Sleeper trains future

[junglejames]

Junglejames, the seating accomodation is roughly ½ carriage per unit, so pretty much in the same proportion as on the present stock. Also, I qualified my capacity remarks by saying it might be possible to get 11 rather than 10 cabins in each of the sleeping vehicles - a lot depends on exact measurements being made as to how the sliding interconnecting doors might affect wall thickness, for example. If you can get 11 cabins in rather than 10 then the number of cabins per 4 unit rake increases to 132, not far short of the number of cabins on an existing full length Caledonian rake.

I was worrying about the seating accomodation as such (except for the fact carrying the FW seating car from London, and having that extra seating car in the 4th unit decreases capacity.
I was more worried about the lack of a lounge car. Gone.
Also, looks like the reduction in berth capacity is even worse than i feared, as the term 'berth' has been used in the wrong context in the article. Berth is a bed, not a cabin. Therefore you still have a reduction in sleeping capacity ranging from 24 to 48 berths. Even with todays usage, that is ranging from running full everyday, to turning away a lot of passengers, and as for aiming for increased usage figures. Not a chance.

Robbies / junglejames - although usage is increasing I understand that on average the Sleepers do have spare capacity, especially midweek. With these units you can tweak things a bit ( one example relating to Glasgow and Edinburgh is in the article ) to match daily... should say nightly really shouldn't I?! ... demand more closely. Now, Fridays and Sundays are the busiest nights for obvious reasons and on those nights, if you planned things carefully, you could make use of the maintenance spares to run relief services on the busiest sections - something that is totally impossible at present. Doing this would require great care, though - you would need to be very sure indeed that you weren't going to have a failure on those two nights in each week! The day railway did it on a short term basis during the ash cloud disruption, running 100% briefly, although that is a bit different as there were no beds involved so cancellation was easier to work round. You can't plan on 100% day in day out, but it should be do-able for two nights a week with good planning.

Running extra trains during busy periods? That would just kill off any cost benefits these units had, and could easily result in the 2nd train running a horrible loss if it doesnt fill up enough. The 2nd train would have to be advertised for certain days, and then run no matter what, just in case.

As ive said, interesting idea, and one which could work on certain runs (runs we dont yet have running), but not for the lowland or highland. I think its too radical in the wrong direction.

 

[ryan125hst]

Out of interest, what is the maximum length of coaching stock that the British loading gauge will allow? Mark 3 carriages are 23 metres long, but I have read that the German City Night Line stock is 26 metres long. Would 26 (or even 27) metre carriages be possible without making them extremely narrow?

Also, would ensuite cabins be considered. I know the ill fated Nightstar train had them and was far too heavy and power hungry, but many sleeper trains in Europe and America have them. Surely it would be possible to have between 8 and 10 ensuite cabins per carriage. Standard cabins without ensuite's could be available as well.

Going back to CNL, the cabins had three beds in them, one on top of the other. Would there be enough room for this?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

junglejames - I'm talking about using the cover units on the Friday / Sunday nights, not keeping extra stock just for two nights a week. Don't forget also that I am suggesting running a third nightly diagram anyway with a different splitting pattern from the present service; only the lower build numbers given in the article are on a like for like diagram basis. A fleet replacement like this offers a one off chance to boost services in this way.

ryan125hst - En suites would severely reduce capacity. Also the class match flexibility; it would not be possible to book inwards from the ends until the two classes meet as the en suites would make certain cabins permanently first class. If you had longer carriages yes you could get more cabins in each carriage, but you couldn't run four units together.



There is nothing to stop them building two different lengths of unit, eg 5 cars as described for the peripherial destinations and 10 car sets for the main destinations ( need to double the power at each end of course! ) with the 10 car sets having, say 1½ seated and 8 sleeping cars ( giving 80 or 88 cabins / 160 or 176 berths ) but that does result in two sub fleets that cannot be interworked - that would be likely to increase costs rather more than building extra 5 car sets and running more diagrams with full flexibility.

