How green are Caledonian Sleeper stock?

[supervc-10]

I'm more thinking along the lines of conventional turbofan engines. However, I'm not sure if they would emit nothing but water- isn't NOx released not from the burning of the fuel itself, but due to the high temperatures of combustion breaking down atmospheric nitrogen which then recombines with oxygen for form the various NOx gases?

The SABRE engine is very, very cool though. A friend of mine has recently started working on the project down in Bristol!

 

[hwl]

I'm more thinking along the lines of conventional turbofan engines. However, I'm not sure if they would emit nothing but water- isn't NOx released not from the burning of the fuel itself, but due to the high temperatures of combustion breaking down atmospheric nitrogen which then recombines with oxygen for form the various NOx gases?

The SABRE engine is very, very cool though. A friend of mine has recently started working on the project down in Bristol!

NOx production is largely a function of being above the critical temperature.

 

[route:oxford]

There are so many calculations here...

But probably most important, there are 7 direct flights every day from Inverness to London totalling 1300 seats. Won't that require about 60-80 sleeper coaches a night to cover that at current densities?

Similarly, from Edinburgh, there's 10,000 seats daily, that'll mean another 500+ sleeper coaches heading South every night.

Isn't it the reality that whilst an extra daily daytime London train to Inverness and more central belt services to London every day would be very good indeed. The current blend of flights and trains works really quite well?

Goodness knows where all these coaches would be kept...

 

[ash39]

They're not green at all.

They're teal.

 

[supervc-10]

Only if everyone took the sleeper. And currently many are taking the regular LNER services.

@hwl, that's kind of what I was getting at! I quit engineering for medicine- so not entirely sure about most of it!

 

[30907]

The Scottish Government have subsidised a gentrification of the sleeper service to suit current business and tourism choices, rather than future proof the service with more choice of long distance economical travel.

By "gentrification" I take it you mean providing ensuite facilities?
This brings CS into line with all European sleepers built since about 1990 - not to mention nearly every hotel! Austrian Nightjet sleepers dont have enough ensuites, and their new builds will remedy that.
As for couchettes - last seen in the UK in the 1950s when they were called "third class sleepers" - I don't think any have been built in Europe for the last 30 years, so CS would be bucking the trend. Not that that's wrong!

 

[Bassman]

By "gentrification" I take it you mean providing ensuite facilities?
This brings CS into line with all European sleepers built since about 1990 - not to mention nearly every hotel! Austrian Nightjet sleepers dont have enough ensuites, and their new builds will remedy that.
As for couchettes - last seen in the UK in the 1950s when they were called "third class sleepers" - I don't think any have been built in Europe for the last 30 years, so CS would be bucking the trend. Not that that's wrong!

If government is to tackle a climate emergency, there must be a strategic move to invest and subsidise rail over other forms of transport. The sleeper deserves to be a modern option for our infrastructure, as a viable and economical choice, along with daytime rail services. The original spec floated the idea of a mixture of accommodation, hence making it a choice for a range of traveler.
I have no problem with modern and good facilities, as long as they are reasonably priced. Although it was not the intention of Scottish Gov., the emphasis by Serco has moved primarily towards an upmarket 'hotel on wheels' offer. This is marketing what should be a sensible enhancement infrastructure as more 'a tourist experience'.
As a retired professional who has used the sleeper many times, for personal and family use in the past, I now feel that my options of travel south are being skewed towards cheap environmentally dirty flights. I have used sleepers and couchettes recently on Czech overnight trains and found them of good quality and with very reasonable prices.

 

[hwl]

By "gentrification" I take it you mean providing ensuite facilities?
This brings CS into line with all European sleepers built since about 1990 - not to mention nearly every hotel! Austrian Nightjet sleepers dont have enough ensuites, and their new builds will remedy that.
As for couchettes - last seen in the UK in the 1950s when they were called "third class sleepers" - I don't think any have been built in Europe for the last 30 years, so CS would be bucking the trend. Not that that's wrong!

Caledonian sleeper will have more Mk5 sleeper (bed) coaches than nightjet have sleeping coaches, about 70% of the nightjet fleet are actually couchettes or seated coaches.

