under an 18month extension. The current tendering process is under legal challenge from Pentland Ferries, who has a larger 90 car vessel under construction for the Gills Bay to St Margret's Hope crossing.

In rail terms of open access operators it would be difficult to see the equivalent of what Pentland Ferries is doing being permitted, it is clearly extractive of the existing Scrabster to Stormness service and the more traffic Pentland Ferries carries, the more revenue it extracts from Northlink and the greater the public subsidy then required to support the Shetland service. Should this sort of private cherry picking be permitted, it is not cost free to the Taxpayer just because it isn't directly subsidised.

Of course I can see the argument coming up that has before on this forum that the state shouldn't be involved in the ferries and if their not commercially viable they should be withdrawn, as I said the UK's enlightened attitude to rural communities and connectivity...

 

[Altnabreac]

How much traffic would there be? Having worked on a one mile tunnel that cost a billion that was heavily used that only just washed its face I will be intrigued how the economics of this one would work

Well for business cases of this nature the traffic is less relevant than the overall costs of building the tunnel versus the potential savings.

So you take your cost of tunnel building:
£XM

Then you have your potential income from the tunnel. Basically current ferry income with some extra traffic. Given the current political situation this income may have to be via shadow tolling.

This is going to be much less than the costs / interest. But this is the bit driven by usage. The other savings are less related to usage.

These are:
Cost of procuring ferry(s)
Cost of maintaining ferry terminals (x2)
Cost of operating (subsidising) ferry operations

The savings are very much driven by length of appraisal period with a 60 year appraisal obviously allowing things like 2 ferry replacements and more operating subsidy.

There may be reluctance from communities to see these jobs and services lost, particularly in cases involving smaller islands where the ferry crew can be a larger percentage of the workforce.

You then have to look at service provision. A fixed link instead of a ferry enables potential savings in area such as:
Flight subsidy / airport operation
School provision
Healthcare provision
Police / Fire / Ambulance
Local Authority services (bin lorry, social workers etc)

But once you start saying the business case for a fixed link is boosted by removing public services from an island then people are less likely to be supportive.

You also have the fact that basically a lot of the people there prefer living a relatively isolated life and may not view better transport links as a good thing.

So basically you can make a financial case for fixed link provision and you can make a social / political case for fixed link provision but it’s tricky to do both at once.

 

[BRX]

What I mean is:

1) The marginal cost of running a sleeper train to the far north from the central belt would be significant. At least £4m a year, probably more.

2) the number of people who want to travel from Inverness and south thereof to the far north is, frankly, small. Rather less than 200,000 single rail trips pa north of Dingwall, and only around half of those are north of Tain. This includes all trips ‘internal’ to the FNL.

3) Kirkwall airport handles around 150,000 people a year to and from the central belt, Inverness and Aberdeen, of which well over a third are to/from Aberdeen.

4) The Scrabster ferry carries about 150,000 passengers a year, which includes all those in cars and coaches. It’s reasonable to assume that a significant majority are in cars or coaches, and a good proportion of them are to and from Caithness rather than further south.

5) even if we pretend that all of the ferry passengers, and all of the rail passengers, are in the same market as the potential sleeper, it’s a total of around 400,000 single trips a year. Let’s be honest, it’s going to be rather less than half that that are travelling to Inverness and south thereof. But let’s say 200,000, being very optimistic.

6) the London to Scotland market has around 11 million passengers a year travelling by air and rail alone. Caledonian Sleeper has a little less than 2 % of the market.

7) continuing with the optimistic mood, with a following wind, and rose tinted spectacles, let’s assume that a Far North Sleeper could capture more than double this share, ie 4% of the market. That would be 8,000 a year (about 12 each way per train). A cost of £500 each, at best.

8) even if every passenger was willing to pay double the standard single price of the full distance from Glasgow to Wick (£71), regardless of their journey, it would need a subsidy of £350+ per single trip.

9) this compares to a single trip bus cost of £21.60 from Wick to Inverness, and typical air fares of around £120 from Kirkwall to Inverness, or £200 from Kirkwall or Wick to the central Belt. These are operated on commercial terms.

So, on a whole set of (very) optimistic assumptions, we can see that such a service would require a very significant subsidy, with alternatives that are far cheaper, and generally quicker.

If the assumptions were set more realistically (smaller market, similar 2% share for sleeper) it is likely that the subsidy per passenger would be well north of £1000. And then we are in the territory of offering chauffeur driven Range Rovers as a more cost effective alternative. Hell, even private helicopters.

That is socio-economic reality.

You've not quite answered the question I intended - but on your points:

You say that the air and bus services are operated on "commercial terms" but that's not really true. Buses need a publicly funded road system, amongst other things, to operate.

