• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Transport Scotland Rail 2014 consultation

Status
Not open for further replies.

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
The booze ban is perfectly consistent with the current adminstration's attitude towards alcohol.

It is - I expect to see this introduced regardless of whether the services from Aberdeen/Inverness to London are cut or not
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
TS would continue to do what they do best and place inappropriate stock on longdistance runs

Out of interest what do you think would be "appropriate" for Glasgow/ Edinburgh to Aberdeen/Inverness services?

(if 158s/170s aren't "appropriate")
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Invincibles

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2009
Messages
511
Location
Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
It seems simple to me

The 172s have corridors, so Scotland makes its main express trains 172

This moves 170s and a few 158s to provide massive capacity enhancements through the pennines and on other Cross Country routes.

Win-winm, but unlikely because of short sighted CBA.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Out of interest what do you think would be "appropriate" for Glasgow/ Edinburgh to Aberdeen/Inverness services?

(if 158s/170s aren't "appropriate")
In my opinion, I'd like to see something 5,or possibly 6, carriages long, with a buffet and more than a "cupboard" posing as first class accomodation, as well as end of carriage doors and a decent amount of luggage space (Not that I think that the 158s and 170s are too bad in this respect, but I'm just saying).

Probably something more akin to a diesel version of the 444 Desiro than a Voyager though, as the 444s are a much better design of train and there wouldn't be any real opportunity for running above 100mph.

Or in fantasy land, as another poster said bring back the mark 3 push-pull rakes! ;)
 

marks87

Established Member
Joined
23 Jun 2010
Messages
1,609
Location
Dundee
Out of interest what do you think would be "appropriate" for Glasgow/ Edinburgh to Aberdeen/Inverness services?

(if 158s/170s aren't "appropriate")
Although not aimed at me, when you compare Aberdeen-Edinburgh/Glasgow to routes of similar length or shorter in England, there is a bit of a discrepancy.

For instance, ABD-EDB is a little under 3 hours and has a 170, while YRK-KGX is 2 hours but has either a 225 or HST. OK, perhaps a crude comparison but I do think there is an argument to have two parts to the Scottish franchise: "ScotRail InterCity" and "ScotRail Regional".

The former would run InterCity-standard stock (something like 222s) on express routes, with limited stops; so basically Edinburgh/Glasgow - Aberdeen/Inverness. The latter would run everything else.
 

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,985
Location
Exeter
Sometimes it's worth typing longer posts in Word for the spellcheck.

Blindtraveller is as his name suggests blind, I believe he uses a screen reader and possibly speech input, so I'd cut him some slack
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Although not aimed at me, when you compare Aberdeen-Edinburgh/Glasgow to routes of similar length or shorter in England, there is a bit of a discrepancy.

For instance, ABD-EDB is a little under 3 hours and has a 170, while YRK-KGX is 2 hours but has either a 225 or HST. OK, perhaps a crude comparison but I do think there is an argument to have two parts to the Scottish franchise: "ScotRail InterCity" and "ScotRail Regional".

The former would run InterCity-standard stock (something like 222s) on express routes, with limited stops; so basically Edinburgh/Glasgow - Aberdeen/Inverness. The latter would run everything else.

Thanks.

I'd suggest that the Aberdeen/Inverness - Glasgow/Edinburgh services are better compared to "non London" diesel services south of the border, which tend to be:

  • 158s (Leeds - Carlisle, Blackpool - York, Liverpool - Norwich, Cardiff - Portsmouth etc)
  • 170s (Birmingham - Stansted, Cardiff - Nottingham etc)
  • 175s (Swansea - Manchester etc)
  • 185s (Newcastle - Manchester Airport etc)

(I'm not including Voyagers as there's no need for 125mph north of Edinburgh)

So, by that benchmark, the 158/170s on the Aberdeen/Inverness - Glasgow/Edinburgh services don't seem "inappropriate"
 

Blindtraveler

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
9,600
Location
Nowhere near enough to a Pacer :(
thanks for the support guys. I type like anybody else but do use a screan reader yes. I do my best but feel free to take the p*s, im used to it but if I'm not wanted by anybody go cry to the mods and get me thrown off. Note however I take no notice if a comment is posted normally and just ignore it and get on!

