Could the Sleepers be made self-funding?

[Brubulus]

I do wonder if it's time to remove the Aberdeen service. It's the shortest of the three Highlander routes and these days by far the least popular; with CS merged into ScotRail it could have a dedicated connecting service to the Edinburgh Lowlander instead, guaranteed to await the connection (and for the Sleeper to wait for it) and cross-platform or as near to it as possible.

This would allow a massive simplification into two half-train services. If we could do that it's a shame the stock order wasn't for Sleeper bi-mode units which could have saved a fair bit of money on shunting, but we are where we are, and a new stock build definitely won't save money!

Move some of the MK5s to Night Riviera, then refurbish 222s to provide the Highlander service. The Night Riviera coaches will need replacing the medium term.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Move some of the MK5s to Night Riviera, then refurbish 222s to provide the Highlander service. The Night Riviera coaches will need replacing the medium term.

Underfloor engines on a Sleeper are a ridiculous idea. I'd assume a "Sleeper bi mode unit" would put them above the floor next to one of the cabs, or perhaps under the lounge car/seated car.

 

[Tetragon213]

Move some of the MK5s to Night Riviera, then refurbish 222s to provide the Highlander service. The Night Riviera coaches will need replacing the medium term.

Having been on the Riviera not all that long ago, I was pleasantly surprised by how well the coaches are still holding up. If GWR keeps looking after them, I think they can continue for a while longer.

I don't think sleepers with an underfloor engine would work too well without a copious amount of soundproofing. Perhaps carry on with the loco-hauled coaches, but combine them with fold-up berths so that the unit can be used in the daytime, thus improving utilisation on the less popular Aberdeen run? It would at least give a fighting chance of clawing back some of the loss.

 

[Brubulus]

Underfloor engines on a Sleeper are a ridiculous idea. I'd assume a "Sleeper bi mode unit" would put them above the floor next to one of the cabs, or perhaps under the lounge car/seated car.

Remove the engines from all but the end cars, they don't need particularly good performance, though I can accept a sleeper FLIRT could work, though that would be expensive.

 

[styles]

I'm a big advocate for couchettes.

There seems to be a perception on the forums when I mention it that the British public wouldn't go for sleeping next to strangers.

Yet, that's exactly what the seated section of the CS offers and that sells out just fine. Similarly, plenty of overnight coach services where people are asleep. Provide people with lockers (like CS do for seated passengers) and at a push somewhere to bike lock a suitcase to, and I reckon leisure passengers would be more than happy with 2x2 couchette compartments. It's also not like the UK doesn't have hostels etc.

Of course business passengers are not going to go for it, nor are their employers as it's just not something UK employees would expect of their employers when travelling for work. But that's fine - those people are catered for with the existing CS offering, and pricey direct flights to/from London City Airport pre-8am.

The CS seats are popular and cheap, but that means they're often unavailable. The bed options are just too pricey for a lot of leisure travellers, particularly younger people. Couchettes meet the middle ground. Even if you ran it on a smaller number of routes, I reckon it would be a goer, and I personally would use it for leisure travel.

 

[Tetragon213]

I'm a big advocate for couchettes.

There seems to be a perception on the forums when I mention it that the British public wouldn't go for sleeping next to strangers.

Yet, that's exactly what the seated section of the CS offers and that sells out just fine. Similarly, plenty of overnight coach services where people are asleep. Provide people with lockers (like CS do for seated passengers) and at a push somewhere to bike lock a suitcase to, and I reckon leisure passengers would be more than happy with 2x2 couchette compartments. It's also not like the UK doesn't have hostels etc.

Of course business passengers are not going to go for it, nor are their employers as it's just not something UK employees would expect of their employers when travelling for work. But that's fine - those people are catered for with the existing CS offering, and pricey direct flights to/from London City Airport pre-8am.

The CS seats are popular and cheap, but that means they're often unavailable. The bed options are just too pricey for a lot of leisure travellers, particularly younger people. Couchettes meet the middle ground. Even if you ran it on a smaller number of routes, I reckon it would be a goer, and I personally would use it for leisure travel.

I'd personally prefer pods (extra privacy), but couchettes with curtains doesn't seem like a bad idea either, especially as you'd then be able to fold the beds away and put them to work in the daytime.

 

[Krokodil]

One of the big selling points of the Night Riviera from a profitability point of view is that it's entirely staffed by general GWR staff. For example the Plymouth driver who drives down from Plymouth to Penzance goes on to work the 0910 Penzance to Paddington normal GWR service (to Plymouth). Whereas the Scotrail sleepers rely on employing people who's primary role is to drive / guard it. Probably doesn't help that Scotrail will never have traincrew depots at Euston or Preston!