But how about air services: as far as I can make out highland airports recieve a subsidy of about £25M per annum. That puts your figure (based on I'm not sure what) for the marginal cost of the sleeper, of £4M, in context.

The socio-economic reality of transport, amongst other things, in sparsely populated areas, is that it needs substantial publicly funded subsidy in order to function as a public service; I'll not argue with that. How much that subsidy should be, of course, is a political question, and politics are part of socio-economic reality.

You'd previously implied that the Fort William sleeper is not 'viable'. Well, it wouldn't be viable as a purely commercial enterprise, sure. But it is viable if there's the political will to fund it. Same would apply to the Wick service.

I'm not going to argue that the wick proposal necessarily makes sense. But I think it's hasty to write it off as an idea just because it would need a hefty subsidy. That doesn't automatically make it nonviable. By the same logic the orkney air services and the A9 are not viable. I assume the ferry as well?

The service's value would not only be reflected in the revenue that it took in.

An interesting thing that came up in discussion on another sleeper thread, if I remember correctly, is that if you look at Caley sleeper's subsidy per passenger-km is actually lower than some of the regular english franchises including some commuter ones. Whether this is relevant or meaningful is tricky and ends back in political perspectives, again part of socio-economic reality.

I think it's easy to rubbish this Wick idea on the basis that it's "unrealistic". But what is "realistic" is no clear cut thing, as I think you are trying to make out. It's easy to say that the idea is outside of socio-economic reality but it's not as simple as that. If anything, the survival of the Fort William service proves this. Probably so do the various, rather expensive schemes to provide tiny hebridean islands with RORO ferry services.

 

[Northhighland]

There is a year round private (i.e. not subsidised ) ferry service, which is just as reliable. Just beef that up & abandon the Stromness-Scrabster route.

New ferry for Gills bay route undergoing sea trials which will significantly increase capacity.

Built with not a penny of taxpayers money.

 

[Northhighland]

You've not quite answered the question I intended - but on your points:

You say that the air and bus services are operated on "commercial terms" but that's not really true. Buses need a publicly funded road system, amongst other things, to operate.

But how about air services: as far as I can make out highland airports recieve a subsidy of about £25M per annum. That puts your figure (based on I'm not sure what) for the marginal cost of the sleeper, of £4M, in context.

The socio-economic reality of transport, amongst other things, in sparsely populated areas, is that it needs substantial publicly funded subsidy in order to function as a public service; I'll not argue with that. How much that subsidy should be, of course, is a political question, and politics are part of socio-economic reality.

You'd previously implied that the Fort William sleeper is not 'viable'. Well, it wouldn't be viable as a purely commercial enterprise, sure. But it is viable if there's the political will to fund it. Same would apply to the Wick service.

I'm not going to argue that the wick proposal necessarily makes sense. But I think it's hasty to write it off as an idea just because it would need a hefty subsidy. That doesn't automatically make it nonviable. By the same logic the orkney air services and the A9 are not viable. I assume the ferry as well?

The service's value would not only be reflected in the revenue that it took in.

An interesting thing that came up in discussion on another sleeper thread, if I remember correctly, is that if you look at Caley sleeper's subsidy per passenger-km is actually lower than some of the regular english franchises including some commuter ones. Whether this is relevant or meaningful is tricky and ends back in political perspectives, again part of socio-economic reality.

I think it's easy to rubbish this Wick idea on the basis that it's "unrealistic". But what is "realistic" is no clear cut thing, as I think you are trying to make out. It's easy to say that the idea is outside of socio-economic reality but it's not as simple as that. If anything, the survival of the Fort William service proves this. Probably so do the various, rather expensive schemes to provide tiny hebridean islands with RORO ferry services.

Better air connections are far preferable to a clapped out sleeper train. For rural conmunities air transport is the best option.

As long as the far north line fakes over 4 hours to get to Inverness from Wick then it won’t be part of transport solutions for the far north.

 

[Northhighland]

A tunnel to Orkney would probably work reasonably well financially over a 60 year appraisal but my suspicion is that it would not be welcomed in Orkney. Sub sea tunnels and/or other fixed links within Orkney and Shetland are much more likely to happen compared to a link to Caithness.

A fixed link will not be liked by some, Pentland Derries owner for sure. But show me a community damaged by better transport links.

A link between Caithness and Orkney creates a population of close to 50k or the same as Inverness. All living within a relatively short distance.

Imagine the power that would create over service provision and business development opportunity.

With some vision it could transform the North economy.

 

[BRX]

Better air connections are far preferable to a clapped out sleeper train. For rural conmunities air transport is the best option.

As long as the far north line fakes over 4 hours to get to Inverness from Wick then it won’t be part of transport solutions for the far north.