Back o/t
starting from the top down I?d order enough electric IEP sets to displace enough MK4s which would transfer to Scotland and be hauled by 67s om Edinburg/Glasgow to Aberdeen and Invfrness. The 170s freed would cascade to Aberdeen to Inverness, Far North line, South West Scotland lines, shots line and if possible west highland although0know this may be unachevable. A few would also work borders rail services if they ever start.

This also takes into account units freed by EGIP. An order for gangwayed comuter style 172s would be placed for the remaining deezol work e.g fife and non electrified Glasgow lines. The 156s and 158s would transfer to Northern as they can be made DDA0compatible meaning pacers can be withdrawn, sadly. Ordering new units for Scottis local runs means far less units to order at once thus spreading the cost of replacing the sprinters post 2019
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Back o/t
starting from the top down I?d order enough electric IEP sets to displace enough MK4s which would transfer to Scotland and be hauled by 67s om Edinburg/Glasgow to Aberdeen and Invfrness. The 170s freed would cascade to Aberdeen to Inverness, Far North line, South West Scotland lines, shots line and if possible west highland although0know this may be unachevable. A few would also work borders rail services if they ever start.

This also takes into account units freed by EGIP. An order for gangwayed comuter style 172s would be placed for the remaining deezol work e.g fife and non electrified Glasgow lines. The 156s and 158s would transfer to Northern as they can be made DDA0compatible meaning pacers can be withdrawn, sadly. Ordering new units for Scottis local runs means far less units to order at once thus spreading the cost of replacing the sprinters post 2019
Would you be considering shortening down the mark 4 rakes for Scottish domestic use? I have quite traditional opinions on what Intercity trains should be like (I try to move with the times; the advantages of distributed traction and all that; but I likes what I likes at the end of the day), but even my mind boggles at the prospect of nine carriage mark 4 rakes plus DVT working the Edinburgh and Glasgow to Aberdeen and Inverness routes.

I think the 170s would be superbly suited to working the Glasgow & South Western routes and the West Highland line. The West Highland used to see three carriage trains, running as six cars up to the split at Chrianlarich, when Scotrail formed up a number of hybrid 3-car 156 formations in the early nineties, so I think it would be good to see three carriage trains back on the West Highland.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Would you be considering shortening down the mark 4 rakes for Scottish domestic use? I have quite traditional opinions on what Intercity trains should be like (I try to move with the times; the advantages of distributed traction and all that; but I likes what I likes at the end of the day), but even my mind boggles at the prospect of nine carriage mark 4 rakes plus DVT working the Edinburgh and Glasgow to Aberdeen and Inverness routes

This is the problem.

A nine coach service is clearly OTT for most Edinburgh/Glasgow to Inverness/Aberdeen services, and presumably too long for some intermediate stations (its okay for the HSTs to be that long, but they don't need to stop at every station)...

...but cutting them down to half size would be a waste of energy (compared to DMUs).

Also, I'm not sure that Queen Street can cope with long trains on most platforms anyway?
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Also, I'm not sure that Queen Street can cope with long trains on most platforms anyway?
Indeed, it was an incredibly tight squeeze for the 2+8 HST formations that used to run into Queen Street in the eighties (Thanks to ObservationCar for reminding me about these), and there was only the one platform that even came close to being able to manage a train of such a length. This picture shows you what I mean (Not my photo):
 

Attachments

  • HST Glasgow QS.jpg
    HST Glasgow QS.jpg
    136.2 KB · Views: 35

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Indeed, it was an incredibly tight squeeze for the 2+8 HST formations that used to run into Queen Street in the eighties (Thanks to ObservationCar for reminding me about these), and there was only the one platform that even came close to being able to manage a train of such a length. This picture shows you what I mean (Not my photo):

27s and 47s at Queen Street, that takes me back... :lol:

But, yeah, with a 67 on one end and a DVT on the other, there's not space for loads of coaches in between at Queen Street.