 

[junglejames]

junglejames - I'm talking about using the cover units on the Friday / Sunday nights, not keeping extra stock just for two nights a week. Don't forget also that I am suggesting running a third nightly diagram anyway with a different splitting pattern from the present service; only the lower build numbers given in the article are on a like for like diagram basis. A fleet replacement like this offers a one off chance to boost services in this way.

Oh i understand you would just use the cover units, but its still losing any operational savings you may have made. Extra drivers, extra track access charges etc etc.
Running extra services on different routes etc would help, and would be a nice idea, but I still think the sleeper units are too inflexible.

One possiblity. Could you increase the number of coaches in each unit and still have enough power from the diesel PC? Then you could possibly run the Highland sleeper as 3 units, and split it normally at Edinburgh. May make it slightly better, but still, I just find it all far too inflexible.

I still think a single sleeper franchise with its own locos (an FOC) would reduce costs sufficiently, and retain the flexibility of LHCS.
Run them all out of the old Eurostar platforms at Waterloo, enabling the Highland sleeper to include the FW lounge car and seating coach from London (whilst maintaining the current capacity), and it should be even better.
Use DRS' new Eurolights instead of 67s, and you should reduce fuel costs and access charges. Even more savings.

 

[dubscottie]

A point nobody has mentioned yet is how much these DMU sleepers are going to weigh! En-suite bathrooms etc are going to mean BIG water tanks and weight...

Remember the NightStar stock weighed in at something like 50+ tons per coach with all their water tanks full!

Add to that the electric needs for showers, cooking etc, The weight of the engines (be it underfloor or otherwise) and the power needed to top Shap/Bettock etc and you are going to need 4000hp+ for a 5 car set..

I would like to point out that the above is just rough estimates in my head of power etc..

Loco hauled coaches would be the way to go.. If they do go for DMU's I suppose they could always be sold to Canada again..

I remember now why I stopped buying RAIL magazine in the mid 90's..

 

[sprinterguy]

Out of interest, what is the maximum length of coaching stock that the British loading gauge will allow? Mark 3 carriages are 23 metres long, but I have read that the German City Night Line stock is 26 metres long. Would 26 (or even 27) metre carriages be possible without making them extremely narrow?

26 metre carriages would be fine as far as clearance is concerned for the run up the WCML, but there might be some problems on the Highland extremities traversed by the sleepers like the West Highland and Highland Main lines. Then again, at the present time IEP is designed to have 26 metre carriages and is intended to operate over the HML to Inverness, as long as present links from London are maintained.

26 metre carriages would have to be a bit narrower than existing 23 metres ones regardless though, and I don't think that this would be a good idea for sleeper stock. Also as Peter says, you would be limited as to how many units you could run in multiple with 26 metre carriages: The current sleepers out of Euston measure in at 377.8 metres in length complete with loco, while three 5-car units with 26 metre carriages would be 390 metres in length. Although given that the current sleepers also have a second loco, used to bring the train in from Wembley, against the blocks then you could just squeeze this length in.

 

[junglejames]

A point nobody has mentioned yet is how much these DMU sleepers are going to weigh! En-suite bathrooms etc are going to mean BIG water tanks and weight...

Remember the NightStar stock weighed in at something like 50+ tons per coach with all their water tanks full!

Add to that the electric needs for showers, cooking etc, The weight of the engines (be it underfloor or otherwise) and the power needed to top Shap/Bettock etc and you are going to need 4000hp+ for a 5 car set..

I would like to point out that the above is just rough estimates in my head of power etc..

Loco hauled coaches would be the way to go.. If they do go for DMU's I suppose they could always be sold to Canada again..

I remember now why I stopped buying RAIL magazine in the mid 90's..

I hardly think you can say anything about Rail magazine after your little outburst. Who mentioned ensuite bathrooms etc? Nobody. I suggest you read the article, or at least read what is written here a bit more closely.

 

[HSTEd]

How would local hauled trains help with the power consumption issues that plagued the Nightstock?