The air vs overnight rail debate has been gone over ad nauseum. Obviously we'd have different opinions there.

But it's that long journey time that leads to the idea that an overnight service might be worth looking at.

 

[Bald Rick]

You've not quite answered the question I intended - but on your points:

You say that the air and bus services are operated on "commercial terms" but that's not really true. Buses need a publicly funded road system, amongst other things, to operate.

But how about air services: as far as I can make out highland airports recieve a subsidy of about £25M per annum. That puts your figure (based on I'm not sure what) for the marginal cost of the sleeper, of £4M, in context.

The socio-economic reality of transport, amongst other things, in sparsely populated areas, is that it needs substantial publicly funded subsidy in order to function as a public service; I'll not argue with that. How much that subsidy should be, of course, is a political question, and politics are part of socio-economic reality.

You'd previously implied that the Fort William sleeper is not 'viable'. Well, it wouldn't be viable as a purely commercial enterprise, sure. But it is viable if there's the political will to fund it. Same would apply to the Wick service.

I'm not going to argue that the wick proposal necessarily makes sense. But I think it's hasty to write it off as an idea just because it would need a hefty subsidy. That doesn't automatically make it nonviable. By the same logic the orkney air services and the A9 are not viable. I assume the ferry as well?

The service's value would not only be reflected in the revenue that it took in.

An interesting thing that came up in discussion on another sleeper thread, if I remember correctly, is that if you look at Caley sleeper's subsidy per passenger-km is actually lower than some of the regular english franchises including some commuter ones. Whether this is relevant or meaningful is tricky and ends back in political perspectives, again part of socio-economic reality.

I think it's easy to rubbish this Wick idea on the basis that it's "unrealistic". But what is "realistic" is no clear cut thing, as I think you are trying to make out. It's easy to say that the idea is outside of socio-economic reality but it's not as simple as that. If anything, the survival of the Fort William service proves this. Probably so do the various, rather expensive schemes to provide tiny hebridean islands with RORO ferry services.

Just a point on the HIAL subsidy. That is spread around all 11 airports - one assumes that Inverness could sated on its own commercially, but that Benbecula, Barra and Wick, amongst others, are those that consume the cash. Nevertheless, aircraft and passengers still pay pretty substantial landing fees. However these evidently aren’t enough to pay the full costs of the infrastructure

In this respect it is almost identical to track access charges. The annual cost of the imaginary sleeper service would include track access charges. However, as we know track access charges don’t cover the full costs of the rail infrastructure - not by a long way. (ORR data suggests that a further £312m subsidy is given for infrastructure in Scotland, on top of a similar amount granted to Scotrail).

The annual cost I quoted does not cover this ‘hidden’ subsidy to the infrastructure operator, so I would argue it is a relevant comparison.

The sleepers aren’t viable on a cash basis and never will be. The Scottish Government chooses to subsidise them (to the tune of approx £100 a passenger), because it judges that the wider economic benefit is worth it, principally by importing high spending tourists into Scotland, and enabling individuals of high economic activity to be more productive in travelling between London and Scotland. Part of this calculation will also be the pain and reputation all harm of trying to remove the sleepers. Serco is also subsiding the sleepers by around a similar amount through their losses on the CS. They are doing this as they are under contract, and must have calculated that it is more financially rewarding to continue with the losses and attempt to reduce / eliminate them than to break the contract.

The imaginary Wick sleeper is different in two ways:

1) the size of the market is very much smaller than that of the Anglo-Scots sleepers, as I mentioned previously. Rather less than 1/25th the size. Clearly this means that the number of high spending tourists will be similarly smaller (even assuming that such tourists are as interested in seeing the far north and Orkney as they are in seeing Edinburgh and the Highlands, which I strongly suspect they are not). And the number of ‘high economic activity’ individuals will be similarly smaller, again assuming that the proportion of these people wanting to travel to the Far North and Orkney is the same as those wanting to travel between the U.K. capital, the Scottish Capital, the largest city in Scotland, and the Oil capital of the U.K., for example (which, again, I strongly suspect they are not). Taking this all together, the potential wider economic benefit of such a sleeper is certainly going to be less, per passenger, than the current sleeper. Significantly less by my estimation.

2) the scale of the subsidy required is substantially higher than the existing sleepers. By my bag of fag packet estimate, at least 3.5x more, and quite possibly 10x more.

Therefore you would have to spend substantially more per passenger, and get significantly less benefit back. That is socio-economic reality. Given that questions have been asked about the continuation of the Anglo Scots sleepers in the not very distant past, and no doubt will be asked again at the next franchise renewal, it is simply not practical for such a proposal to get past first base. Particularly as alternatives would be far cheaper, and better.*

Finally, yes the CS has similar subsidy per passenger km as the big three regional TOCs - Scotrail, Wales, Northern, but this is not comparable. Other long distance TOCs are effectively subsidy free.

