Ideas for alternative (non Scotrail/FGW) sleeper services?

[Trainbike46]

And as sleepers are usually locomotives and coaches why couldn't electric locos be used. Sleepers have an advantage over air travel of comfort as rather than having to be awake and alert for the journey you can be sleeping.

The situation @Bald Rick was referring to is the highland sleeper on the Edinburgh-Aberdeen (and to a lesser extend the Edinburgh-Fort William, and Edinburgh-Inverness portions). There is currently no overhead there, so an electric locomotive wouldn't work. Electric locomotives (class 92) are used from Edinburgh-London on the highland sleeper, however the amount of diesel burned on the Edinburgh-Aberdeen section is shocking, specifically given that it is the quietest section of the highland sleeper

The lowland sleeper runs on electric the whole way, and using the sleeper to travel central belt-london is undeniably greener compared to flying.

The european sleepers have two advantages over the UK ones; Firstly, almost all of them run electric the full way; Secondly, their capacity is much more similar to that of a day train compared to sleepers here

If sleepers are combined with checking in luggage and a luggage car connected to airports and the air travel directly it would get a good number of people using it.

I don't understand this point? Could you clarify? Isn't the whole point that people don't got to airports? Why would anyone prefer checked luggage?

 

[Bartsimho]

The situation @Bald Rick was referring to is the highland sleeper on the Edinburgh-Aberdeen (and to a lesser extend the Edinburgh-Fort William, and Edinburgh-Inverness portions). There is currently no overhead there, so an electric locomotive wouldn't work. Electric locomotives (class 92) are used from Edinburgh-London on the highland sleeper, however the amount of diesel burned on the Edinburgh-Aberdeen section is shocking, specifically given that it is the quietest section of the highland sleeper

The lowland sleeper runs on electric the whole way, and using the sleeper to travel central belt-london is undeniably greener compared to flying.

The european sleepers have two advantages over the UK ones; Firstly, almost all of them run electric the full way; Secondly, their capacity is much more similar to that of a day train compared to sleepers here

I don't understand this point? Could you clarify? Isn't the whole point that people don't got to airports? Why would anyone prefer checked luggage?

Comparing the worst section of diesel locomotives and then applying it to a conversation about presumably busier sleeper services and ones targeting airport traffic as previous posts mentioned Edinburgh/Glasgow to Southampton

I think the other way of looking at it would be where there is a busy flight link but unattractive rail timings.

As I recall, it also requires the co-operation of Network Rail as to which routes can be made available overnight.

So in terms of the flight link, what about

Edinburgh 2200
Glasgow 2315
Carlisle 0030
Preston ….
Crewe ….
Watford 0530
Clapham Junction 0630
Southampton 0800

So you do both of the Scottish pickups, you still get a London drop off with loads of onward connections. And Southampton has 9 flights a day from the two airports.

This was the original comment which has just been replied to constantly.

Also the Highland Sleeper has been furnished for a higher end market and not high capacity beds which could be done in the cabins were closer to the Night Riviera style of bunks and they allowed sharing. We have to ask why can't we get the capacity higher when it can be done in Europe? (I know we have a more restrictive loading gauge but surely we can be a bit better than currently).

The point about Checked luggage was in regards to connecting flights which make up a good chunk of domestic air travel

 

[Trainbike46]

Comparing the worst section of diesel locomotives and then applying it to a conversation about presumably busier sleeper services and ones targeting airport traffic as previous posts mentioned Edinburgh/Glasgow to Southampton

This was the original comment which has just been replied to constantly.

Also the Highland Sleeper has been furnished for a higher end market and not high capacity beds which could be done in the cabins were closer to the Night Riviera style of bunks and they allowed sharing. We have to ask why can't we get the capacity higher when it can be done in Europe? (I know we have a more restrictive loading gauge but surely we can be a bit better than currently).

The point about Checked luggage was in regards to connecting flights which make up a good chunk of domestic air travel

In case it wasn't obvious, I support sleeper trains! However, I was trying to clarify bald rick's point that the emissions from the aberdeen-edinburgh section of the highland sleeper per passenger exceed the the per passenger emissions from flying aberdeen-london - hard to believe, I know, but I trust bald rick's sources and I've seen the calculations he refers too. The other sections do better simply because they have higher passenger numbers, so the emissions

I don't think the connecting flights market really exist for edinburgh/glasgow-southampton flights, so I wouldn't worry about connecting passengers for that market!

 

[30907]

Is this a Chicken or Egg thing? They fly because there are no other connections or has flying killed the other connections?