 

[hwl]

By "gentrification" I take it you mean providing ensuite facilities?
This brings CS into line with all European sleepers built since about 1990 - not to mention nearly every hotel! Austrian Nightjet sleepers dont have enough ensuites, and their new builds will remedy that.
As for couchettes - last seen in the UK in the 1950s when they were called "third class sleepers" - I don't think any have been built in Europe for the last 30 years, so CS would be bucking the trend. Not that that's wrong!

Caledonian sleeper will have more Mk5 sleeper (bed) coaches than nightjet have sleeping coaches, about 70% of the nightjet fleet are actually couchettes or seated coaches.

 

[BRX]

The current blend of flights and trains works really quite well?

Not if you are looking at it from a climate emergency / long term perspective - anything involving flights doesn't work well at all.

Looking at the idea of displacing 1300 air passengers per day - in a scenario where flying became a lot more expensive, many of those would move to daytime train, some would not travel at all, and there might be a remainder who would be interested in sleeper travel. Scaling up to provide a substantially larger overnight capacity isn't exactly a crazy notion - it was only a few decades ago that there were many, many more overnight services operating throughout the UK. I believe there used to be two sleepers to/from Inverness on (Friday?) nights, there was the internal Glasgow/Edinburgh - Inverness one, and from Edinburgh and Glasgow there were several each night to London with others going to Perth, and so on.

 

[Bassman]

Not if you are looking at it from a climate emergency / long term perspective - anything involving flights doesn't work well at all.

.....Scaling up to provide a substantially larger overnight capacity isn't exactly a crazy notion - it was only a few decades ago that there were many, many more overnight services operating throughout the UK. I believe there used to be two sleepers to/from Inverness on (Friday?) nights, there was the internal Glasgow/Edinburgh - Inverness one, and from Edinburgh and Glasgow there were several each night to London with others going to Perth, and so on.

I very much agree! Plus this is potential easily growth in rail travel by using existing infrastructure at night. (If there is space then it is win win!)
Government could shape a change in priority towards rail and reduce air travel by taxation, not a popular attractive proposition. However if we do have a 'climate emergency' and folk want to reduce our carbon footprint, this is the way. All other talk becomes hypocrisy!

 

[37201xoIM]

I very much agree! Plus this is potential easily growth in rail travel by using existing infrastructure at night. (If there is space then it is win win!)
Government could shape a change in priority towards rail and reduce air travel by taxation, not a popular attractive proposition. However if we do have a 'climate emergency' and folk want to reduce our carbon footprint, this is the way. All other talk becomes hypocrisy!

Indeed, I strongly agree with you both. Expanding overnights will however amplify the tension with infrastructure maintenance access - as will expanding rail freight. Speaking of overnight traffic, by the way there is a similar modal shift argument in terms of postal traffic and aviation, of course. "Here is the Night Mail, crossing the Border........."

 

[broadgage]

I suspect that the sleeper train may be greener than it at first appears, for two reasons.
Firstly it runs at night, and night time electricity has a lower carbon intensity than does day time electricity.
Secondly, use of the sleeper instead of flying or driving might save a night in an hotel and thus also save the carbon emissions caused by the hotel.

And of course we should plan for the future, the sleeper should get greener as the years go past and a growing percentage of UK electricity is from renewables.
Air travel is unlikely to get greener, it is virtually 100% oil burning and is probably already about as efficient as possible.
Long distance road transport is also virtually 100% oil burning and seems likely to remain thus. Electric cars are increasingly viable for shorter journeys, but not suitable for Southern England to the North of Scotland.

 

[jimm]

Not if you are looking at it from a climate emergency / long term perspective - anything involving flights doesn't work well at all.

Looking at the idea of displacing 1300 air passengers per day - in a scenario where flying became a lot more expensive, many of those would move to daytime train, some would not travel at all, and there might be a remainder who would be interested in sleeper travel. Scaling up to provide a substantially larger overnight capacity isn't exactly a crazy notion - it was only a few decades ago that there were many, many more overnight services operating throughout the UK. I believe there used to be two sleepers to/from Inverness on (Friday?) nights, there was the internal Glasgow/Edinburgh - Inverness one, and from Edinburgh and Glasgow there were several each night to London with others going to Perth, and so on.

