My idea for reinstating South West to Scotland sleepers

[hairyhandedfool]

....In my opinion, we should look at the design of the Nightstar coaches, look at what was wrong with them, and build new coaches and new locomotives to do the job....

No-one ever got to find out what was wrong with them, they were never put to use in this country.

 

[Bald Rick]

It was axed because they couldn't work out which franchise to put it in. Customer demand was firmly bottom of the priority list at that time sadly.

I'm afraid this is poppycock. The cross country sleepers were withdrawn because they lost pots of cash. Just like all the sleepers do today (Night Rivera included).

They were withdrawn by May 1992, ie well before a franchise map had been published, indeed before the white paper proposing privatisation.

I only know this as I worked in the Intercity Sleeper team in 1992.

 

[merlodlliw]

Wasn't privatization wonderful!:roll:

According to the linked article in The Herald the Caledonian Sleepers were "saved from the axe during privatisation in the 1990s following a campaign supported by many Scots MPs." Is this accurate? As I remember it was specifically only the West Highland train that was facing the chop, rather than the Cally Sleepers in general.

It was the Fort William/Inverness sleeper that was facing the axe , one very knowledgeable local person found a clause that prevented its removal, then M.Ps were petitioned to get involved.
I do not recall the other Scots sleepers being at risk at the time.

 

[Goatboy]

I'm afraid this is poppycock. The cross country sleepers were withdrawn because they lost pots of cash. Just like all the sleepers do today (Night Rivera included).

They were withdrawn by May 1992, ie well before a franchise map had been published, indeed before the white paper proposing privatisation.

I only know this as I worked in the Intercity Sleeper team in 1992.

It's not poppycock at all - they were NOT withdrawn by May 1992 and infact continued through to 1995.

Here is a photograph of it taken a year after you claim it was withdrawn:

http://www.taillampphotography.com/Graphics Used For Website/CLASS_57/57305_57307/MKLRa57_305_02.jpg

And another from 1994:

http://www.taillampphotography.com/Graphics Used For Website/CLASS_57/57305_57307/MKLRa57_305_04.jpg

 

[IanXC]

It was the Fort William/Inverness sleeper that was facing the axe , one very knowledgeable local person found a clause that prevented its removal, then M.Ps were petitioned to get involved.

Found a clause in what?

 

[Bald Rick]

It's not poppycock at all - they were NOT withdrawn by May 1992 and infact continued through to 1995.

Here is a photograph of it taken a year after you claim it was withdrawn:

http://www.taillampphotography.com/Graphics Used For Website/CLASS_57/57305_57307/MKLRa57_305_02.jpg

And another from 1994:

http://www.taillampphotography.com/Graphics Used For Website/CLASS_57/57305_57307/MKLRa57_305_04.jpg

Well now I'm confused. In 1992/3 I was in the sleeper team, and did daily updates of bookings etc on the each of the 6 sleepers running: Edinburgh, Glasgow, Fort William, Inverness, Aberdeen, Penzance. I suppose it is not beyond the possible that a cross country sleeper was operated outside the knowledge of the sleeper team.

Apologies if my memory and / or BR organisational secrecy has caused offence!

 

[Goatboy]

It seems they removed day coaches in 1992 - is that perhaps what you remember?

On an unrelated note, that must have been a pretty cool job

 

[Metrailway]

I'm afraid this is poppycock. The cross country sleepers were withdrawn because they lost pots of cash. Just like all the sleepers do today (Night Rivera included).

They were withdrawn by May 1992, ie well before a franchise map had been published, indeed before the white paper proposing privatisation.

I only know this as I worked in the Intercity Sleeper team in 1992.

The SW - Scotland Sleeper was withdrawn in 1995. A debate in the House of Commons discussing the proposed withdrawal of the SW - Scotland Sleeper occurred in 1995 and is recorded in Hansard.

There was a feature on the Night Riviera in Rail magazine earlier this year, and it stated that the service is now profitable.

Am I right to believe that all sleeper services under BR required a subsidy but the SW - Scotland Sleeper was the least subsidised sleeper service in the country?

 

[marks87]

Found a clause in what?

