telstarbox
Established Member
There isn't an advantage in all the sleepers using the same terminal, as passengers don't connect between the sleepers.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Do Sleepers make money?
- Thread starter Popper
- Start date
- Status
There isn't an advantage in all the sleepers using the same terminal, as passengers don't connect between the sleepers.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
tbtc
Veteran Member
No, but your quote suggested that there was still a market for the Sleeper in the modern world.
Nym
Established Member
Asside from being able to provide a specialised boarding lounge, geared specially towards sleeper passengers, with showers, etc. and rediculously long units that can run out in 20 carrage formation from Waterloo Int. then split en route?
tbtc
Veteran Member
I suppose the only advantages are:
1. Only keeping one station facilities open for the Sleeper (e.g. a dedicated lounge)
2. It would allow the two TOCs (coincidently both run by First at the moment) to swap trains over, to reduce maintenance costs
Both sound good, but neither tackles the inherant problems with the Sleeper.
Nym
Established Member
The inherant problems need appropriate rolling stock to solve them, and some kind of consultation with current sleeper passengers as to what they'd want from the sleeper service, and some kind of public focus group.
Should we go down the jap style sleeping pods? or should we go down the route of business class style pods in a seated carriage?
Should we go down the jap style sleeping pods? or should we go down the route of business class style pods in a seated carriage?
There's more to it than that:
- Avoids blocking up Paddington and Euston in the morning peaks
- Can provide more luxurious facilities for sleeper passengers waiting to travel
- Brings an expensive asset back into use
- Avoids platform length issues at Euston meaning Mk2 lounge cars could be replaced with Mk3s if needs be, as well as meaning you could form the whole set in London and then just split it on route without extra shunting at Edinburgh
- Sleepers can be left in a station all day rather than having to be moved into and out of stations
telstarbox
Established Member
Fair enough but
Platforms shouldn't be used to store stock all day when they could be used for passenger services - that's what sidings are for!
Better it's used for something than nothing at all. As it stands now Waterloo International does absolutely nothing for the railway. Personally whoever designed that facility was an idiot for not designing it with easy conversion into the domestic Waterloo once Eurostar had left. However we have what we have and I would rather see International being a base for the sleepers than just standing empty.
How crazy would it be to have a sleeper that left Waterloo to go to mainland Europe, via the old (slow) route. I presume there's still a connection?
It doesn't matter that the 373s would still always use HS1 as the sleeper is going during the night and speed isn't an issue (except perhaps the tunnel itself which is presumably used all night).
I guess the other issue is that you'd need to reintroduce border controls, which means having staff present for perhaps just one or two trains a day (but many small airports used by low cost airlines do this), as well as the potential confusion to passengers who now have two stations to go to/from - but it's not impossible is it?
It doesn't matter that the 373s would still always use HS1 as the sleeper is going during the night and speed isn't an issue (except perhaps the tunnel itself which is presumably used all night).
I guess the other issue is that you'd need to reintroduce border controls, which means having staff present for perhaps just one or two trains a day (but many small airports used by low cost airlines do this), as well as the potential confusion to passengers who now have two stations to go to/from - but it's not impossible is it?
The downside of a sleeper from Waterloo is that you couldn't use the larger loading gauge on HS1 and, say, use the likes of CityNightLine double-deckers, or cheap, 6-berth couchettes.
I suppose another approach would be to have a dedicated Eurostar - sleeper connection in Lille. Say, leave London on the last Eurostar, and have a sleeper waiting on the adjacent platform, with proper through ticketing.
I suppose another approach would be to have a dedicated Eurostar - sleeper connection in Lille. Say, leave London on the last Eurostar, and have a sleeper waiting on the adjacent platform, with proper through ticketing.
tbtc
Veteran Member
If you book a hotel room you expect a toilet to yourself (that you can use whenever you need), a shower to yourself (that you can use whenever you need)... things that were a "luxury" in BR days are now an "essential" for most people overnight in 2011.
You can't provide those kind of services on a train, that can only make three return journeys a week, and hope to make your money back.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You'd not get a double decker train to Fort William
Those are good points.
On the other hand hotel rooms may get cheaper, but cheap oil and with it cheap aviation will unquestionably not last indefinitely.
It is crucial that the network and overnight long distance trains survive in some form so that there can be a comeback when the time is right.