I'm afraid that without the premium-price newspaper and postal traffic that those trains also carried, which were the key revenue streams rather than the passengers, there are never going to be lots of overnight trains again.

 

[jagardner1984]

But what there could be surely is Longer existing overnight trains.

If CS’ mk5s develop a reasonable reputation for reliability and comfort (let’s leave price out of it a moment) then it seems perfectly reasonable to aim to take passengers off domestic flights and onto rail.

The argument against, particularly for Inverness, is that daytime rail effectively costs you a day of your work / leisure time in each direction. Sleeper travel bypasses that entirely.

It might seem brutal, but using receipts of an increased APD from Scottish airports (which would gradually reduce business there) to subsidise any or all of the following:

1. More Sleeper Stock to allow longer trains (probably separate Glasgow - Edinburgh first) to run full distance to London.
2. Additional subsidy for sleeper travel ( perhaps targeted at the cheaper seats / classic option.)
3. Additional funding for speed improvements on Anglo-Scottish rail.
4. Additional funding for specific limited stop (ie faster) daytime services on Anglo-Scottish routes.
5. Additional subsidy for additional advance tickets on daytime Anglo-Scottish routes, to better compete on price with low cost airlines.

APD raised £275million in Scotland last year at current rates. Given sleeper stock is a 30 year investment, the £100m spent so far is a drop in the ocean. Climate emergency requires drastic action.

 

[30907]

Caledonian sleeper will have more Mk5 sleeper (bed) coaches than nightjet have sleeping coaches, about 70% of the nightjet fleet are actually couchettes or seated coaches.

The NJ fleet is in fact 4 seats to 3 couchettes to 2 sleepers, so even higher than you quote; their new stock will be 2:3:2. With the distances involved, and relatively slow daytime journeys, there is still evidently a market for overnight travel in most of mainland Europe.
My point remains, though, that the trend is towards greater comfort within each category (6-berth couchettes to 4, fewer seats cars as well as ensuite sleepers).

 

[Bassman]

My point remains, though, that the trend is towards greater comfort within each category (6-berth couchettes to 4, fewer seats cars as well as ensuite sleepers).

Yes and with a stronger environmentally friendly approach .
It may take time and there is no guarantee about it happening, but we seem to be agreed that by altering taxation and either by longer or more trains with more accommodation and marketing*, there is potential for growth of overnight trains to provide a modern but more environmentally friendly connection within the UK.

* If there is a mindset shift in environmental friendly travelling then I would hope that within the next few years we could have orders for MK5 couchette cars to supplement the new seating cars and sleepers.

 

[BRX]

I'm afraid that without the premium-price newspaper and postal traffic that those trains also carried, which were the key revenue streams rather than the passengers, there are never going to be lots of overnight trains again.

There's no reason it couldn't happen again with a different source of funding. Sure, it's unlikely to happen by itself but with a different approach to transport and environmental policy, everything would change.

 

[Mikey C]

Don't Stagecoach operate overnight coaches with bunks for travellers on a budget?

 

[BRX]

Don't Stagecoach operate overnight coaches with bunks for travellers on a budget?

Not any more

https://www.independent.co.uk/trave...-ryanair-victoria-coach-station-a7674681.html

 

[Jozhua]

Yeah nuclear baseload and renewables such as wind that continue running at night are essentially providing spare electricity...

I mean they literally have enough spare to provide cheaper rates to customers and refill pumped storage.

However, when switching to diesel things become interesting!

There is probably a reasonable difference in emissions from the flight side of things depending on how full they are and what altitude they are flying at or if they are using turbo-props or jets.

Considering as well, day trains carry more passengers, but run at higher speeds (encountering more resistance) and run at times the grid is under more load and has coal and gas plants running. Although the daytime also has the bonus of solar...