And whilst the token HST (pre diversion of the KX services to Central) could be accommodated, if these 67 sets are taking on all Inverness and Aberdeen services then you're going to struggle.
 

Blindtraveler

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
9,600
Location
Nowhere near enough to a Pacer :(
i thought that platform length at GLQ was being tackled as part of the redevelopment work? If not agree we have a challenge!
I'd be looking at a 6 car formation with 1 being 50 percent first, buffet counter (hopefully with a fridge of cold beers) :) and remaining space being cycle area with tipup seats. Remaining 5 would be standard.

Inefficiant maybe but far more cumfortable, particularly to Inverness and there would be no problem filling these sets.
With the 170s I'd keep the first class areas, reintroducing FC service to these lines for the first time in years
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
i thought that platform length at GLQ was being tackled as part of the redevelopment work? If not agree we have a challenge!
I'd be looking at a 6 car formation with 1 being 50 percent first, buffet counter (hopefully with a fridge of cold beers) :) and remaining space being cycle area with tipup seats. Remaining 5 would be standard.

Inefficiant maybe but far more cumfortable, particularly to Inverness and there would be no problem filling these sets.
With the 170s I'd keep the first class areas, reintroducing FC service to these lines for the first time in years
Seems like a reasonable formation for the mark 4s, much like what I would have in mind for such a set up.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
It seems do able but i really cant see anyone going down this path unless its split into Scotrail Intercity and Scotrail (whatever the other one would be)
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
i thought that platform length at GLQ was being tackled as part of the redevelopment work? If not agree we have a challenge!
I'd be looking at a 6 car formation with 1 being 50 percent first, buffet counter (hopefully with a fridge of cold beers) :) and remaining space being cycle area with tipup seats. Remaining 5 would be standard.

Inefficiant maybe but far more cumfortable, particularly to Inverness and there would be no problem filling these sets.
With the 170s I'd keep the first class areas, reintroducing FC service to these lines for the first time in years

Fair enough, though I think Rhydgaled has his eyes on those 225 sets for the GWML - does everyone want the Mk4s on their local line? :lol:
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
thats the way it should be anyway with
people who know about long distance trains controlling these and the sleapers

I agree, long distance scotrail expresses and sleeper seperate from the rest. But the next question is do you make them two franchises operated by the same company to keep the co-operation or two seperate companies for competition.
 

Blindtraveler

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
9,600
Location
Nowhere near enough to a Pacer :(
with complex nature of rural runs joining up with express lines e.g at inverness, and the variables of of wether, single track running for long stretches etc plus potential intipration with ferrys and other transport the scottish franchise would need to be run by the same peole but as 2 arms, express and regional. Handing the express arm to somebody else would make it worse for the customer.

As to others wanting the MK4 Stock, totally replace the EC Fleat, wire up the bits that can be wired, drag the Scottish runs if they continue and then use some of the ideas from the voyagers thread i.e extend to 11 cars, convert to bi-mode with panto car, refurbish to a 222 style interior as much as possible and put the wires up where needed. The coaching stock not used in Scotland moves to GWML for non wired drags and the electric IEP sets do the rest
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
meanwhile, order a 4th unpowered trailer for the 185s so they can be cascaded to XC to replace turbostars which move elsewhere to again allow pacers to be withdrawn as TPE electriffication is rolled out. Much as I hate to see the end of pacers, life extending sprinters is at least a viable option.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
another option, and it is only that would be to give ATW the unallocated 180s, assuming any still exist in a few years time and take some of there 3 coach 175s as for XC as these are cleared for BHM? theres always a chance ofcourse that GC or HT or both may have ordered new units themselves by then meaning ATW could have all 14 sets allowing 175s to go to XC?
 

callum112233

Member
Joined
8 Sep 2011
Messages
379
Location
Wigan
A little bird told me that funding may have decreased for the Caledonian sleeper and that it might not be around for much longer. Has anyone heard anything about this?

