Suggestions for alternative Caledonian Sleeper layout

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks.
So what is lost with fewer 'rooms' is regained by greater flexibility.

Do you have to remove the mattress to put Mk3 beds up? Didn't think you did?

FWIW, I'm quite surprised they didn't consider some more innovative single bed layouts, such as having cabins with alternating upper or lower bunks with them interlocked, for instance (if you see what I mean).

 

[alistairlees]

Do you have to remove the mattress to put Mk3 beds up? Didn't think you did?

FWIW, I'm quite surprised they didn't consider some more innovative single bed layouts, such as having cabins with alternating upper or lower bunks with them interlocked, for instance (if you see what I mean).

Yes, you have to remove the mattress in order to put the bed / bunk up with the Mk3. The mattresses need to be stored somewhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, you have to remove the mattress in order to put the bed / bunk up with the Mk3. The mattresses need to be stored somewhere.

Ah, I stand corrected.

 

[Flying Snail]

Do you have to remove the mattress to put Mk3 beds up? Didn't think you did?

FWIW, I'm quite surprised they didn't consider some more innovative single bed layouts, such as having cabins with alternating upper or lower bunks with them interlocked, for instance (if you see what I mean).

That would save space but it would be oppressively claustrophobic to be in a room less than 1m wide with a bunk shelf.

 

[Meerkat]

hat would save space but it would be oppressively claustrophobic to be in a room less than 1m wide with a bunk shelf

I wouldn’t mind - stay in the lounge and only go in the room to sleep. Much rather do that than share with a stranger. Private space is much bigger than shared space if you see what I mean.....
How about a train version of those Japanese pod hotels?

 

[marks87]

Do you have to remove the mattress to put Mk3 beds up? Didn't think you did?

FWIW, I'm quite surprised they didn't consider some more innovative single bed layouts, such as having cabins with alternating upper or lower bunks with them interlocked, for instance (if you see what I mean).

Something like this?

(Source: https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/87468417747854332/)

Image shows one bed above the other but accessed from opposite sides of an s-shaped divider.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yep, that (with a much narrower access, obviously) is exactly what I had in mind.

 

[TimboM]

[DELETED]

 

[jagardner1984]

It's a weirdly circular argument though, isn't it.

Subsidy is too great because train is lightly populated, therefore fares have to be high, therefore selling it as a premium product and pricing regular travellers off the service, therefore subsidy is too great.

At a rough mockup of a Mk5 carriage (carriage is to scale, internals are somewhat imagined based on the above).

Standard configuration has a minimum of 10 passengers, all in solo berths, or a maximum of 20 passengers, all in twin berths.

The rough sketch I have done, using S shaped beds as suggested above, has a lower maximum of 16 berths, 9 single berths, 3 twin ensuite and 1 solo ensuite.

However, minimum is higher, at 13, 9 single berths, 4 ensuite berths.


Presumably CS' calculation is that the higher overall potential capacity gives them greater flexibility long term.

Personally I would say the direction of the travel / hotel industries is going in the opposite direction.

 

[marks87]

Who's to say they weren't considered and rejected as on balance no better than the current layout?
The fundamentals of the Mk3 berth layout aren't particularly broken, so don't need fixing - particularly if they were clear they were already moving to a "per room" rather than "per bed" pricing approach.

The point, I think, is that you can fit more "rooms" with such a design because in terms of space you effectively end up with one bed for every two rooms.

It's all a question of how much space you'd eventually save, and how many extra rooms you could then fit in it.

 

[BRX]

I wouldn’t mind - stay in the lounge and only go in the room to sleep. Much rather do that than share with a stranger. Private space is much bigger than shared space if you see what I mean.....
How about a train version of those Japanese pod hotels?

Japanese overnight trains actually have something a bit like the pod hotel arrangement, although less fully partitioned. I'd actually prefer something like this to reclining seats, because I put a high value on being able to lie flat, and also knowing you can get in and out of, and stay in, your sleeping location without disturbing anyone or being disturbed by someone else.

http://www.candidanimal.com/2012/03/journey-to-izumo-aboard-sunrise-izumo.html?m=1

 

[gsnedders]

Who's to say they weren't considered and rejected as on balance no better than the current layout?
The fundamentals of the Mk3 berth layout aren't particularly broken, so don't need fixing - particularly if they were clear they were already moving to a "per room" rather than "per bed" pricing approach.

I do wonder how much was considered after the pods were abandoned, given the timeframes involved?

 

[33Hz]

It looks like the new trains ordered by OeBB will have a pod arrangement for the cheaper couchettes. There will be storage in lockable bins between them and a ladder in the corridor to reach the top ones. There is no wasted space with a gap between beds in rooms and no need to share with and be disturbed by strangers. It also solves as a byproduct the problem of passing people with suitcases in the narrow corridors that is typical of most sleeper trains.

https://www.nightjet.com/en/ausstattung/nightjetzukunft.html

https://www.priestmangoode.com/project/new-intercity-and-nightjet/

https://roundme.com/gallery/178

https://railcolornews.com/2017/10/07/at-obb-tender-for-long-distance-trains-stopped-and-resumed/

https://back-on-track.eu/presentation-by-kurt-bauer-30-1-2018/

https://signalarchiv.de/Meldungen/10004064


Personally I think these are great and wish the new sleepers in the UK had done something similar for the budget traveller.