The last non-London sleeper by several years was Plymouth-Scotland, which (anecdotally) survived on Devonport-Rosyth (naval dockyard) traffic.
Flights from the SW generally have struggled in recent years, which suggests a declining overall market - think Flybe. So I think the answer to your question is "neither"

That said, Edinburgh-Bristol(-Plymouth) is the only remotely likely sleeper route;
Easyjet flies a dozen times a day to Scotland (Inverness included) and their flights aren't hugely expensive a couple of days ahead, but this is 1/6 the number of flights from London airports, which is a rough indication of the likely market.
You would need the sleeper market to treble to be able to fill a Bristol sleeper - and before that happened you would have put your resources into Scotland-London

 

[Bald Rick]

However, I was trying to clarify bald rick's point that the emissions from the aberdeen-edinburgh section of the highland sleeper per passenger exceed the the per passenger emissions from flying aberdeen-london - hard to believe, I know, but I trust bald rick's sources and I've seen the calculations he refers too.

I forget the detail, but it’s a close run thing between the Carbon emissions per passenger from Edinburgh to Inverness on the sleeper compared to Heathrow to Inverness by BA, and Edinburgh to Aberdeen/ Heathrow to Aberdeen similarly. Without redoing the calls I suspect the sleeper is marginally better, but not much.

The day train is, of course, significantly better. As is an electric car

We have to ask why can't we get the capacity higher when it can be done in Europe? (I know we have a more restrictive loading gauge but surely we can be a bit better than currently).

If it was possible it would have been done. The loading gauge is a big (or rather small) issue.

 

[jagardner1984]

Expecting to be shot down in flames, and obvious issues of subsidy, but I would be intrigued by the comparative costs of running X carriages from one location and Y carriages from another location joining in Z location, before full formation going to A location, which then limits the length of X and Y by the limitations of A, rather than just running a full set from X and Y to A seperately.

So to be more explicit. If there is more money in customers turned away to be made from the many many sold out services on the Sleeper in the weeks to come to/from Edinburgh, but this is not possible because of the platform length at Euston (and not enough stock, obviously), then would the increased cost of running two full trains (Say 10 car) from Glasgow and Edinburgh seperately to London, be in any way offset by the additional fare revenue of another 20 odd berths at £300/each in each of those trains. Presumably the more people accommodated for the same ratio of driver / guard / hosts / back office staff, the better the picture is in terms of subsidy, and it is hard to understand how, even given all of the complications, how a full train (Lowlander) of 112 rooms at £200+ a night, plus some income from Seated passengers and the Bar, which on a very conservative basis would be taking £22000 on one train in one direction, would be losing quite so much money night after night.

By the same token, if splitting / shunting is "not" a significant cost, my little brain can't work out which ends are at front and back after the join, but from either Glasgow / or Edinburgh, could a couple of coaches split at Watford (or somewhere else) and continue via the WLL to for example Southampton as suggested ?

As a general point, I'm not sure "it didn't work in the 1990s" is a failsafe argument forever more. Society has moved an awful lot in the intervening years, and there are stronger flows on some routes (not specifically rail) and weaker on others. For example, I know of one company whose Green policy now dictates that all domestic travel must be made by rail, so for example did Glasgow - Brighton via rail rather than the (much more obvious on a purely time basis) Glasgow - Gatwick flights, of which there are many, for half the price.

 

[Bald Rick]

As a general point, I'm not sure "it didn't work in the 1990s" is a failsafe argument forever more.

To put this in context, when the south coast sleeper was running…

1) the sleepers were attached to the back of an overnight train already running (IIRC, principally post/ parcels south of Birmingham, and other sleepers north thereof)
2) the sleeper vehicles themselves were otherwise spare and doing nothing
3) allocation of costs was rather primitive

to all intents and purposes, the marginal costs were that of some shunting, the onboard staff, and the cleaning / servicing. And it didn’t work!

Now, the marginal costs are rather different. Crew for a new south coast to Scotland operation (Drivers, Snr Conductors, 3 or 4 customer hosts) is going to be around £3-4m minimum. Traction electricity / fuel will be the same again. Then you have to hire and maintain the rolling stock (and Sleepers are the most expensive rolling stock money can buy). Track access. Hiring in ‘help’ at the major stations For your customers. Servicing the coaches every day. Commission on sales. I can’t see how it would be less than £20m pa. Probably more.

 

[edwin_m]

Expecting to be shot down in flames, and obvious issues of subsidy, but I would be intrigued by the comparative costs of running X carriages from one location and Y carriages from another location joining in Z location, before full formation going to A location, which then limits the length of X and Y by the limitations of A, rather than just running a full set from X and Y to A seperately.