It seems to me that a new type of LHCS with radically new creature comfort tradeoffs and which can be mixed in with the existing stock is the way to go. Consumer popularity of various designs can be tested live. And at a relatively low spend per annum (not total spend) replacing coaches one at a time built by a small custom rail workshop.
The idea of cross-platform connections from Eurostar to departing continental sleepers is excellent.
The German sleepers are excellent with shower in toilet at end of coach and a few more expensive cabins with ensuite shower & toilet.
Any new trains should be mix of seated, 'economy' berths & luxury / business berths.
Personally I'm happy with our current sleeper trains and showers at destination stations (these are available at Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fort William & Inverness, but unfortunately not at Penzance).
Any new trains should be mix of seated, 'economy' berths & luxury / business berths.
Personally I'm happy with our current sleeper trains and showers at destination stations (these are available at Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fort William & Inverness, but unfortunately not at Penzance).
With the taxes on air travel going up regularly, this surely will mean that sleepers will start to make ground over the airlines. Hard to quantify demand for new services, but looking at say the ECML there is a very early train off Newcastle at 04.40 and then one at 05.25 which get in at 08.16 and 08.46. For me, if I was to get the 04.40 I'd have to get up no doubt at half three, even though I only live about 3 miles from Central. I'd much rather take a sleeper at say 23.00 the previous night and get into London around 07.30 the next morning. Sleeper could easily come from Edinburgh and pick up at Berwick, Morpeth and, after Newcastle, York.
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
The stock needs to be examined , maybe washed externally, water tanked , beds made and stocks replenished and dirty water tanks etc emptied.
Waterloo ex International may be empty at the moment - it certainly wont be one of the Worlds most expensive carriage sidings. Think of the land value there alone if it wasnt part of the UK's busiest terminus.
Sleepers are marginal to infrastructure , not cost drivers.
Waterloo ex International may be empty at the moment - it certainly wont be one of the Worlds most expensive carriage sidings. Think of the land value there alone if it wasnt part of the UK's busiest terminus.
Sleepers are marginal to infrastructure , not cost drivers.
Is this definite?
May as well completely close parts of the rail network in that case then as it's not likely they will ever be profitable.
amcluesent
Member
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 877
Pretty much all suppliers have 'loss leaders' to attract customers, e..g. the supermarkets make nothing on milk. It's only the bungled splitting into ToCs that prevents the national rail network looking at the 'big picture' of joining-up services.
telstarbox
Established Member
There's
Nym
Established Member
*gives the grammar policecub a gold star for getting the apostrophe in the correct place*
RichmondCommu
Established Member
Well I wouldn't go as far as to say that Zoe as some routes act as a vital public service whether they make a profit or not and therefore deserve state subsidy. However, the same cannot be said for freight or for that matter sleeper services. However, I'm not the Prime Minister!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Yes but the question you need to ask is the sleeper service an essential service? I would argue not and that the money could be better spent on other area's of the network. I'm sure rail users in Lancashire woudn't mind a few extra bob coming their way.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In all fairness, you've made the decision to avoid flying to Sweden as your wife is 7 months into her pregnancy and as a father of three I can fully understand that. Best wishes to the two of you by the way. However, you and I both know that the vast majority of people making that journey would choose to fly on the basis of both speed and cost.
Lets face it, some of the proposals on this thread have hardly been realistic or economical! Families are highly unlikely to travel to the Mediterranean coast by overnight train. Nor are people likely to board a sleeper service in Leeds to be carted over the whole of the East and West Riding in order to arrive in London at a sensible time.
In my younger days I had many overnight journeys in France trying to sleep in a couchette while being chucked about by the SNCF. Not to mention being woken up at Limoges et al at some ungodly hour. Now I've never travelled on an overnight train in the UK but I can't imagine the experience is any different which would make 7 hours sleep on a overnight train very difficult. That was fine when I was a student but not now!
Finally, if I have to catch an early flight to Glasgow / Edinburgh I just go to bed earlier to avoid sleep deprivation. I agree that its good to have transport options but lets be realistic!
Last edited:
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 18,550
Conventional sleepers probably dont haev much of a future, however I could certainly see more overnight long distance trains with more stops, 2+1 seating in second class and reclining seats in first class.
Even 1+1 seats in first class would likely have more capacity than berths have now.
