Is there way of making the Caledonian Sleeper more profitable?

[snowleopard]

but not a lot different. If such a sharing policy was introduced, the number of additional travellers the sleeper could take who woudl otherwise have flown would barely fill a few rows of an A320.

Point taken - unless you manage to get such increased demand (due to lower fares offered for sharers) that it becomes worthwhile putting on a second nightly sleeper. Or think big and start looking at a Birmingham-origin Highlander... or a Crosscountry-style one that starts in, say, Bristol or even Cardiff and picks up along the road in Bristol/Birmingham/Manchester before going to the Highlands. (I'm sure people will tell me the practical limitations making these impossible in a minute, all I'm saying is that the continental response to sleepers being full over the last years has tended to be "let's put on more of them" rather than "let's price them at £250-300 minimum and keep the experience exclusive".

By far the easiest and most cost effective way of encouraging more people to use the train rather than plane from London to Scotland is to recast the ECML timetable…

That, no doubt, is also a good idea!

 

[deltic]

I wouldn’t advocate getting rid of the Inverness or Fort William Highlander legs, due to the lesser travel options to those destinations.

But, for me; the Lowlander can go, and as can the Aberdeen portion of the Highlander. These would both provide cost savings without causing too much loss to passengers and having little social justification for subsidies. The freed up rolling stock could strengthen the remaining Fort William/Inverness service and/or be cascaded to replace the Night Riviera Mk3’s.

Isn't the Lowlander the best performer - do many people really travel to Fort William year round.

 

[Iskra]

Isn't the Lowlander the best performer - do many people really travel to Fort William year round.

I don't know, although I have done the Fort William section in winter in Mk3 days myself.

Alternatively, cut Aberdeen and all the shunting and just run two trains, with just loco changes at Edinburgh, Glasgow area/Carstairs. It still serves the main markets, but dispenses with Aberdeen and simplifies things somewhat.

London-Glasgow-Fort William
London-Edinburgh-Inverness

If you're concerned about lower winter revenue, Glasgow could then make up for it somewhat, or you could just reduce the formation in winter and use it to do maintenance.

 

[Trainbike46]

Philosophical question - what is CS for? Why do we subsidise it? Is its purpose to be a rich person's plaything ("the Deerstalker") or is it providing an essential public service?


Unfortunately the UK government (who ultimately hold the purse strings, whatever Holyrood might prefer) have no intention of achieving modal shift from air to rail. If they did they wouldn't have cancelled either of the legs of HS2.

The government made it's position on domestic air travel abundantly clear when they halved the Air Passenger Duty on domestic flights.

but not a lot different. If such a sharing policy was introduced, the number of additional travellers the sleeper could take who woudl otherwise have flown would barely fill a few rows of an A320.

By far the easiest and most cost effective way of encouraging more people to use the train rather than plane from London to Scotland is to recast the ECML timetable…

Agreed that LNER improvements would likely be the best short-term way of achieving modal shift from air to train. Longer term building more of HS2 is more important I'd say.

 

[Bald Rick]

So passenger A and passenger B would previously have occupied solo compartments at £225 each (total income £450). They move into a shared compartment, each paying £142.50. There is now a vacant compartment which (depending upon who books it first) will either be occupied by private solo passenger C (£225, total income £510) or by shared passengers D and E (£285 as a couple, £142.50pp, total income £570).

Neatly demonstrating my point, that the revenue from existing passengers is reduced, offsetting some of the additional revenue from selling the newly spare rooms.

Also don‘t forget that every passenger also incurs a marginal cost, so the extra revenue doesn’t all go to the bottom line.

 

[Iskra]

Neatly demonstrating my point, that the revenue from existing passengers is reduced, offsetting some of the additional revenue from selling the newly spare rooms.

Also don‘t forget that every passenger also incurs a marginal cost, so the extra revenue doesn’t all go to the bottom line.

But every extra passenger is also an additional opportunity for onboard spend.

 

[Bald Rick]

But every extra passenger is also an additional opportunity for onboard spend.

Indeed. Or not, as the case may be, given there is no lockable storage in the rooms.

Philosophical question - what is CS for? Why do we subsidise it? Is its purpose to be a rich person's plaything ("the Deerstalker") or is it providing an essential public service?

Both?

 

[Krokodil]

But every extra passenger is also an additional opportunity for onboard spend.

And spending at the destination, feeding into the Scottish economy.

Both?

I wouldn't object to that as an aim, so long as the "luxury" element is profitable and used to subsidise the public service element. How well is the public service aim being fulfilled? Could it be fulfilled better?

 

[Clansman]

Philosophical question - what is CS for? Why do we subsidise it? Is its purpose to be a rich person's plaything ("the Deerstalker") or is it providing an essential public service?

You pretty much answered your own question with...