So to be more explicit. If there is more money in customers turned away to be made from the many many sold out services on the Sleeper in the weeks to come to/from Edinburgh, but this is not possible because of the platform length at Euston (and not enough stock, obviously), then would the increased cost of running two full trains (Say 10 car) from Glasgow and Edinburgh seperately to London, be in any way offset by the additional fare revenue of another 20 odd berths at £300/each in each of those trains. Presumably the more people accommodated for the same ratio of driver / guard / hosts / back office staff, the better the picture is in terms of subsidy, and it is hard to understand how, even given all of the complications, how a full train (Lowlander) of 112 rooms at £200+ a night, plus some income from Seated passengers and the Bar, which on a very conservative basis would be taking £22000 on one train in one direction, would be losing quite so much money night after night.

Even with the current arrangement of a maximum length train that is filled most nights, there is still a large public subsidy per passenger, equal to the total cost of the operation minus the revenue divided by the number of passengers. Run two of them and you may fill both and nearly double the subsidy, as all costs apart from back office will double. Or there isn't enough demand to fill the second one, the costs are still nearly double but the revenue isn't, so subsidy is even more.

 

[jagardner1984]

Yes, I fully acknowledge that in my post. My question, is the relative costs of all the shunting as opposed to running two trains (with the additional revenue from longer trains, and if anyone can shed any light on how a train making revenue around the annual salary of one of the few onboard staff on one single journey on one night can require quite so much subsidy. It would lend weight to the argument that the splitting of back office functions with Scotrail has not improved the efficiency of the sleeper operation. Another genuine question - how is the rolling stock cost expressed in Subsidy figures ? I found the following document relating to the accounts for Caledonian Sleeper Rail Leasing Ltd for the year to 2022

Sleeper Rail Leasing Accounts

It seems hard to believe that the process of passing multi million figures from A to B via a series of financing companies can make something more financially efficient, and indeed, this is surely a barrier to Open Access Operators. For example, the comparison of the PFI schemes under Labour, whereby the costs of just paying Balfour Beatty to build a school were shifted off balance sheet by Balfour Beatty financing the school, and then renting it to public bodies over a 30 year period, with the associated risks in financial costs.

Perhaps there is some relevance in analysing why such things (Sleepers) are flourishing a few hundred miles away on the continent, but seemingly entirely impossible to even contemplate here. There was an interesting article on the relative costs of infrastructure works, and how / why similar infrastructure is much more affordable elsewhere. As an example - I found the below figures for road works on the A303 ....

This scheme is going to cost currently £34.2m per km. For comparison, in Spain, the A54 east of Santiago de Compostela was opened last month at a cost of £6.8m per km.

All quite relevant as barriers to entry for innovative Open Access Operators.

 

[Iskra]

2) given the average subsidy per passenger of the CS, an OA operator would need to be confident of charging, on average, about 50% more than the current CS fares, and have an similar (ie very high) occupancy rate in order to get a return on their investment and make a profit.

Or carry 50% more passengers? A coach with a Russian style high capacity open couchette model could possibly help deliver that (as well as traditional berths). I know they have a bigger loading gauge though.

- - - -

While the CS may be selling out, isn’t that barely noteworthy due to the reduction in capacity compared to the Mk3’s?

Also the seated carriages in their current form seem a complete waste considering the poor reviews they get, I can’t imagine many passengers opt to travel in them.

 

[Bald Rick]

Also the seated carriages in their current form seem a complete waste considering the poor reviews they get, I can’t imagine many passengers opt to travel in them.

All seats booked northbound tonight - and for most of next week too.

 

[HSTEd]

Fundamentally you are moving a 30-40 tonne vehicle for something like 10-15 passengers (on the Caledonian Sleeper).

It's hard to escape this reality.
If we could run very long trains it might be better, but we already have to eat shunting costs for our existing formations even without shunting at the ends to split the train for the platforms.

Huge crew requirements, only half a round trip per day and terrible passenger density. To get passenger density high enough to be even approaching worthwhile you would probably need the Chunnel loading gauge throughout!

Pouring money away on sleepers in a country as small as the UK is a terrible plan compared to service improvements on day trains.

 

[Iskra]

All seats booke northbound tonight - and for most of next week too.

Unwitting tourists? Desperate overflow from the sold-out berths?

I’ll get a bit more excited when we see it year round rather than the height of the tourist season.

 

[Bartsimho]

The real question has to come that even when a sleeper train is fully booked in advance how can it still be losing money when our European counterparts can run sleeper trains and turn profits on them. While they have a bigger loading gauge which helps capacity how are we still so bad at these.

There has to be an issue somewhere in the system which leads to this an I feel like people just don't want to look for it.