EDIT:
Assuming a train formed of one Cl90, 3 "First Class" 1+1 seating carriages, a Buffet-Lounge Carriage, 5 "Standard Class" (basically FOs) 2+1 seating carriages and a converted Mk 3 DSO (again with 2+1 seats), the train would be 250m long and hopefully would fit in most major station platforms.
It would have roughly 90-96 "First Class" Seats, 230-240 "Standard Class" seats and additional seats in the Buffet carriage.
The train would have multiple carriage division doors to prevent sounds at one end of the carraige from propagating to the other and would have a variety of mod cons throughout the train (perhaps even Active Noise Cancellation to remove wheelset noise).
Since the train would have no specialised sleeper compartments it could be used for daytime journeys although it would be sufficiently slow (110mph max) that it could not be used on very long distance journies on many routes, unless it was some sort of non-stop Scotland-London daytime "Pullman" train that made up for its lower top speed by staying at that speed for very long periods of time, these speeds not being neccesary during the night.
Perhaps one night journey and one day journey per day?
Either way its capacity of approaching 300 seats compares extremely favourably to the conventional sleeper
Even 1+1 seats in first class would likely have more capacity than berths have now.
EDIT:
Assuming a train formed of one Cl90, 3 "First Class" 1+1 seating carriages, a Buffet-Lounge Carriage, 5 "Standard Class" (basically FOs) 2+1 seating carriages and a converted Mk 3 DSO (again with 2+1 seats), the train would be 250m long and hopefully would fit in most major station platforms.
It would have roughly 90-96 "First Class" Seats, 230-240 "Standard Class" seats and additional seats in the Buffet carriage.
The train would have multiple carriage division doors to prevent sounds at one end of the carraige from propagating to the other and would have a variety of mod cons throughout the train (perhaps even Active Noise Cancellation to remove wheelset noise).
Since the train would have no specialised sleeper compartments it could be used for daytime journeys although it would be sufficiently slow (110mph max) that it could not be used on very long distance journies on many routes, unless it was some sort of non-stop Scotland-London daytime "Pullman" train that made up for its lower top speed by staying at that speed for very long periods of time, these speeds not being neccesary during the night.
Perhaps one night journey and one day journey per day?
Either way its capacity of approaching 300 seats compares extremely favourably to the conventional sleeper
Last edited:
A 1- or 2-berth sleeper is a hugely different experience to a 4- or 6-berth couchette. And I really don't recognise the notion of being "chucked around" either, certainly not on the domestic sleepers I've used in the UK.
Plus, I'm sure it's lovely to be he kind of person who can go to bed early and fall asleep - personally, if I do, I usually lie awake until the time I normally go to sleep!
There are surely?
Correct.
You wouldn't say "There is five platforms", so you wouldn't contract it either.
Nothing more satisfying than 'out-pedanting' a pedant.
Nym
Established Member
One major problem with that, the
I'm thinking more a current EMU that is kicking about, and installing generators if easy to do so, if not, loco haulage away from wires, but still hauling an EMU
Yes...up to a point. There has to be a "value for money" test, and sleepers require a phenomenal subsidy per passenger. I don't think they will be around in 10 years time - enjoy them while you can.
I know we wouldn't always do this, but my point is that at any given time there are likely to be many other people that have similar needs - or simply don't like flying. Does everyone now feel comfortable in a plane? I know people who are too scared to fly, and I'm sure everyone does.
I have no doubt that while we'll fly most of the time, going the slow 'scenic' route will happen again. I've driven to Sweden many times (2-3 days, with stop overs and a day to enjoy the German autobahns!) and we used to sail and drive (if it wasn't Winter, we'd have taken the car on the boat instead of using the train) when I was younger.
It becomes part of a holiday, where flying rarely does - it's just a hassle with security, check-in, waiting around and so on. Mind you, given how amazing the new Gatwick (south) terminals is - security takes about 90 seconds to clear! I then realised that being held in security actually killed some time that is now spent airside with nothing to do but shop or eat.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I often find it hard to sleep at all when I know I've got to be up early to get to an airport; my mind is thinking about loads of things, have I forgotten this, that, will the taxi turn up, what if there's a delay.. etc.
If I could instead get on a train and know 'I'm on it' then I could easily relax as I'm on my way (unless it then breaks down!).
What tends to happen with an early AM flight is that I get hardly any sleep and try and catch up on a plane. Funnily enough, planes are a bit noiser (and bumpier at times) than your average train!
- Status