Either way, perhaps it would be better to go in the alternative direction with Talgo style very short vehicles, the objective being to allow the largest possible passenger compartment within our gauge restrictions (by being short they can be wider)

 

[YorkshireBear]

A point nobody has mentioned yet is how much these DMU sleepers are going to weigh! En-suite bathrooms etc are going to mean BIG water tanks and weight...

Remember the NightStar stock weighed in at something like 50+ tons per coach with all their water tanks full!

Add to that the electric needs for showers, cooking etc, The weight of the engines (be it underfloor or otherwise) and the power needed to top Shap/Bettock etc and you are going to need 4000hp+ for a 5 car set..

I would like to point out that the above is just rough estimates in my head of power etc..

Loco hauled coaches would be the way to go.. If they do go for DMU's I suppose they could always be sold to Canada again..

I remember now why I stopped buying RAIL magazine in the mid 90's..

He says in the post just above yours that there is no en suite.
The engines are not underfloor. And to get up shap and bettock it will use elctricity so it wont need massive diesel engines anyway.
Not sure how you can insult rail seen as you clearly havent read the article.....
And the author of article is on here and has stated responses to your points a few times. I suggest you read not only the article but the thread before posting rough judgements.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I still think a single sleeper franchise with its own locos (an FOC) would reduce costs sufficiently, and retain the flexibility of LHCS.
Run them all out of the old Eurostar platforms at Waterloo, enabling the Highland sleeper to include the FW lounge car and seating coach from London (whilst maintaining the current capacity), and it should be even better.
Use DRS' new Eurolights instead of 67s, and you should reduce fuel costs and access charges. Even more savings.

Giving all the sleepers to an operator who owns it's own locos (DRS?) sounds like a good idea. I haven't a copy of the article to read it, but personally I think the trains should remain LHCS operating out of Paddington and Euston, ideally with an additional route between Plymouth/Penzance and Scotland, calling at Birmingham. If replacing the mark2s means the Highland sleeper makes it too long for Euston station, I'd suggest running three sleeper trains out of Euston bound for Scotland, with one being shorter and going via Birmingham where it would join with the Plymouth/Penzance train.

 

[ryan125hst]

Out of interest, what is the maximum length of coaching stock that the British loading gauge will allow? Mark 3 carriages are 23 metres long, but I have read that the German City Night Line stock is 26 metres long. Would 26 (or even 27) metre carriages be possible without making them extremely narrow?

26 metre carriages would be fine as far as clearance is concerned for the run up the WCML, but there might be some problems on the Highland extremities traversed by the sleepers like the West Highland and Highland Main lines. Then again, at the present time IEP is designed to have 26 metre carriages and is intended to operate over the HML to Inverness, as long as present links from London are maintained.

26 metre carriages would have to be a bit narrower than existing 23 metres ones regardless though, and I don't think that this would be a good idea for sleeper stock. Also as Peter says, you would be limited as to how many units you could run in multiple with 26 metre carriages: The current sleepers out of Euston measure in at 377.8 metres in length complete with loco, while three 5-car units with 26 metre carriages would be 390 metres in length. Although given that the current sleepers also have a second loco, used to bring the train in from Wembley, against the blocks then you could just squeeze this length in.

That's good then as longer carriages might enable an extra room to be added in each carriage (or a shower maybe).

I think loco hauled stock is a better idea. It is quieter and far more flexible. I don't know whether this would take too long in terms of shunting ect, but with LHCS, you could add more carriages if the train is fully booked (up to a maximum length) and remove carriages to reduce costs on quieter nights.

How much narrower would the carriages need to be if they were around 26-27 meters long?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

One possiblity. Could you increase the number of coaches in each unit and still have enough power from the diesel PC? Then you could possibly run the Highland sleeper as 3 units, and split it normally at Edinburgh..

Yes, though it would mean a more powerful diesel engine and electric bit at the other end - the figures I have quoted are based on keeping the overall power to weight ratio roughly the same as at present; to do that with a longer unit means a bigger power output on each unit. That is no problem at all is it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
.
.
.

A point nobody has mentioned yet is how much these DMU sleepers are going to weigh! En-suite bathrooms etc are going to mean BIG water tanks and weight...