I think what this all goes to illustrate is the complexity of these issues and how engrained burning of carbon is in our society. First however, grid generation is definitely the best place to turn. A higher mix of nuclear/renewables will definitely make train travel more green across the board.

 

[delt1c]

You do have the option of a £45 Seat on the Sleeper.

Whilst I agree with you about horrible cramped short haul flights, the seats on the Sleeper are more akin to a Premium Economy Seat on a long haul plane (and look similar to a first class Seat on ECML.

I would have liked to have seen the originally suggested lie flat pod beds on the Sleeper - but we are where we are.

What cramped seats, I am 6ft , travel all over Europe by Budget airline and only time i have been cramped was on a premium airline.

 

[jagardner1984]

I travelled in the Mk3 seats once and budget airlines all the time. The difference mainly being that in an airline seat I’m slightly uncomfortable for an hour, and at worst have to get up really early or get home really late.

The sleeper seats deny me a proper nights sleep (as do Any chair based option), and more to the point with any amount of notice I can get a flight for far less than £45. The seated sleeper feels like a real missed opportunity to advertise “From £29” fares or similar. Or really go for it and sell a single £1 seat on each journey as Megabus often do. Until you can make the budget option price competitive, you’ll struggle to capture that budget flight market.

(And it has to be about the ticket price. Research has shown people don’t take account of the costs getting to/from an airport or station, so whilst they may be significant and tip the balance, they are irrelevant here )

 

[cjmillsnun]

Traction electricity contract is nuclear baseload.

And my energy contract is 100% renewable however both my electric car and the railways in reality take whatever is on the grid at the time.

 

[Richard Ingram]

And my energy contract is 100% renewable however both my electric car and the railways in reality take whatever is on the grid at the time.

Maybe its best to treat electricity the way we treat money, I think the term is fungible. If I pay money into a bank account one day, then withdraw it the next, the notes I carry are different, but it is considered the same money. When you buy electricity with a source clause in the contract, what you are doing is saying, whatever amount I use, make sure that you put that amount into the pool from the source I want. That means that people who don't pay that surcharge are effectively using more energy put into the pool from other sources than the overall grid mix.

For renewables, that is working, as it allows a consumer to volunteer to pay more to change the balance of the grid, but it is going to have to change at some point once renewable energy is cheaper, as everyone would then be incentivised to switch to renewable, but the grid will need to maintain a mix to work. Although I suspect that point has already passed and it does not work quite like that now, as renewable is already quite cheap at certain times.

So if the traction current is contracted to come from nuclear, then I think it is fair to do the green calculations based on that, and the customers who do not choose where it comes from have there green calculations done on the non-allocated mix.

 

[hwl]

Maybe its best to treat electricity the way we treat money, I think the term is fungible. If I pay money into a bank account one day, then withdraw it the next, the notes I carry are different, but it is considered the same money. When you buy electricity with a source clause in the contract, what you are doing is saying, whatever amount I use, make sure that you put that amount into the pool from the source I want. That means that people who don't pay that surcharge are effectively using more energy put into the pool from other sources than the overall grid mix.

For renewables, that is working, as it allows a consumer to volunteer to pay more to change the balance of the grid, but it is going to have to change at some point once renewable energy is cheaper, as everyone would then be incentivised to switch to renewable, but the grid will need to maintain a mix to work. Although I suspect that point has already passed and it does not work quite like that now, as renewable is already quite cheap at certain times.

So if the traction current is contracted to come from nuclear, then I think it is fair to do the green calculations based on that, and the customers who do not choose where it comes from have there green calculations done on the non-allocated mix.

That was exactly the logic employed to encourage investment in better sourcing when the thinking was done well over a decade ago.
Some of the new rail calculation will reflect the actual sourcing mix in the near future... (Non traction is sourced from a different contract)
New increases in usage from "non choosing" customers instead of getting the unallocated mix get the worst marginal generation (i.e. coal) to also provide some encouragement.

 

[hwl]

And my energy contract is 100% renewable however both my electric car and the railways in reality take whatever is on the grid at the time.

There has to be an encouragement mechanism though!