I'm sure I read somewhere it was (apparently) retained because the Fort William portion was (is?) the only service to use Cowlairs North Curve, i.e. it acts as a parliamentary for said curve.

Whether that was the real reason, I don't know.

 

[IanXC]

I'm sure I read somewhere it was (apparently) retained because the Fort William portion was (is?) the only service to use Cowlairs North Curve, i.e. it acts as a parliamentary for said curve.

Whether that was the real reason, I don't know.

Ah yes that does ring a bell now you mention it. It would seem odd to use that curve as the reason to retain a service which was apparently loosing so much money though!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Ah yes that does ring a bell now you mention it. I would seem odd to use that curve as the reason to retain a service which was apparently loosing so much money though!

You could apply the same logic to a lot of parliamentary services, but it seems that the short term gain outweighs the long term gain.

 

[Bald Rick]

Waiter, a large slice of humble pie please.

I've just spent half an hour in the dusty archives (aka the loft) and dug out the relevant editions of Modern Railways.

So the Plymouth - Scotland sleepers did run to May 1995. It was the Poole - Scotland ones which stopped in 1992. Quite how I don't remember them when in the sleeper team I don't know - I was 21 and hungover a lot is my only, rather weak, excuse.

The then Franchising Director, Roger Salmon, announced in January 95 that the SW-Scotland and Fort William sleepers would not be in the trains service specification for the Scotrail franchise, as they were 'deeply uneconomic'. The loss quoted by BR was £7m pa. Their last planned run was end of May 95.

The Fort William sleeper was reprieved in the Scottish Courts, about 3 weeks before the service was due to end. The judge ruled that BR had not followed closure consultation procedures properly. Chief campaigner was one Charles Kennedy (remember him?) who perhaps was suffering similar issues to that which I experienced 3 years earlier. BR stated at the hearing that this sleeper lost £2.5m pa, which implies that the SW-Scotland service lost £4.5m. This latter service was not covered by the judgement and ceased.

These figures feel about right given that the 2 Scotland sleepers today lose about £20m-£30m pa today.

Personally I can't see a case for reinstating a SW-Scotland sleeper, even if the resources were available. But then I can't ever sleep on the damn things, and can't see why anyone would rather have 8-10 hours in a cramped cabin not sleeping than 90 mins in a cramped (and generally much cheaper) seat courtesy Easyjet. Personal preference I suppose!

 

[Quakers Yard]

I used it from Glasgow to Temple Meads in summer 92. It was going to Plymouth I think. Was not too uncomfortable but the journey didn't seem too fast which helped getting to sleep!

 

[marks87]

Ah yes that does ring a bell now you mention it. It would seem odd to use that curve as the reason to retain a service which was apparently loosing so much money though!

Indeed; I'm sure a once-a-week-on-a-Sunday Falkirk Grahamston-Ashfield, for instance, would have achieved the same goal.

I suspect there was a lot of political pressure, but keeping Cowlairs "alive" was a convenient excuse that not many would dig deeply into.

 

[fraser158]

Does the summer Sunday Edinbugh to Oban service use Cowlairs North Curve?

 

[HSTEd]

Personally I can't see a case for reinstating a SW-Scotland sleeper, even if the resources were available. But then I can't ever sleep on the damn things, and can't see why anyone would rather have 8-10 hours in a cramped cabin not sleeping than 90 mins in a cramped (and generally much cheaper) seat courtesy Easyjet. Personal preference I suppose!

There are no flights out of Plymouth to Scotland now for the simple reason that Plymouth Airport is no more.

Domestic Air Travel is not having a good time these days.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I can see why the Poole portion was cut if it was two Sleepers, a day coach and a BG! However, in the picture above what intrigues me is the picture of the 4-Cig in the background. It seems to have marker lights below the two jumper case housings! Never knew that happened.

That'll be 1315; it was the only one thus fitted.

 

[the sniper]

~100mph class EMUs are the future of sleeper services on electrified routes, and come to think of it you could probably run a Bristol-Glasgow sleeper as an electric once the current electrification work was completed.

Plymouth-GLasgow becomes a little more difficult.

Loco hauled stock just isn't available in sufficient numbers and likely never will be.