Remember the NightStar stock weighed in at something like 50+ tons per coach with all their water tanks full!

This is exactly why I specifically warn against en suite in the article.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
.
.
.

Also as Peter says, you would be limited as to how many units you could run in multiple with 26 metre carriages: The current sleepers out of Euston measure in at 377.8 metres in length complete with loco, while three 5-car units with 26 metre carriages would be 390 metres in length. Although given that the current sleepers also have a second loco, used to bring the train in from Wembley, against the blocks then you could just squeeze this length in.

Yes, I selected the lengths in order to be able to fit a 4 unit train in the same space as a 16 car + locos full length Caledonian rake. There is no reason why you can't play around with the lengths a bit, but a word of caution.... if you have 26m carriages, you'll have interesting problems with the middles of the carriages on the curvy bits as the design utilises articulation in order to help get a smoother and quieter ride...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
.
.
.

How much narrower would the carriages need to be if they were around 26-27 meters long?

Quite a bit as it is an articulated design...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
.
.
.

I think loco hauled stock is a better idea. It is quieter and far more flexible. I don't know whether this would take too long in terms of shunting ect?

The whole point of the units idea is to eliminate a lot of the shunting effort, especially the complex movements at Waverley. The units would not be any noisier that LHCS as the traction equipment would be nowhere near the Sleeping cars anyway.



NOTE: It might be Saturday before I can respond further, but don't worry... I'm not doing a runner from the thread! ( And no, my short absence does not mean I am on a Sleeper! )

 

[bnm]

Read the article earlier today.

Lots of food for thought, well researched and written. Not too 'pie-in-the-sky' and could just work....

Just the rather large hurdle of actually getting a new fleet ordered.....

 

[dubscottie]

I hardly think you can say anything about Rail magazine after your little outburst. Who mentioned ensuite bathrooms etc? Nobody. I suggest you read the article, or at least read what is written here a bit more closely.

Look a few posts up.... En suites are mentioned.. Post No 33 being the most recent. Maybe it is you that should read more carefully? As for RAIL I don't even look at it anymore, as it is more of a "trade" rather than an enthusiast magazine now.. But we could start a whole new thread on that one..
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

He says in the post just above yours that there is no en suite.
The engines are not underfloor. And to get up shap and bettock it will use elctricity so it wont need massive diesel engines anyway.
Not sure how you can insult rail seen as you clearly havent read the article.....
And the author of article is on here and has stated responses to your points a few times. I suggest you read not only the article but the thread before posting rough judgements.

He replied once to my comment prior to yours (regard Euston signaling).. Not a few times as you claim.

I said "underfloor or OTHERWISE" with regards to the engine/power. Again read the posts before YOU comment.

As I have said (with all due respect to the author) I refuse to look at RAIL as it is ****!

I would also like to point out that this thread is for discussion.. It appears it has turned into a "lets bash anyone who disagrees" or a "read the article" thread.

Is this not a way covert way of getting people to buy RAIL? (again with all due respect to the author) Its the "read the article" bit I don't like.. Just post it here!

Its as if you are not allowed to comment unless you have bought RAIL.. And as far as I am aware RAIL don't sponsor this forum.

 

[junglejames]

Look a few posts up.... En suites are mentioned.. Post No 33 being the most recent. Maybe it is you that should read more carefully? As for RAIL I don't even look at it anymore, as it is more of a "trade" rather than an enthusiast magazine now.. But we could start a whole new thread on that one..
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


He replied once to my comment prior to yours (regard Euston signaling).. Not a few times as you claim.

I said "underfloor or OTHERWISE" with regards to the engine/power. Again read the posts before YOU comment.

As I have said (with all due respect to the author) I refuse to look at RAIL as it is ****!

I would also like to point out that this thread is for discussion.. It appears it has turned into a "lets bash anyone who disagrees" or a "read the article" thread.

Is this not a way covert way of getting people to buy RAIL? (again with all due respect to the author) Its the "read the article" bit I don't like.. Just post it here!

