Night Riviera - speculate on new coaches and their viability

[Meerkat]

I am seeing £150m for the 75 CS coaches. Cheap As **** is still pretty expensive!
So you are probably looking in the £40m-£50m ballpark, for 18 replacements plus small expansion. Plus something to pull them....another £12m plus.
How unprofitable is the Night Riviera - ie roughly what grant would DfT have to throw in (or hide in franchise...) to make someone want to do it?
What would you buy - direct replacements, or more sleepers and fewer seated, or better seated, and is a DVT worth the bother?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am seeing £150m for the 75 CS coaches. Cheap As **** is still pretty expensive!
So you are probably looking in the £40m-£50m ballpark, for 18 replacements plus small expansion. Plus something to pull them....another £12m plus.
How unprofitable is the Night Riviera - ie roughly what grant would DfT have to throw in (or hide in franchise...) to make someone want to do it?
What would you buy - direct replacements, or more sleepers and fewer seated, or better seated, and is a DVT worth the bother?

With no need for portion working, how about a DMU? Would Stadler do something to avoid underfloor engines?

 

[HSTEd]

I suppose you might be able to do something with the FLIRT concept.

Put the generator raft as far from the sleeper coaches as possible

 

[Stephen Lee]

Personally I prefer CAF MK5 just like Caledonian

 

[Whistler40145]

I think Mark 5 sleepers and seated stock would be a great replacement for the Mark 3 stock.

Would a loco similar to the Class 93 be the best replacement for the Class 57s?

 

[Dr Hoo]

I am seeing £150m for the 75 CS coaches. Cheap As **** is still pretty expensive!
So you are probably looking in the £40m-£50m ballpark, for 18 replacements plus small expansion. Plus something to pull them....another £12m plus.
How unprofitable is the Night Riviera - ie roughly what grant would DfT have to throw in (or hide in franchise...) to make someone want to do it?
What would you buy - direct replacements, or more sleepers and fewer seated, or better seated, and is a DVT worth the bother?

Most of the references for Caledonian Sleeper that I had seen were more around £200m for 75 vehicles, so £2,666,666 per vehicle. Allowing for inflation and a 'better' (not 'cheap') design I would have thought that £4,000,000 per vehicle was realistic now. One-off design, testing, certification, etc. cost spread over a smaller fleet. Probably over £80,000,000.

Then there are the locomotives. The empty stock moves to and from Reading are awkward at the Paddington end as they need an additional proper main line locomotive unless it was possible to move to push-pull working with a novel driving trailer design.

Whoever goes into this project really needs to have £100,000,000 in their pocket by the time you've done the depot modifications, training and other ancillary costs as well.

 

[JonathanH]

It would seem likely that you could build something less bespoke for the Night Riviera given no need to split and shunt the stock overnight. It just needs to be a standard unit fitted out with berths.

However the problem with using a unit rather than separate coaches is having a spare. It would seem difficult to justify building three units with a bespoke interior when only two are needed on any one day whereas a handful of spare coaches covers maintenance requirements.

 

[43 302]

It would seem likely that you could build something less bespoke for the Night Riviera given no need to split and shunt the stock overnight. It just needs to be a standard unit fitted out with berths.

However the problem with using a unit rather than separate coaches is having a spare. It would seem difficult to justify building three units with a bespoke interior when only two are needed on any one day whereas a handful of spare coaches covers maintenance requirements.

However much cheaper that may be, I'm not sure it has the same allure as a traditional locomotive hauled service. I would definitely use the service less if it wasn't traditional coaching stock but maybe that's the enthusiast in me and doesn't reflect normal passengers.

I personally would like to see them order some Mk5s as soon as possible.

Edit: And if they do, maybe they can tag on some passenger coaches like the TPE ones as the diesel loco can be swapped out for an electric or realistically bi-mode when the time comes.

 

[Energy]

It really depends on when they order they order them, as said in a post by me in another thread:

It depends when they order them, if they order them now then they might be able to get a tag on order for mk5s, similar to TPEs order. These would be rather cheap as lots of the costs for design and tooling have been taken care of by Caledonian Sleeper, if they order them in a couple years then they will be expensive as lots of the tooling for mk5s would likely be gone.