Let me stress that it's just a rumour and could be wrong.
 

Swr28

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2011
Messages
80
Location
The Cambrian since 1982
Transport for Scotland are currently holding review into rail services in Scotland and in this review is the sleeper. Here is a link to the site
www.transportscotland.gov.uk/strategy-and-research/publications-and-consultations/j203179-00.htm
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Rail 2014 - Public Consultation


11 - Caledonian Sleeper

11.1 There are currently two rail sleeper services operating between Scotland and London. As part of this review of rail passenger services we are considering how to continue to fund, and contract for, these Caledonian Sleeper services and would be interested in your views.

Current Operation

11.2 The Caledonian Sleeper service consists of two sleeper services operating nightly, except Saturdays, between Scotland and London. Both of these are currently provided as part of the ScotRail franchise.

11.3 The Lowland Sleeper:
■Edinburgh to London, and Glasgow to London, with trains joining at Carstairs just after midnight, and arriving in London in the early morning
■London to Edinburgh and Glasgow with the train splitting at Carstairs in the morning, and arriving in the early morning in both cities

11.4 The Highland Sleeper:
■separate trains from Fort William, Inverness and Aberdeen which join together at Edinburgh, and arrive in London Euston in the early morning
■one train from London Euston, splitting at Edinburgh in the early morning, into three separate trains stopping at a total of 36 stations across the Highlands

11.5 The Caledonian Sleeper services require 66 vehicles a day to operate. Daily servicing and maintenance is carried out in Glasgow, London, Aberdeen and Fort William. Major maintenance is carried out in Inverness and each carriage must be rotated through Inverness for servicing on a regular eight-day rotation.

11.6 It costs around £21 million a year to provide the Caledonian Sleeper services, excluding the track access costs.

Issues

11.7 The Caledonian Sleeper services provide an alternative to air travel, particularly to and from the North of Scotland. However the services are likely to face increasing competition in the next few years due to:
■improvements in journey times and timetables for daytime services to/ from the central belt and London
■passengers having higher expectations of the facilities and services available, and therefore alternatives such as budget hotels and sleeper bus services become more attractive

11.8 Commissioned reports and passenger research, however, show that improvements in on-train facilities making them more attractive, could lead to an increase in demand for the Sleeper Services.

Rolling stock refurbishment

11.9 The rolling stock used by the Caledonian Sleeper services was built in the early 1970s. Although it is mechanically sound and has been cosmetically refurbished a number of times, the level of accommodation provided falls short of the expectations of today's passenger.

11.10 It would be possible for rolling stock to be upgraded - for example, to reduce noise, improve beds, provide better temperature controls. In addition the booking system could be improved. Consideration is also being given to providing en-suite accommodation - although this would significantly reduce the number of berths available and presents technical challenges in water and power supply.

Options

11.11 Overall we consider that there is the potential to improve the longer-term financial performance across all the sleeper service routes, through investment in services and rolling stock.

11.12 We are considering a number of options for the future provision of sleeper services, for instance: removing or increasing financial support; and reducing the provision, either through removing the Highland or Lowland service, or by running the Lowland services to and from Edinburgh only.

11.13 We are also carrying out additional research and financial modelling and are looking at a number of options including letting the sleeper services as a separate franchise. This option may enable greater commercial opportunities for the service provider and facilitate investment in the fleet. As a specialised service, it may benefit from more focused and specialised management. A sleeper-only franchise service could also attract new entrants with innovative ideas to the rail franchise market

Questions



37

Should we continue to specify sleeper services, or should this be a purely commercial matter for a train operating company?



38

Should the Caledonian Sleeper services be contracted for separately from the main ScotRail franchise? Or should it be an option for within the main ScotRail franchise?