And spending at the destination, feeding into the Scottish economy

Which has been stated is more of the purpose behind CS than the service itself being profitable. Since the Mk5s CS have embraced the luxury market rather than skirt in the middle ground between budget and luxury that the Mk2s/Mk3s provided - though I would argue this could have been done with the Mk5s if the will was there.

Interesting re the public service element. How do you define this? For example if we take the rural Loganair flights then locals can claim a subsidy, such is the public service element. But for the sleeper, what public service provisions you would look at beyond what has already been done, I am not sure. Unless I have misunderstood.

 

[Krokodil]

You pretty much answered your own question with...

I know what my answer is, I wanted to know what other people thought it was for.

Interesting re the public service element. How do you define this? For example if we take the rural Loganair flights then locals can claim a subsidy, such is the public service element. But for the sleeper, what public service provisions you would look at beyond what has already been done, I am not sure. Unless I have misunderstood.

If the public service duty of the Sleeper is to connect Scotland, its residents and its visitors with London, then affordable fares and good availability of berths are important elements for achieving it.

 

[RT4038]

If the public service duty of the Sleeper is to connect Scotland, its residents and its visitors with London, then affordable fares and good availability of berths are important elements for achieving it.

This will be up to the amount of money the Scottish Government wish to spend on it, which may be being maximised now and they don't want to spend any more.

 

[Bald Rick]

I wouldn't object to that as an aim, so long as the "luxury" element is profitable and used to subsidise the public service element. How well is the public service aim being fulfilled? Could it be fulfilled better?

For me the public service element is the provision of a direct service between London and various Highland Scottish communities, to enable inbound tourism, and I think it does that very well.

 

[gc4946]

It's very difficult for me suggesting ways to improve profitability without adding extra trains, e.g. all-seats only overnight services from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London.
Now that CS is nationalised maybe as a way of integration, ScotRail could advertise them as normal services for point to point journeys within Scotland.
Surely there are people who want an early start from the lowlands and a later return for a day trip to/from the West Highlands, for example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's very difficult for me suggesting ways to improve profitability without adding extra trains, e.g. all-seats only overnight services from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London.
Now that CS is nationalised maybe as a way of integration, ScotRail could advertise them as normal services for point to point journeys within Scotland.
Surely there are people who want an early start from the lowlands and a later return for a day trip to/from the West Highlands, for example.

Where they'd make sense they already are, but the limited seating capacity is an issue.

 

[Iskra]

Where they'd make sense they already are, but the limited seating capacity is an issue.

Getting very speculative now but if the Mk5a’s are spare* could they procure the 1st class vehicles as extra seating coaches?

*Not wishing to discuss how spare they are in this thread, as there’s already a thread on that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Getting very speculative now but if the Mk5a’s are spare* could they procure the 1st class vehicles as extra seating coaches?

*Not wishing to discuss how spare they are in this thread, as there’s already a thread on that.

The issue is I guess that the trains are full length already.

 

[JamesT]

It's very difficult for me suggesting ways to improve profitability without adding extra trains, e.g. all-seats only overnight services from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London.
Now that CS is nationalised maybe as a way of integration, ScotRail could advertise them as normal services for point to point journeys within Scotland.
Surely there are people who want an early start from the lowlands and a later return for a day trip to/from the West Highlands, for example.

If you want all-seated services, wouldn't that be better provided by the normal day operators running earlier/later, rather than something that needs bespoke rolling stock?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you want all-seated services, wouldn't that be better provided by the normal day operators running earlier/later, rather than something that needs bespoke rolling stock?

Quite possibly so. Lumo seem to be playing with this.

On the other hand the 2300 Euston-Manchester seems to have been withdrawn due to poor usage, so that doesn't bode well for this sort of service.

 

[RT4038]

It's very difficult for me suggesting ways to improve profitability without adding extra trains, e.g. all-seats only overnight services from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London.
Now that CS is nationalised maybe as a way of integration, ScotRail could advertise them as normal services for point to point journeys within Scotland.
Surely there are people who want an early start from the lowlands and a later return for a day trip to/from the West Highlands, for example.

It is really unclear to me how additional 'all-seats only overnight services could improve the profitability of the Caledonian Sleeper? ( Would they be profitable? )

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Shared compartments is how sleeper trains work almost everywhere in the world, with the exceptions of UK and the US

Couchettes are mixed gender and it doesn't cause any issues.

Exactly

 

[jagardner1984]

It is really unclear to me how additional 'all-seats only overnight services could improve the profitability of the Caledonian Sleeper? ( Would they be profitable? )

No comment on whether any of this is viable - but I guess the way to think of it is per coach rather than per sold unit - therefore a 10 room sleeper coach - 6 x Club at £250 and 4 x Classic at £200 (example numbers, some above and below both price points).