Pre-Pendolino Virgin crews used to work the WCML bits of the sleeper services. Of course they already signed class 90s so there was no extra training cost incurred.

You would be surprised at just how many senior people within Caledonian Sleeper, across two different management eras, have told me that they wished the Scottish Government had gone with my suggestion made during the Sleeper stock consultation 12 years ago instead of doing a like for like replacemnt with locomotive hauled stock... It would have more than halved the running costs...

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

Some kind of four car EDMU (a mixture of seats and couchettes that can be converted to day compartments) hauling a four car rake of sleeper trailers (with a driving end) would be quite useful as the powered set can be used on daytime services in the Highlands. Maintenance would take place at the London end, rather than using them for services down there.

 

[Meerkat]

When is the lease up on the sleeper stock?

 

[deltic]

I love the way to make the sleepers self funding is to spend large amounts of money on small run rolling stock purchases!

 

[Zomboid]

Ultimately the only answer from where we are now is to jack up the fares, but presumably that would be to a point where it wouldn't be competitive going by taxi, and would therefore kill demand...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ultimately the only answer from where we are now is to jack up the fares, but presumably that would be to a point where it wouldn't be competitive going by taxi, and would therefore kill demand...

Last time I checked taxis didn't have beds.

 

[Zomboid]

Last time I checked taxis didn't have beds.

No, and they'd be much slower than a day train. But I was only referring to the fares, not the quality.

 

[SuspectUsual]

In the last full year of operation before renationalisation government subsidy was just over £29 million and fare revenue was just under £29 million

So let’s be realistic - no, the sleepers (or at least the Scottish ones) can’t be made self funding. Not even close

 

[Brubulus]

I love the way to make the sleepers self funding is to spend large amounts of money on small run rolling stock purchases!

It's leased, but that's why I do think the best solution is very slow 222s instead of small run newbuild stock, which is expensive. Raising fares is a good idea, if you want a cheap way to Scotland, there's Lumo, Ryanair and a coach. Some tourists will buy Caledonian Sleeper no matter the price.

In the last full year of operation before renationalisation government subsidy was just over £29 million and fare revenue was just under £29 million

So let’s be realistic - no, the sleepers (or at least the Scottish ones) can’t be made self funding. Not even close

You can't make them self funding, you could maybe half the subsidy.

 

[Tetragon213]

It's leased, but that's why I do think the best solution is very slow 222s instead of small run newbuild stock, which is expensive. Raising fares is a good idea, if you want a cheap way to Scotland, there's Lumo, Ryanair and a coach. Some tourists will buy Caledonian Sleeper no matter the price.

Perhaps one could use retired Inter7City trains? The slower speed of the sleeper services would put less strain on the aging Class 43s, you can adjust train length based on demand, and the Mk3s aren't half bad for sleeping in. It would also avoid buying new stock, as the Class 43 is, of course, extant.

 

[MatthewHutton]

I think they'd have to go from Kings Cross via the ECML for the Highlander, unless it's possible to go round the Suburban to end up the right way round at Edinburgh though that isn't I think wired. For the Lowlander you could go from Euston but would need to do the split somewhere other than Carstairs, I guess Carlisle? That would increase costs due to the separate trains running much further.\

I think where this basically sits is "possible but awkward" to be honest.

The other option is the Chiltern line and terminating possibly at Paddington or taking a freight route into Euston.

You could then have 3 sleepers. I would have thought that would allow a carstairs split for all of them and avoid reversals.

 

[HSTEd]

Are the Sleeper Mk 5s and the day Mark 5As mechnanically compatible, in terms of floor height and gangways etc?

Could you refurbish some of the day Mark 5As to rearrange the sleeper stock to get enough vehicles to make up push-pull Night Riviera sets using Mark 5A cab cars?

A cab vehicle on the Night Riviera would simplify operations significantly and increase capacity.

More difficult on the Caledonian, but you could get a Mark 5A cab car in place of the pilot locomotive at Euston, which would add a few dozen more seats.