That is if anyone would be willing to build them in a couple years, CAF were the only bidder for mk5s as the order is small and they aren't likely to be ordered by anyone else. New loco hauled trains are rare in the UK and elsewhere, this means that the development cost has to be recouped in a smaller amount of carriages, increasing the price and making them a less compelling option. The 18 carriages the Night Riviera has is not a lot, the order for mk5s was 75 carriages which is just over 4x the amount of carriages Night Riviera has and only 1 company was willing to build them. If the mk5 tooling gets scrapped I doubt anyone will be willing to build new carriages for the Night Riviera, it just wouldn't be profitable for them unless whoever pays for the carriages is willing to spend a ridiculously high amount.

TLDR: Order soon and you may get reasonably priced mk5s, order a couple years later you may struggle to even have a single company bid.

 

[Energy]

802s are possible, the 9 car units have 4 coaches without engines, there are 4 sleeping coaches on the night riviera.

 

[43 302]

It really depends on when they order they order them, as said in a post by me in another thread:


TLDR: Order soon and you may get reasonably priced mk5s, order a couple years later you may struggle to even have a single company bid.

What if GWR ordered them in say 8-10 years but ordered a passenger variant as well? I would think that would be much more likely for someone to actually build them and thats about when the Castles will need replacing (probably).

 

[Energy]

What if GWR ordered them in say 8-10 years but ordered a passenger variant as well? I would think that would be much more likely for someone to actually build them and thats about when the Castles will need replacing (probably).

When the replace the castles I expect them to use either 5 car 802s or another bimode MU say a Flirt or bimode 196/197. Loco hauled wouldn't really have advantages, the noise isn't too much of a concern on non sleepers.

Assuming they order 15 sets of 4 carriages, if they did replace Castle's with loco hauled, that would be 60, add the 18 from Night Riviera and you get 78 which is close the Caledonian Sleeper which only had CAF willing to build and charged a lot. CAF only really accepted to build them because they had quite a bit spare capacity at one of their factories, an order for say Civitys would be more attractive to CAF than an order for mk5s.

IETs are also pretty low cost as most of the development cost was covered by the IEP.

 

[TheWalrus]

Are there any Mk4s being released which could be refurbished and used for Night Riviera if replacement is necessary? Rather than buy new stock?

 

[Energy]

Are there any Mk4s being released which could be refurbished and used for Night Riviera if replacement is necessary? Rather than buy new stock?

Mk4s could maybe work, many are getting released of LNER. Unlike HST mk3s the mk4s are just loco hauled stock, TfW are getting them to work with 67s which could be a good replacement for 57s, lots of 67s are in storage.

 

[HSTEd]

Then there are the locomotives. The empty stock moves to and from Reading are awkward at the Paddington end as they need an additional proper main line locomotive unless it was possible to move to push-pull working with a novel driving trailer design.

Well assuming a follow on Mark 5 order, a driving trailer already exists.

 

[TheWalrus]

Mk4s could maybe work, many are getting released of LNER. Unlike HST mk3s the mk4s are just loco hauled stock, TfW are getting them to work with 67s which could be a good replacement for 57s, lots of 67s are in storage.

That’s what I’m thinking but do 57s need replacement? 67 could work, or maybe a bi-mode locomotive and route via Bristol Parkway?

 

[JonathanH]

Mk4s could maybe work, many are getting released of LNER. Unlike HST mk3s the mk4s are just loco hauled stock, TfW are getting them to work with 67s which could be a good replacement for 57s, lots of 67s are in storage.

Mark 4s don't appear to have a good body profile for sleeper stock. Also, why would you want to use class 67s which by all accounts are pretty thirsty? They are in storage because there is no work for them and hasn't been for ages.

Well assuming a follow on Mark 5 order, a driving trailer already exists.

Yes, and it would only take a bird strike or fatality to lead to it needing to be used. It isn't just spare to transfer to another operator.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would seem likely that you could build something less bespoke for the Night Riviera given no need to split and shunt the stock overnight. It just needs to be a standard unit fitted out with berths.

However the problem with using a unit rather than separate coaches is having a spare. It would seem difficult to justify building three units with a bespoke interior when only two are needed on any one day whereas a handful of spare coaches covers maintenance requirements.

True, though would it be possible to adopt the approach of ferry companies by scheduling maintenance at times of low usage and operating a single-unit service that week, or similar, making sure that the busiest services do operate, even potentially running it back to London ECS during the day to allow both Thursday and Friday evening towards the Westcountry to run (which I'd imagine must be the busiest in that direction)? Obviously no good if it failed outright, but if that happens an 80x is usually substituted anyway, much as that must be a rather grim experience.