* I know someone who owns a private jet company, so asked a few questions. It would be comfortably cheaper to hire two helicopters and their pilots, 6 days a week, to operate an on demand service between the central belt or Inverness and the Far North / Orkney. Of course this might annoy Loganair.

 

[deltic]

Y
An interesting thing that came up in discussion on another sleeper thread, if I remember correctly, is that if you look at Caley sleeper's subsidy per passenger-km is actually lower than some of the regular english franchises including some commuter ones. Whether this is relevant or meaningful is tricky and ends back in political perspectives, again part of socio-economic reality.

Subsidy per passenger km is 18.6p which is less than regional rail TOCs ie Northern, Scotrail, TfW, Merseyrail but a lot higher than the rest.

 

[BRX]

* I know someone who owns a private jet company, so asked a few questions. It would be comfortably cheaper to hire two helicopters and their pilots, 6 days a week, to operate an on demand service between the central belt or Inverness and the Far North / Orkney. Of course this might annoy Loganair.

Interested to hear how this works. Does the helicopter set off from wick at 7pm, landing on demand at all intermediate stations on the sleeper route, until finally reaching edinburgh or glasgow? How long does this journey take, and do the calculations include the cost of overnight accommodation in the city centre once you arrive, presumably by taxi from the airport in the wee hours of the morning?

How much does it cost to hire a helicopter and pilot 6 days a week, anyway? How many passengers does the helicopter take? How's the access for those in wheelchairs or mobility issues?

 

[Clip]

Interested to hear how this works. Does the helicopter set off from wick at 7pm, landing on demand at all intermediate stations on the sleeper route, until finally reaching edinburgh or glasgow? How long does this journey take, and do the calculations include the cost of overnight accommodation in the city centre once you arrive, presumably by taxi from the airport in the wee hours of the morning?

Think you are being facetious here in asking questions that you know Blad Rick cant really answer.

How much does it cost to hire a helicopter and pilot 6 days a week, anyway? How many passengers does the helicopter take? How's the access for those in wheelchairs or mobility issues?

Ask some of the helicopter companies how much it would cost - remembering that rates would possibly be cheaper due to them being on regular hire - and after a quick google it seems that there are wheelchair accessible helicopters now

 

[haggishunter]

New ferry for Gills bay route undergoing sea trials which will significantly increase capacity.

Built with not a penny of taxpayers money.

That might be so, but as I posted up thread, just because the built the vessel without subsidy, does not mean what Pentland ferries are doing is cost free to the Tax Payer. The more traffic Pentland Ferries carries, the more revenue it extracts from Northlink and the greater the public subsidy then required to support Northlink including the far longer Shetland route. This sort of private cherry picking is not cost free to the Taxpayer just because it isn't directly subsidised.

 

[Bald Rick]

Interested to hear how this works. Does the helicopter set off from wick at 7pm, landing on demand at all intermediate stations on the sleeper route, until finally reaching edinburgh or glasgow? How long does this journey take, and do the calculations include the cost of overnight accommodation in the city centre once you arrive, presumably by taxi from the airport in the wee hours of the morning?

How much does it cost to hire a helicopter and pilot 6 days a week, anyway? How many passengers does the helicopter take? How's the access for those in wheelchairs or mobility issues?

Think you are being facetious here in asking questions that you know Blad Rick cant really answer.

Well as it happens, I’ve been making a few enquiries. And have some answers, albeit approximate.

You could ‘hire’ two EC145s on a wet lease (all maintenance included), with pilots, for under £2m a year - almost certainly less on a long term deal. To paraphrase Vesper Lynd... there are helicopters and helicopters - these are the latter. Range over 400miles, cruise 150mph, seats up to 9 passengers; 8 in a more comfortable layout, 6 in a VIP layout.

If they each did two return trips a day between the central belt and the far north, and one beteeen Inverness and the far north, that would use about £3000 of Jet A1 a day. £1m a year on a 6 day / week schedule.

This would give the far north a far more frequent service than a sleeper, with maximum journey times of well under an hour to Inverness, and well under 2 hours to the central belt. Less for anyone not going all the way to Wick / Thurso (although there’s not many of them). With these journey times there would be no need for hotels - if you need to be in Edinburgh for 0900, an 0700 start from a nearby field will be plenty of time.

Mobility impaired access - certainly no worse than a Mark III sleeper.

All for around 3/4 the cost.

Of course I’m not seriously suggesting this. But it does show a cheaper, quicker, and I would imagine far more popular option than a sleeper.