Isn't your answer to everything 'multiple units are the future'?!

Loco hauled operations in Birmingham are going to be a nightmare today.

In the day, true. At the times that a NW - SW Sleeper would be passing through? Not a nightmare. You could easily run around or change loco's between 12am and 4am without bothering anything else.

 

[Kali]

Additionally you appear to be expecting that new loco hauled stock will arrive from somewhere, when we have no evidence that there will ever be a significant new order for such rolling stock.

There's not exactly much difference between the trailer car of a MU and a loco-hauled coach, so I don't see the difficulty in placing an order for more stock if it's really wanted. Such a small order is going to be horribly expensive per unit, but that's true of any small order...

Meanwhile the existing stock is pretty low mileage so it might have considerable fatigue life left, and be worth giving some major refurbishment.

 

[starrymarkb]

Isn't your answer to everything 'multiple units are the future'?!

TBH they are the future, as they offer operational advantages but in HSTEd's world the sleepers would be based on the Turbostar bodyshell with 2/3 doors rather then a proper custom design

 

[HSTEd]

TBH they are the future, as they offer operational advantages but in HSTEd's world the sleepers would be based on the Turbostar bodyshell with 2/3 doors rather then a proper custom design

Nah, it would be built on the other standard bodyshell

444-esque essentially.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's not exactly much difference between the trailer car of a MU and a loco-hauled coach, so I don't see the difficulty in placing an order for more stock if it's really wanted. Such a small order is going to be horribly expensive per unit, but that's true of any small order...

But you gain nothing over multiple unit stock. Loco hauled has essentially no significant operational benefits that cannot be captured by multiple units.

Meanwhile the existing stock is pretty low mileage so it might have considerable fatigue life left, and be worth giving some major refurbishment.

Its not a question of the fatigue life of the in service stock, its the fact that all the rolling stock not intensively in use has effectively been left to rust away for 20 years.
Most of it is in no fit state to reuse.

 

[Yew]

Most of it is in no fit state to reuse.

I trust you have performed an intensive investigation with a team of expert engineers to determine that fact? The fact that you say most of it, means thet you think some of them are in a fit state to re use, would you be able to supply numbers?


For the special case of sleepers, it would seem best to use MU trailer cars, with a modified interior to include berths, be they conventional, or maybe japanese-style Pods. Since the MU trailer cars could be incorporated into a larger order of MU's the extra costs could be marginal compared to dedicated sleeper stock, and probably lower than ordering a Sleeper MU.

 

[Eagle]

Does the summer Sunday Edinbugh to Oban service use Cowlairs North Curve?

Yes. It takes the same route as the sleeper (albeit with extra calls at Haymarket, Linlithgow and Falkirk High). Operated by a 156.

 

[HSTEd]

I trust you have performed an intensive investigation with a team of expert engineers to determine that fact? The fact that you say most of it, means thet you think some of them are in a fit state to re use, would you be able to supply numbers?

There were apparently 120 SLEP and 88 SLE vehicles built by the production line at Derby, making a total of 208 vehicles.

53 of those vehicles remain in service with the Caledonian Sleeper pool.
10 of those vehicles remain in service on the Night Riviera.

That takes us to 63 vehicles, implying that there is something like 145 vehicles remaining somewhere.

Large numbers of these vehicles have been dispersed to various preserved railways and could potentially be retrieved and returned to service if they could be repurchased.
However many of them do not appear to be in the best condition.
I believe there were reports on this forum that the Mark 3 sleepers that are in store at various locations are not in much better nick.

Even if you could assemble enough sleeping vehicles to start this new service you will have to face the fact that you will need an enormous list of locomotives to be made available to run a service that runs from Plymouth/Bristol to Edinburgh/Glasgow. (With one split at Carstairs?).
Have you seen the list of locomotives necessary to run the Lowland Sleeper, let alone the Highland?

For the special case of sleepers, it would seem best to use MU trailer cars, with a modified interior to include berths, be they conventional, or maybe japanese-style Pods. Since the MU trailer cars could be incorporated into a larger order of MU's the extra costs could be marginal compared to dedicated sleeper stock, and probably lower than ordering a Sleeper MU.