The only route similar to these is really central belt to London but how can that still make a loss. Trying for the wrong market with the wrong price?
If it's full and is making a loss maybe prices need to change or is the subsidy too good that it doesn't matter that they lose money they just get given a bunch anyway so there is no incentive to investigate profitability

 

[Bald Rick]

The real question has to come that even when a sleeper train is fully booked in advance how can it still be losing money when our European counterparts can run sleeper trains and turn profits on them. While they have a bigger loading gauge which helps capacity how are we still so bad at these.

a few things:

1) loading gauge (as you say) means more bums on beds per coach and therefore more income
2) European overnight trains are largely not composed of sleepers. There’s lots of seats and couchettes. These will make more money, particularly with intermediate traffic for the seats. You need many fewer staff to operate seats / couchettes than beds.
3) railways cost less to operate in Europe, and that’s mostly down to staff costs. Difficult though it is to say, but (for example) DB drivers earn a little more than half what our drivers earn.


to make the CS ‘subsidy’ free, prices would need to increase by around 50%. As it happens I reckon the market would bear that.

 

[IanXC]

The real question has to come that even when a sleeper train is fully booked in advance how can it still be losing money when our European counterparts can run sleeper trains and turn profits on them. While they have a bigger loading gauge which helps capacity how are we still so bad at these.

I agree this is the key question. And there might be good reasons for it, but given the profusion of OAO sleeper operators it definitely warrants investigation. Worthy of note that a couple of them have speculatively talked of running to London.

I tend to think of these as the first two services I would be investigating:

Scotland - South West
Glasgow - Edinburgh - Newcastle - York - Leeds - Sheffield or Manchester - Birmingham - Birmingham International - Bristol - Exeter
Also aiming to pick up the overnight market and airport market as per TPE's overnight services.

Scotland - Europe
I'm far from convinced it would be impossible for an OAO to have border arrangements paid/subsidised by the Scottish Government, then run something like Glasgow - Edinburgh - Brussels - Koln

 

[Bald Rick]

.

Scotland - Europe
I'm far from convinced it would be impossible for an OAO to have border arrangements paid/subsidised by the Scottish Government, then run something like Glasgow - Edinburgh - Brussels - Koln

whilst it might not be impossible, it would certainly not be economic.

the entire passenger market between the whole of Scotland and the whole of Belgium and Germany is less than 10% of the London - Scotland passenger market. Given that only 2-3% of the London - Scotland market uses the sleeper, you can see that the numbers willing to use a Scotland - Belgium / Germany sleeper would be rather small. And the costs very high: easily £500 one way per passenger to cover marginal costs. And the journey would be long, easily 12 hours each way to Brussels, 14h to Köln, probably more.

 

[Irascible]

I always like to think a NE to SW one would work but I suspect not.

If, perhaps, domestic air travel was banned - I personally would consider doing SW-Scotland on a sleeper, I'm certainly not going all the way on a Voyager - or there was a sudden renaissance in the Royal Navy. Otherwise, no, I don't think so.

 

[IanXC]

whilst it might not be impossible, it would certainly not be economic.

the entire passenger market between the whole of Scotland and the whole of Belgium and Germany is less than 10% of the London - Scotland passenger market. Given that only 2-3% of the London - Scotland market uses the sleeper, you can see that the numbers willing to use a Scotland - Belgium / Germany sleeper would be rather small. And the costs very high: easily £500 one way per passenger to cover marginal costs. And the journey would be long, easily 12 hours each way to Brussels, 14h to Köln, probably more.

Only 2-3% might well use the sleeper (I haven't seen any figures) but London - Scotland rail all told is surely much higher. I'm not sure that journey time is that relevant, in some ways a significant portion of sleeper passengers want to be able to have a solid 8 hours sleep, so add a few hours to settle down and a couple to wake up and 12-14 isn't really a problem. The key is that the proposition offers a reasonable day in the origin, evening meal onboard, and arrival by 0900-1000.

I agree it seems exceptionally speculative, and pretty unlikely, but the premise of the thread is alternative sleeper services, and I think that of the possible options, this is a relatively more likely one. (Not to mention impact on the case of an independent Scotland as an EU member *runs and hides*)

 

[Bartsimho]

whilst it might not be impossible, it would certainly not be economic.

the entire passenger market between the whole of Scotland and the whole of Belgium and Germany is less than 10% of the London - Scotland passenger market. Given that only 2-3% of the London - Scotland market uses the sleeper, you can see that the numbers willing to use a Scotland - Belgium / Germany sleeper would be rather small. And the costs very high: easily £500 one way per passenger to cover marginal costs. And the journey would be long, easily 12 hours each way to Brussels, 14h to Köln, probably more.