 

[Zomboid]

More difficult on the Caledonian, but you could get a Mark 5A cab car in place of the pilot locomotive at Euston, which would add a few dozen more seats

Would shoving the sleeper in service work? That would complicate operations putting them together at Carstairs on the southbound. Or alternatively the DT could be on the trailing end both ways - easy enough to turn the train at Edinburgh (via the sub) or Glasgow (round Cathcart), but harder to achieve at Fort William, Inverness or Aberdeen without taking the DT off the formation and putting it on a turntable/ going via the one platform at Inverness that completes the triangle, depending on which portion it ends up on.
And in London you'd probably be trying to wye the whole 16/17 coaches, which and that's not something the WCML can offer.

 

[Krokodil]

I love the way to make the sleepers self funding is to spend large amounts of money on small run rolling stock purchases!

Clearly the Mk5 fleet were the wrong thing to order. To a large extent we're stuck with what we've got, but this thread exists in a parallel universe where capital funding exists to improve the service and its economics. I presume that the leases come up in five years or so, following which they're the ROSCO's problem, though some vehicles could be transferred to GWR because those Mk3s won't last forever. Not that annoying the ROSCOs wouldn't have a wider impact upon the railway, they've had their fingers burnt a lot over the last five years, but let's ignore that for a moment.

At some point the ex-BR stock in Scotland is going to be life expired. So if you're replacing the 156s and 153s that currently operate on the West Highland line and the 158s that operate elsewhere, why not have a four coach EDMU with some seats, some couchettes which can be converted to day compartments, and a van for bikes? This could operate the day service on the route, and tow/propel a set of four trailers with sleeping accommodation at night. The sleeper therefore gains from economies of scale, sharing resources with the day trains. It also simplifies the shunting at Waverley and Carstairs (not to mention the termini) into something that could be done entirely by the trains' drivers and guards, no need for the shunters. No need either for many of the ECS and light engine moves.

By omitting the locomotives you may even be able to add two extra vehicles to the complete formations, which again boosts capacity - there's no shortage of demand, that's why it's being priced off. More customers travelling on a specific train help to spread the fixed costs of that train (driver, guard, traction, network access) thinner.

I am happy to subsidise a public service. I am not happy to subsidise a rich man's plaything. The prices currently charged on CS (plus the railway as a whole, to be honest) are too high to fulfill any social goals, yet the subsidy still flows.

 

[HSTEd]

Would shoving the sleeper in service work?

Why wouldn't it? A sleeper is not fundamentally different from any other train.

I believe the Mark 5 sleeper stock even uses the 61 way connector developed for the Chunnel Nightstock, which originally provided pins for TDM multiple unit control - although I imagine you'd have to rewire it to get the lines through.

 

[43066]

I'm a big advocate for couchettes.

There seems to be a perception on the forums when I mention it that the British public wouldn't go for sleeping next to strangers.

Yet, that's exactly what the seated section of the CS offers and that sells out just fine. Similarly, plenty of overnight coach services where people are asleep. Provide people with lockers (like CS do for seated passengers) and at a push somewhere to bike lock a suitcase to, and I reckon leisure passengers would be more than happy with 2x2 couchette compartments. It's also not like the UK doesn't have hostels etc.

Of course business passengers are not going to go for it, nor are their employers as it's just not something UK employees would expect of their employers when travelling for work. But that's fine - those people are catered for with the existing CS offering, and pricey direct flights to/from London City Airport pre-8am.

The CS seats are popular and cheap, but that means they're often unavailable. The bed options are just too pricey for a lot of leisure travellers, particularly younger people. Couchettes meet the middle ground. Even if you ran it on a smaller number of routes, I reckon it would be a goer, and I personally would use it for leisure travel.

There are no doubt concerns around inappropriate behaviour etc.

Even putting that aside, I’d also ask, would couchettes achieve what the thread title asks, in terms of improving the financial position? I’d have thought a better way to achieve that would to be to jack the prices up even further, to the point where it’s an all premium offering. That might well include eliminating the seats entirely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The other option is the Chiltern line and terminating possibly at Paddington or taking a freight route into Euston.

This wouldn't avoid reversals. For the Highlander the only way to avoid them is to go into Edinburgh from the east which means the ECML.

 

[MatthewHutton]

This wouldn't avoid reversals. For the Highlander the only way to avoid them is to go into Edinburgh from the east which means the ECML.

Why does the split have to be done at Edinburgh?

 

[Krokodil]

Why does the split have to be done at Edinburgh?

Have you any better ways of turning a 16 coach train into 18 coaches before splitting it three ways?

 

[MatthewHutton]

Have you any better ways of turning a 16 coach train into 18 coaches before splitting it three ways?

Run three trains from London, the lowlander, Oban/fort William and Inverness/Aberdeen?