How on earth do you expect that the MU option will end up more expensive once you include the cost of the locomotives you need?
Even assuming that the traction package is the only thing missing and the carriages can thus be used to enable push pull operations you can't hope to manage that.


Say a sleeper service operating from Bristol to Edinburgh and Glasgow and the return journey.
You need 4 5-car multiple units, totalling 20 vehicles or roughly £30m.

If you want to run that service with loco haulage you would need two locomotives for the main line section from Bristol to carstairs and a third locomotive to handle the operations of the service on whichever leg doesn't get to keep the original locomotive.

That is £9m before you even start on the rolling stock.
So you have £21m and you have to buy 20 vehicles, that must include 8 driving vehicles, the only thing you save is the cost of the traction packages.

At best you save a pittance, and then you have to include the operational costs of operating this fleet of locomotives when you could quite easily use multiple units that will use a fraction of the energy and have so much lower maintenance and track access costs that its not even funny.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Large numbers of these vehicles have been dispersed to various preserved railways and could potentially be retrieved and returned to service if they could be repurchased.

I seem to recall they aren't on their original bogies in most cases.

By the time the cost of fully refurbishing them and getting new bogies made has been taken into account, you might as well buy new fully compliant stock anyway.

 

[Goatboy]

Even if you could assemble enough sleeping vehicles to start this new service you will have to face the fact that you will need an enormous list of locomotives to be made available to run a service that runs from Plymouth/Bristol to Edinburgh/Glasgow. (With one split at Carstairs?).

Out of interest, why?

The 13:25 Plymouth to Edinburgh runs in its entireity with just 'two' locomotives (HST power cars).

Why would a Plymouth to Edinburgh sleeper require significantly more locos? If it didn't split it could surely be catered for with a single locomotive, as many XC services were?

 

[tbtc]

Interesting thread, full of people trying to find a way of blaming their favourite scapegoats ("its all privatisation's fault" / "it's somehow Virgin's fault" etc).

Football fans talk about a cultured overseas player in terms of "yes, but could he do it on a wet Wednesday in Wigan" (I'm not sure why the weather in Wigan is significantly different to that in Liverpool or Manchester...).

You could use the same question about a "South West to Scotland" sleeper - it'd probably be busy this week (when the English schools are on Half Term - been many years since I was a Scottish schoolboy so have no idea about their holidays these days), but how would it do six nights a week outside the "holiday season"?

If Bald Rick's figure about the London - Scotland sleepers losing tens of millions of pounds a year is correct (and I've no reason to doubt him), considering the "all year round" business demand for London travel then any sleeper from Glasgow to Penzance is going to be a luxury that I really don't think we can justify.

 

[HSTEd]

Out of interest, why?

The 13:25 Plymouth to Edinburgh runs in its entireity with just 'two' locomotives (HST power cars).

Why would a Plymouth to Edinburgh sleeper require significantly more locos? If it didn't split it could surely be catered for with a single locomotive, as many XC services were?

Well for one thing the Mark 3s would need complete rewiring to support push pull operation, meaning that you would have to top and tail them.

And running from Plymouth to Edinburgh would require absurd amounts of under-the-wires diesel running which is something the DfT wants to get away from.

Sleepers are just to expensive, you would probably get better results from running conventional trains overnight.

EDIT:

You couldl cut significant amounts of time off the Bristol-Scotland journey time by running a conventional train via London, although that would require that ~2km of wiring on the Dudding Hill line, assuming a Class 390 and a WCML EPS path can be found.

 

[paul1609]

There are no flights out of Plymouth to Scotland now for the simple reason that Plymouth Airport is no more.

Domestic Air Travel is not having a good time these days.

Frankly Plymouth Airport was never a major player in the SW to Scotland Market. Everyone I know that travels to SW from Scotland used Exeter plus a hire car.

 

[starrymarkb]

Frankly Plymouth Airport was never a major player in the SW to Scotland Market. Everyone I know that travels to SW from Scotland used Exeter plus a hire car.

Indeed, Plymouth was very size restricted. It could take smaller Dash 8s but not the larger ones as used by Flybe with a usable payload