Relative size of markets I agree on but not so sure about the lack of demand. The Bristol and Glasgow red eye flights are normally packed (can't speak to Edinburgh) - so there is a significant market there. Also, if you are assessing usage against current rail travel, then I would say it is being suppressed by the services offered for such travel, namely those awful CrossCountry Voyagers. Personally I never buy a Bristol to Glasgow ticket because I would be expected to use CrossCountry. Far better to buy a ticket to Paddington and then Euston to Glasgow. In all, it is probably not possible to fully assess the usage of a new sleeper service until it went live. And unfortunately it won't happen due to lack of rolling stock and will.
I am not sure one equates with another. There are morning flights out of Bristol to Glasgow and Edinburgh as well as evening flights the time before. That alone is a lot of travellers who could be contenders for a sleeper train before you even factor in Exeter, Cardiff and Birmingham airports which would all have users in the catchment area. And then there is the market for the seated coaches which is likely to thrive given how poorly the railway serves such travellers at present. The service would doubtless take cars off the road as well. That is a sizeable customer base.
I believe the same applies from the London airports.
Maybe, but still much smaller than London-Lowlands, which can only sustain one (subsidised) overnight service.
Given the CS often sells out, I think we can conclude there is ample demand from London for more sleeper services. Of course lack of spare rolling stock and infrastructure issues frustrate more capacity being added.
Who are the clientele you think of? Which days of the week do they travel?
Well, I work in the Bristol area and there are major aerospace and defence facing firms there with substantial links to the Central belt. I tend to travel southbound Sunday or Monday evening, and back Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. Like many, days in the office range from 2-5 days on site per week.
I suppose you might be able to make an argument for gangwayed EMUs that would reduce the operational complexity of the operation, but that would be about it, I would expect.
It really doesn't. The demand from London exceeds available Sleeper capacity because infrastructure and rolling stock prevent more services. So there is no reason to believe that, even in a smaller market, the demand is not there in sufficient numbers to make a sleeper work. Indeed, I would argue the current poor connectivity between thecSW and Scotland, vice that in London, could actually mean such a service was highly valued.
I am not too worried about levels of subsidy to be honest. The entire railway enterprise is subsidised to a greater or lesser extent and so for me it is a question of public utility. So the question is does it offer something useful connectivity wise to the public?
I don't really see what public utility a sleeper service provides, however.
Well, the CS provides commutable options for very high value individuals to live in remote areas of Scotland and work in London whilst also providing a valuable tourist route into those same areas. Moreover, the seated carriage offers very affordable long distance travel.
A small handful of very high value individuals, and a small number of tourists.
Given that the railway's fares are set by command of the state, we could just have a train of seated vehicles that offers this, without wasting vast sums on the beds.
The beds are necessary to attract the former categories. Agree that numbers are small but overall value is high.
Does that market exist between the South West and Scotland? By your own point, London is key to the value of the sleeper.
I'm unconvinced that the timings work to usefully serve Birmingham and Plymouth by the same train, given path availability constraints. Turnaround time and crew rest hours probably rule out running as far as Penzance, as well.
The absence of that service is an occasional nuisance to the, oh, six of us that would use it in any given year. That'll be me, @JamieL, and I'm guessing a handful of our colleagues who might deign to travel by train. And to the entire rest of the world, including the unfortunate staff who might be expected to work it, its absence is a blessed relief.
I think a SW sleeper would be quite a different proposition to the London CS, hence why I floated the idea of more seated carriages. But there is undoubtedly a market, and one with some people prepared to pay a premium.
So you're targeting a few premium customers with more seated carriages?
I sketched out my thoughts in #53. I think a SW sleeper would need to target multiple markets.
NE-SW is the one corrdor which might justify a sleeper service if the maths can be made to math for it
i wonder what the sums would look like for 1+1 lay flats in a semi open carriage like some ofthe airline business class offerings ? as these could also be used for daytime ' better than current First' use ... but again it requires the maths to math correctly ...
Lay flats are unlikely to pass muster with ORR, as Caledonian Sleeper found out when they tried it.
But this is speculative so would they be viable if permitted? The Australians don't seem to be worried about using them on the Spirit of Queensland