Yield is £2300.

Seats - 30 at £70 (again some above, some below).

Yield is £2100

Even assuming full occupancy in both, and assuming a price hike in one or both, it is hard to see how more seated cars would increase the income from the service. Unless they were additional to the existing 32 car maximum across the two services nightly.

I’m not entirely sure if it is another attempt at the sleeper road coach, or some kind of “luxury” reclining seat coach, or someone getting some old stock with decent seats in a first class configuration and running an open access “slow train” through the night …. That there is potentially some market between megabus and Caledonian sleeper classic room that remains untapped - either by price point, or lack of awareness of the CS seats,or lack of availability of the seats, or poor perception of the service (lots of reviews online pointing to the prior lighting situation, for example), or a combination of all of the above.

For example, if someone reduced the megabus capacity by 2/3rds (and charged 3 times as much), eg by guaranteeing a double seat and increasing legroom / comfort / seat pitch, I think that would be quite an attractive offer.

 

[RT4038]

I’m not entirely sure if it is another attempt at the sleeper road coach, or some kind of “luxury” reclining seat coach, or someone getting some old stock with decent seats in a first class configuration and running an open access “slow train” through the night …. That there is potentially some market between megabus and Caledonian sleeper classic room that remains untapped - either by price point, or lack of awareness of the CS seats,or lack of availability of the seats, or poor perception of the service (lots of reviews online pointing to the prior lighting situation, for example), or a combination of all of the above.

For example, if someone reduced the megabus capacity by 2/3rds (and charged 3 times as much), eg by guaranteeing a double seat and increasing legroom / comfort / seat pitch, I think that would be quite an attractive offer.

It may well be, but has that got anything to do with the thread question of making the Caledonian Sleeper more profitable?

Only if this would mean the seated coaches could be removed from the Caledonian Sleeper services and a sleeper coach, yielding higher revenue, could be substituted without any additional capital costs (i.e. buying any more coaches) or staffing costs to service such additional sleeper coaches.

 

[Killingworth]

As this service is massively subsidised it is nowhere near ever being profitable. The costs/income ratio needs attention to reduce losses.

Isn't part of the way to do that to introduce couchettes? They've been mentioned several times in the thread. Would the British loading gauge allow sufficient room for 6 berth compartments?

 

[Tetchytyke]

For example, if someone reduced the megabus capacity by 2/3rds (and charged 3 times as much), eg by guaranteeing a double seat and increasing legroom / comfort / seat pitch, I think that would be quite an attractive offer.

Yet MegabusGold failed miserably because there weren’t enough people who wanted to pay the premium.

As this service is massively subsidised it is nowhere near ever being profitable. The costs/income ratio needs attention to reduce losses.

Isn't part of the way to do that to introduce couchettes?

The trains are at full length, I believe.

So if you were to put couchettes in, you would either have them replacing the seated coach or replacing the cabins.

The current proposition is that I can pay c.£60 for a seat, c.£250 for a standard 2-berth bunk cabin or c.£320 for an en-suite cabin.

The standard cabins are very small, roughly 4’6”x 6’ according to the website. So you wouldn’t get more than two couchette berths in the same space anyway.

So to make money on a sharing cabin you’d need two people to pay more than c.£130 each, and even then the additional revenue would be negligible. But if you get much beyond that then the price point is too high for a shared couchette and so people wouldn’t be attracted to it anyway.

 

[Clansman]

Would the British loading gauge allow sufficient room for 6 berth compartments?

Technically yes, but only if you reduce the floor height.

 

[Krokodil]

Even four-berth couchettes would increase capacity by 50% compared with classic sleeper berths.

 

[Iskra]

Even four-berth couchettes would increase capacity by 50% compared with classic sleeper berths.

How would the lounge car cope with the extra passengers? It already gets full. Or would these be sold with no lounge access? Would this be converting just one of the sleeper coaches to a couchette?

 

[Bald Rick]

Even four-berth couchettes would increase capacity by 50% compared with classic sleeper berths.

would it? how so?

 

[JonathanH]

would it? how so?

Presumably you would remove the standing space from the cabins and load them from the corridor, a bit like deep shelving.

 

[zwk500]

As this service is massively subsidised it is nowhere near ever being profitable. The costs/income ratio needs attention to reduce losses.

Isn't part of the way to do that to introduce couchettes? They've been mentioned several times in the thread. Would the British loading gauge allow sufficient room for 6 berth compartments?

Costs can't easily come down without dropping portions (or trains). Introducing any new income streams will incur a large cost to procure the necessary facilities (like specially built couchette cars), which won't recoup the investment. So the only remaining way to rebalance the ratio is to raise the prices for the services the sleeper already offers. If the train is regularly full, then that suggests there's some headroom at least in the short term.