In this regard the route being much shorter than the Caledonian does raise this as a possibility rather than the need for a third unit (or indeed set of coaches).

 

[43 302]

Cant see the point in a DVT to be honest. And I dont think theres any point in a bi mode loco unitl more of the route is electrified

 

[HSTEd]

Cant see the point in a DVT to be honest. And I dont think theres any point in a bi mode loco unitl more of the route is electrified

It saves the locomotives required at the Paddington end?
The constraint on the length of this service is the platform length at Paddington, and sleepers need to be as long as possible to maximise returns for their enormous fixed cost.

A DVT costs essentially no train length at Paddington but contains usable space.

EDIT:

Does anyone know the maximum length of train that can be put into Platform 1 at Penzance without fouling the pointwork? The sectional appendix gives a length for the platform but the track goes quite a long way beyond the platform before any pointwork happens.

 

[JonathanH]

The constraint on the length of this service is the platform length at Paddington, and sleepers need to be as long as possible to maximise returns for their enormous fixed cost.

It isn't the primary constraint - more coaches could be added and it would still fit at Paddington - the decision has been made to run with eight coaches which fits easily even with two locomotives.

 

[37424]

It saves the locomotives required at the Paddington end?
The constraint on the length of this service is the platform length at Paddington, and sleepers need to be as long as possible to maximise returns for their enormous fixed cost.

A DVT costs essentially no train length at Paddington but contains usable space.

I'm not a great fan of sleepers due to them being a major loss maker but if you going to replace them it would seem the cost effective option would be to buy some more MK5 sleepers and DVT for the reason you have indicated and of course there is already a MK5 DVT so I would have thought its a no brainer really.

As for some kind of lumped together with Castle HST's replacement that doesn't make much sense as they are essentially local trains which would more likely lumped together with GWR DMU replacement.

 

[Meerkat]

So if we accept mk5 is the obvious choice what formation and what interior changes (Nothing too pricey to develop.....)
Presumably push pull with seats in the driving trailer?
What kind of seated/sleeper split and what kind of rooms would be best for the market?

 

[HSTEd]

If we load to 315m, which is apparent length of Platform 1 at Paddington, and it appears Platform 1 at Penzance will allow that on without fouling other lines.

That is 68 + 13.

So Lounge Car, 1 PRM Sleeper, 5 Normal Sleeper, 5 Regular seated cars and the Driving Trailer.

If we assume the sleeper cars have the standard caledonian layout:

31 single bad "Club"
17 single bed "Classic"
3 Double bed

51 compartments compared to 48 or 60 compartments today
And 6 seating cars will fit a looad of seats on board, way more than today.
Hard to get numbers for that though because we don't actually have any normal full Mark 5 first class vehicles./

 

[43096]

802s are possible, the 9 car units have 4 coaches without engines, there are 4 sleeping coaches on the night riviera.

No, an 8-car formation is formed with 5 sleepers, RFM, and two day coaches. There is a plan (and vehicles acquired) to allow extension to 9-car by adding a 6th sleeper.

The problem with any multiple unit solution is you'd need to buy a whole extra set as maintenance cover. A loco-hauled solution means you only need spares of one of each vehicle type: the current fleet has four spare vehicles (one sleeper, one RFM, one TSO and one BSO).

 

[popeter45]

i think the days of LHCS are numbered especially if it would need to be a micro fleet, may be fun being a rail fan but to the everyday user they dont really care , i would say when GWR buy new local Stock (ill assume FLIRTS here) just add on a small subset fitted out as sleepers, commonality with other local units and gives ability to expand/contract the sleeper fleet in long term scale by converting units between each type

 

[Bletchleyite]

What would be the need for 5 seated coaches?

 

[43 302]

What would be the need for 5 seated coaches?

Two per service plus one spare?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Two per service plus one spare?

Ah, sorry, my misunderstanding, I thought we were talking about a longer formation with 5 in each one. That makes more sense.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem with any multiple unit solution is you'd need to buy a whole extra set as maintenance cover. A loco-hauled solution means you only need spares of one of each vehicle type: the current fleet has four spare vehicles (one sleeper, one RFM, one TSO and one BSO).

Or, as I said, you don't, you reduce to a single-unit service (one direction per night) at a quiet time of year for maintenance to be done. Because it's only a 5-6 hour trip you can always run it back ECS to the other end if you'd need two in a row in one direction, e.g. Thursday and Friday evening out of London.