 

[Zomboid]

This wouldn't avoid reversals. For the Highlander the only way to avoid them is to go into Edinburgh from the east which means the ECML.

Maybe once the transpennine route is electrified the sleeper could be routed from WCML to ECML that way and still use Euston.

They could both go that way in fact, and the Glasgow train can just drop the Edinburgh portion on it's way through. Would still need a loco in the area to shunt it clear of the station, though.

Why wouldn't it? A sleeper is not fundamentally different from any other train

Isn't loco on the back a bit bumpier? Not necessarily a huge thing for day trains, but possibly not ideal if people are trying to sleep.

Though if that doesn't cause problems then there's no other reason not to.

 

[Krokodil]

Run three trains from London, the lowlander, Oban/fort William and Inverness/Aberdeen?

I've got no objections there, I'd love to see a "West Highlander" and an "East Highlander".

 

[ABB125]

Here's a slightly radical suggestion. Bear with me...

ScotRail's long-distance fleet needs replacing. In addition, we can be hopeful of electrification slowly being extended northwards. So, procure some 3-car EMUs with a suitably comfortable interior. These EMUs can run in pairs or even threes as dictated by demand, and obviously run under electrification.
Then, organise a fleet of lightweight diesel locomotives with autocouplers and suitable ETS supply to haul these EMUs on unelectrified sections. So, at present, this would look like Glasgow/Edinburgh-Stirling on electric, then stick a locomotive on at Stirling, and continue to Aberdeen/Inverness. (In the case of EDB-ABD, the locomotive would be attached throughout.) As electrification gets extended (eg: to Perth, then Dundee, then... probably no further because the country will have lost the ability to electrify at even an excessive cost), simply move the place where the locomotives attach/detach.
The same principles could be applied to the West Highland line as well, attaching/detaching locomotives at Helensburgh Upper (having extended the wires up the hill).

What does this have to do with the sleeper?
Well, these EMUs would also be procured with a sleeper version (well, several variants, eg: 3 sleepers, 1 seated 1 lounge 1 accessible sleeper, etc etc). You should be able to fit six of these EMUs at Euston (18 cars), since you no longer need a pair of class 92s to also be in the platform. The whole consist runs on electric to the Central Belt. For the Lowland, you simply split at Carstairs then carry on, simple. Highland gets split at Edinburgh as now, then: Aberdeen has a locomotive attached, from the same pool that runs the daytime services; Inverness travels to Stirling on electric, then has a locomotive (or two if necessary) attached, same pool as daytime services; and Fort William, same again, runs on electric to Helensburgh to then hauled thenceforth to the end.
This has several advantages:

• Higher capacity due to additional coaches running from London
• Capacity can be reassigned to different portions depending on demand (albeit in 3-car blocks)
• Reduced operational costs due to no traditional shunting needed (all autocouplers)
• Costs of diesel locomotives shared with daytime services, increasing fleet utilisation
• Mechanical commonality across daytime and night-time fleets (both EMU and locomotive), simplifying and reducing the cost of maintenance
• More chance of a "spare" locomotive being parked nearby to rescue a stranded train (also applies to daytime trains)

What's not to like?

EDIT: the locomotives would be fully controllable from any cab of the EMUs, so could propel

 

[popeter45]

Here's a slightly radical suggestion. Bear with me...

i would differ that plan a bit

make the end units 3 car EMU's of Seated, Lounge & Couchette with full width cab at the seated end and a half width cab at the Lounge end and ever axel powered, effectively a locomotive but with seatin
make the Sleeping/Couchette portions 3 car unpowered sets with no cabs
make the Diesel Locomotives also full width cab on one end only like a Modern class 43

avoids the need for cabs that would never be used and waste space, plus the EMU's could be used for daytime Services with seated 3car unpowered sets with no cabs in the middle rather than Sleepers

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we were building Sleeper EMUs I'd just go for 200m 110mph units combining seats, lounge and sleepers, with engines under the seats/lounge or above the floor. Keep it simple. No need to use them on day services. Bin the Aberdeen in favour of a guaranteed connection to the Edinburgh Lowlander both ways then both Highlander and Lowlander are just coupled pairs. 3 single units would do for the Riviera too - two in use and a spare. Main maintenance somewhere near London so both the Scottish and Westcountry sets would be maintained together, creating economies of scale and possibly allowing the spares to be hired to the other operation if things were really going wrong.

Unless it's possible just to drop the Mk5s at a lease breakpoint without penalty, though, it's not going to exactly be a cheap option even if it would mean saving on the shunt.