Its as if you are not allowed to comment unless you have bought RAIL.. And as far as I am aware RAIL don't sponsor this forum.

1- The author has never suggested ensuites. He has himself mentioned that he is against them on here. Post 33 is quite clear i think that he doesnt agree with them.
2- Its not bash the people who disagree. Its pointing out the people who make stupid posts. I disagree mainly with what is in the article, but I am not trying to dismiss it using unfair reasoning. Instead of attacking it outright, if you dont want to read the article, why dont you ask someone to provide the bullet points and outline of the proposed train? The reason it isnt being copied word for word on here is because is because the edition of the magazine is the current one. Its called being fair to the magazine. That has also been mentioned on the thread.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Giving all the sleepers to an operator who owns it's own locos (DRS?) sounds like a good idea. I haven't a copy of the article to read it, but personally I think the trains should remain LHCS operating out of Paddington and Euston, ideally with an additional route between Plymouth/Penzance and Scotland, calling at Birmingham. If replacing the mark2s means the Highland sleeper makes it too long for Euston station, I'd suggest running three sleeper trains out of Euston bound for Scotland, with one being shorter and going via Birmingham where it would join with the Plymouth/Penzance train.

Bringing all the London sleepers under one roof at Waterloo would solve a lot of problems, and reduce costs. Running an extra train from London just to enable the Mk2s to be replaced, would add to costs.

Another sleeper from the South West to Scotland also sounds a good idea. A snippet within Peters article (written by Barry Doe) mentioned that the old SW to Scotland sleeper was the busiest of all the sleepers, but was scrapped as it didnt fit into the XC franchise. In other words nobody wanted to run it.

DRS were the FOC I was thinking of. Just got to persuade them to take on some electric locos!

 

[dubscottie]

1- The author has never suggested ensuites. He has himself mentioned that he is against them on here. Post 33 is quite clear i think that he doesnt agree with them.
2- Its not bash the people who disagree. Its pointing out the people who make stupid posts. I disagree mainly with what is in the article, but I am not trying to dismiss it using unfair reasoning. Instead of attacking it outright, if you dont want to read the article, why dont you ask someone to provide the bullet points and outline of the proposed train? The reason it isnt being copied word for word on here is because is because the edition of the magazine is the current one. Its called being fair to the magazine. That has also been mentioned on the thread.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Bringing all the London sleepers under one roof at Waterloo would solve a lot of problems, and reduce costs. Running an extra train from London just to enable the Mk2s to be replaced, would add to costs.

Another sleeper from the South West to Scotland also sounds a good idea. A snippet within Peters article (written by Barry Doe) mentioned that the old SW to Scotland sleeper was the busiest of all the sleepers, but was scrapped as it didnt fit into the XC franchise. In other words nobody wanted to run it.

DRS were the FOC I was thinking of. Just got to persuade them to take on some electric locos!

You proved my point.. Don't agree with whats said you are bashed.. Which makes your second point invalid as you are bashing "stupid" posts.

What if we just say you are right and everyone else is wrong.. Would that make you feel better?

Anyway Like I said.. Waterloo..

The Glasgow/Edinburgh to Bristol and Plymouth finished long before privatisation. It went with the 1992 winter or summer 1993 timetable IIRC (will check. Have it in writing somewhere)

 

[RobShipway]

You proved my point.. Don't agree with whats said you are bashed.. Which makes your second point invalid as you are bashing "stupid" posts.

What if we just say you are right and everyone else is wrong.. Would that make you feel better?

Anyway Like I said.. Waterloo..

The Glasgow/Edinburgh to Bristol and Plymouth finished long before privatisation. It went with the 1992 winter or summer 1993 timetable IIRC (will check. Have it in writing somewhere)

If memory serves the SW to Scotland sleeper finished at the sametime as most motorail services didn't it?

With regards to replacing the Mk2's, well those are going to have to be replaced soon anyway as they are pass being life expired when any other services are using Mk3 or a derivative of Mk4 design in the coaches.

 

[Maxfly]

As I have said (with all due respect to the author) I refuse to look at RAIL as it is ****!