For a sleeper train speed is not an issue unless you are pushing 16 hours as that is too long. Actually a short journey isn't desirable for a sleeper as it is too short.

So between 10 and 14 hours is probably the perfect journey for our type of sleepers.

Anyway even a St Pancras to Europe sleeper should be considered even if it has different portions and splits. Maybe a London-Marseille/Milan/Munich and that train could be to European Loading gauge not our more restrictive gauge

Edit: What is the size inside the carriages as I was wondering if capsules would fit. I can see they are usually 1.2m x 2m x 1m so they could maybe fit more passengers laying down

 

[JonathanH]

Anyway even a St Pancras to Europe sleeper should be considered even if it has different portions and splits. Maybe a London-Marseille/Milan/Munich and that train could be to European Loading gauge not our more restrictive gauge

Unfortunately, getting off and back on at Lille in the early hours is going to kill that idea. The best way to do sleepers into Europe is for them to run from Paris or Brussels, with day train connections from London.

 

[philosopher]

a few things:

1) loading gauge (as you say) means more bums on beds per coach and therefore more income
2) European overnight trains are largely not composed of sleepers. There’s lots of seats and couchettes. These will make more money, particularly with intermediate traffic for the seats. You need many fewer staff to operate seats / couchettes than beds.

With these points, I get you can’t have three level bunks per compartment in UK sleeper trains due to loading gauge issues, but surely you can have four berth couchette compartments comprised to two two level bunks. Also I can’t see why sleepers can’t have seated accommodation for short to medium distance late evening journeys.

 

[JonathanH]

Also I can’t see why sleepers can’t have seated accommodation for short to medium distance late evening journeys.

Where are you thinking of that doesn't already have short to medium distance late evening journeys on day trains?

 

[zwk500]

For a sleeper train speed is not an issue unless you are pushing 16 hours as that is too long. Actually a short journey isn't desirable for a sleeper as it is too short.

So between 10 and 14 hours is probably the perfect journey for our type of sleepers.

14 hours would mean a 7pm departure for a 10am arrival on the continent (after the hour's time difference is accounted for).

Anyway even a St Pancras to Europe sleeper should be considered even if it has different portions and splits. Maybe a London-Marseille/Milan/Munich and that train could be to European Loading gauge not our more restrictive gauge

The HSL Close overnight so if you wanted to be European loading gauge you are severely constrained on timings to/from London. Add then the passport and luggage check.
Best option for European sleepers is connecting in at Brussels, as said before.

 

[XAM2175]

to make the CS ‘subsidy’ free, prices would need to increase by around 50%. As it happens I reckon the market would bear that.

This forum certainly wouldn't

 

[Bald Rick]

With these points, I get you can’t have three level bunks per compartment in UK sleeper trains due to loading gauge issues, but surely you can have four berth couchette compartments comprised to two two level bunks.

yes you can. But it takes up almost as much space as 2 separate 2 bed cabins. And, obviously, would require sharing to mark most use of them - and we dont do sharing as the research that CS shows

 

[edwin_m]

Are there any actual or planned sleeper services using something similar to the lie-flat seats in airline business class? That could be more attractive than a reclining seat but more space-efficient than cabins. I think many people would prefer sharing in this more open environment than in a closed compartment where there is a risk of robbery or assault.

 

[jagardner1984]

there was something about crash worthiness the last time it was raised.

Same argument as to why it is apparently necessary to have the lighting ambience of the custody suite at Greenock police station.

Both instances where some common sense should apply - presumably an airline seat is a modular object bought from Boeing / Airbus. So my initial question would be - given far greater speeds / risk involved in air travel - buy some of them ? From my memory of these seats, would a double narrow aisle and 1+1+1 be possible ? Certainly the seat widths I can find online suggest so.

 

[NSE]

I feel like many people don’t know about the sleepers. I’ve got a trip to Aberdeen coming up and I’m planning on going via the Sleeper. When I’ve mentioned this, many people didn’t realise this was an option.

 

[PeterC]

there was something about crash worthiness the last time it was raised.

Same argument as to why it is apparently necessary to have the lighting ambience of the custody suite at Greenock police station.

Both instances where some common sense should apply - presumably an airline seat is a modular object bought from Boeing / Airbus. So my initial question would be - given far greater speeds / risk involved in air travel - buy some of them ? From my memory of these seats, would a double narrow aisle and 1+1+1 be possible ? Certainly the seat widths I can find online suggest so.

The Australians don't seem to have an issue on the Spirit of Queensland

Travel Options