I would also like to point out that this thread is for discussion.. It appears it has turned into a "lets bash anyone who disagrees" or a "read the article" thread.

Is this not a way covert way of getting people to buy RAIL? (again with all due respect to the author) Its the "read the article" bit I don't like.. Just post it here!Its as if you are not allowed to comment unless you have bought RAIL.. And as far as I am aware RAIL don't sponsor this forum.

TBH tough ****e, if your a freeloader as your post above suggests, just go and nick one from Smiths yersel. Otherwise stop greeting about it. It is a magazine, crap or otherwise and it contains the article which is being discussed in this thread.

It doesnt look like anyone is being bashed for disagreeing, more that those who do not have the facts of the article but reply with their points on what they think is in the article, are who is being bashed.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Running an extra train from London just to enable the Mk2s to be replaced, would add to costs.

If it was just to enable mark 2 replacment then yes, running an extra sleeper wouldn't be a great plan. However, it would allow the day coaches for all 5 Euston - Scotland sleeper portions to start from London, and enable the extra train to go via Birmingham where it would collect the coaches from south-west England. You then have a 2-portion Birmingham - Scotland sleeper, which might give passengers boarding at Birmingham a choice of two different Scotish destonations without having to be woken up to change portion.

If you assume three London - Scotland sleepers (one via Birmingham, connecting with the one from Plymouth/Penzance) and the current Night Riveria, what makes using Waterloo cheaper and easier than having the Scotish sleepers go from Euston and the Night Riveria from Paddington?

A snippet within Peters article (written by Barry Doe) mentioned that the old SW to Scotland sleeper was the busiest of all the sleepers, but was scrapped as it didnt fit into the XC franchise.

Given that it is the longest distance, I don't find it particularlly suprising that it was the busiest.

 

[junglejames]

You proved my point.. Don't agree with whats said you are bashed.. Which makes your second point invalid as you are bashing "stupid" posts.

What if we just say you are right and everyone else is wrong.. Would that make you feel better?

Anyway Like I said.. Waterloo..

The Glasgow/Edinburgh to Bristol and Plymouth finished long before privatisation. It went with the 1992 winter or summer 1993 timetable IIRC (will check. Have it in writing somewhere)

What? I havent proved anypoint of yours. Everybody else is having a sensible discussion, Nobody else is being 'bashed' so to speak. I fail to see what part of my post said that somebody was. All i said in the first part was that Peter didnt agree with ensuites.
Please also tell me where i am 'bashing' stupid posts? All im doing is pointing out the unfairness of your post.
As for the rest. Stop being stupid. Just accept that Peter himself never ever suggested ensuites, and accept your post was unfair.

The Scotland to SW sleeper supposedly stopped in Sept '94. That sounds just right for privatisation to me.

 

[Yew]

Would it be possible to combine the sleepers? With the southbound caledonian and the northbound Riviera splitting near london, with halft the train terminating at euston/paddington, and the other half continuing to scotland/cornwall?

 

[IanXC]

Would it be possible to combine the sleepers? With the southbound caledonian and the northbound Riviera splitting near london, with halft the train terminating at euston/paddington, and the other half continuing to scotland/cornwall?

I think the timings would be a bit iffy, what's the objective? The northbound Night Riviera would have to set off much much earlier, as would the southbound Caledonian, as once the shunting proposed near London had been done you'd still need enough time to get to Cornwall\Scotland.

 

[junglejames]

If you assume three London - Scotland sleepers (one via Birmingham, connecting with the one from Plymouth/Penzance) and the current Night Riveria, what makes using Waterloo cheaper and easier than having the Scotish sleepers go from Euston and the Night Riveria from Paddington?

Because you have everything in one London station. You dont have everything spread about.
Also, because it allows all day coaches to go from London, without having to run an extra train. Running the extra train will add to costs. It loses money as it is, so you wouldnt want to run an extra train from London, even if it did go via Birmingham. Youve added an extra Loco, driver and fuel, for what is unlikely to bring in many (if any) extra passengers. Joining and splitting trains at Birmingham is also adding extra costs. Id just run the one extra train. That from the South West to Scotland. No splitting or joining enroute.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would it be possible to combine the sleepers? With the southbound caledonian and the northbound Riviera splitting near london, with halft the train terminating at euston/paddington, and the other half continuing to scotland/cornwall?

Is that to get a direct SW to Scotland sleeper? By the time the Southbound Cally arrived off London, the Night Riviera heading west would be in Cornwall.
If anything, the sleeper from Scotland to the SW would detach from the Southbound Lowland at Crewe, but the Lowland departs too late from Scotland. The Highland already has enough coaches, and anyway, it also departs too late.

 

[tbtc]

I think loco hauled stock is a better idea. It is quieter and far more flexible. I don't know whether this would take too long in terms of shunting ect, but with LHCS, you could add more carriages if the train is fully booked (up to a maximum length) and remove carriages to reduce costs on quieter nights

This is what people say about LHCS, but how often does it actually happen? I like the "loco hauled allows flexibility" argument, but in reality we see the same length of rakes every day.

As for a "south west to Scotland" sleeper, we are talking around twenty years ago before the explosion in "low cost" flights (allowing you to leave Cardiff/ Bristol etc first thing in the morning and arrive in Glasgow/ Edinburgh/ Newcastle in time for a business meeting) - the world has moved on since then.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Running the extra train will add to costs. It loses money as it is, so you wouldnt want to run an extra train from London, even if it did go via Birmingham. Youve added an extra Loco, driver and fuel, for what is unlikely to bring in many (if any) extra passengers. Joining and splitting trains at Birmingham is also adding extra costs. Id just run the one extra train. That from the South West to Scotland. No splitting or joining enroute.

You (probablly) would need to swap locos at Birmingham on the south west - Scotland sleeper anyway (unless the Birmingham - Bristol route is electrified) to put an electric on for the Birmingham - Scotland leg, that would be the same electric loco that comes up from Euston on the extra Euston - Scotland. I suppose my suggestion might still be a little more expensive though, so I suppose it might be best just to run a single south-west - Scotland plus the highland and lowland sleepers to London as you suggest.

 

[87015]

This is what people say about LHCS, but how often does it actually happen? I like the "loco hauled allows flexibility" argument, but in reality we see the same length of rakes every day.

The one place it does happen in this country is with the few remaining overnight trains! Both the Penzance and Scotch sleepers have variable length at certain times of year with the Panzance gaining an extra coach or two and some of the Highland portions beign extended/shortened within the overall length into Euston staying the same, not sure how this fixed formation unit would do that.

 

[tbtc]

The one place it does happen in this country is with the few remaining overnight trains! Both the Penzance and Scotch sleepers have variable length at certain times of year with the Panzance gaining an extra coach or two and some of the Highland portions beign extended/shortened within the overall length into Euston staying the same, not sure how this fixed formation unit would do that.

Okay, fair enough, but please not "Scotch sleepers". They're not made of sausagemeat, with an egg interior. Scottish.

 

[Yew]

Okay, fair enough, but please not "Scotch sleepers". They're not made of sausagemeat, with an egg interior. Scottish.

I thought they where a neutral grain spirit matured in a Barrel for at least three years?

 

[Zoe]

As for a "south west to Scotland" sleeper, we are talking around twenty years ago before the explosion in "low cost" flights (allowing you to leave Cardiff/ Bristol etc first thing in the morning and arrive in Glasgow/ Edinburgh/ Newcastle in time for a business meeting) - the world has moved on since then.

You can also do the same from London to Glasgow/Edinburgh. However, the future of these cheap domestic flights is not clear. The South West to Scotland sleeper I believe went from Plymouth not Cardiff and I'm not sure the majority of passengers were from Bristol.

 

[Yew]

Right, this might actually be a good idea.

In australia they have trains like this.
Daytime

Nighttime

Maybe we could order some stock that works in a similar way? With say 4 of those carriages that act as compartment stock in the day, some first class accomodation (seated sleeper) and a TRFB/SB as a lounge car.