39

We would be interested in your views in the level and type of service that the Caledonian Sleeper Services should provide. Including: ■What is the appeal of the Caledonian Sleeper Service, and if there were more early and late trains would the appeal of the sleeper services change?
■What is the value of sleeper services to Fort William, Inverness and Aberdeen and are these the correct destinations, for example would Oban provide better connectivity?
■What facilities should the sleeper services provide and would you pay more for better facilities?
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,331
Selling the Nightstar stock to Canada seems to have backfired, we could have used them

Seeing how heavy and power thirsty the Nightstar stock is I'm not so sure! Might even be double header territory!

 

merlodlliw

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2009
Messages
5,852
Location
Wrexham/ Denbighshire /Flintshire triangle
A little bird told me that funding may have decreased for the Caledonian sleeper and that it might not be around for much longer. Has anyone heard anything about this?

Let me stress that it's just a rumour and could be wrong.


I recall many years ago,perhaps 25, there was a move to kill off the Fort William sleeper by BR, some people in Fort William discovered a clause, I forget what this clause was, but it prevented the removal of the sleeper service from Fort William , there was also a massive outcry all along the line.
found this http://www.lochaber-news.co.uk/News...nsport-Scotland-threat-to-sleeper-7380583.htm

Bob
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
Not so much of a rumour as an open consultation. It was being discussed quite vigourously in this thread a week or two ago: Transport Scotland Rail 2014 consultation

Much as I've been impressed by Transport Scotland on the whole, I'm dismayed at the parochialism of a rail strategy which eliminates much of the cross-border provision, transport is all about making connections over long distances, and there's no doubt that the demand for long-distance, cross-border travel is there, on several routes and several times-of-day (and overnight).
 

A60K

Member
Joined
26 Jun 2008
Messages
1,030
Location
Kilburn
I recall many years ago,perhaps 25, there was a move to kill off the Fort William sleeper by BR, some people in Fort William discovered a clause, I forget what this clause was, but it prevented the removal of the sleeper service from Fort William , there was also a massive outcry all along the line.
found this http://www.lochaber-news.co.uk/News...nsport-Scotland-threat-to-sleeper-7380583.htm
There's no legal impediment to withdrawing the sleeper from Fort William, and the story you're linking to doesn't say there is. The decision to retain it was political not legal.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Seeing how heavy and power thirsty the Nightstar stock is I'm not so sure! Might even be double header territory!
It'd no doubt follow the same formula as was devised for the Nightstar trains, if the Nightstar stock had been moved to the Caledonian sleeper services: 92s on the electrified section, and a pair of 37/6s sandwiching a generator car on the non-electrified legs.

As you say, it would never have been cost effective, and would have only served to push up the operating costs of the sleeper much further.
 

merlodlliw

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2009
Messages
5,852
Location
Wrexham/ Denbighshire /Flintshire triangle
There's no legal impediment to withdrawing the sleeper from Fort William, and the story you're linking to doesn't say there is. The decision to retain it was political not legal.

25 or so years ago, there was a legal clause that was used , the link I used was just a local one to the area now . This legal clause was also on radio 4 today programme at the time, this is what it said.

However, the service had to be extended beyond the proposed closure date of 28 May when the Highlands and Islands Regional Council launched a successful legal challenge over a technicality. The sleeper services are the only passenger trains on some small sections of line and BR proposed to run occasional late-night weekly "ghost" trains to avoid having to go through the stringent closure procedures.

taken from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/f...-to-be-reprieved-1587620.html?CMP=ILC-refresh

perhaps a better use of the word clause was a legal technicality, but it was discovered by a Fort William objector & raised by the Statutory Authority it was a legal challenge.

Bob
 
Last edited:

A60K

Member
Joined
26 Jun 2008
Messages
1,030
Location
Kilburn
perhaps a better use of the word clause was a legal technicality, but it was discovered by a Fort William objector & raised by the Statutory Authority it was a legal challenge.
You're not getting the point I'm making. There is or was absolutely no legal reason, clause, technicality or anything else you want to call it to stop the Fort William sleeper being withdrawn. So long as a passenger service runs on the section(s) of line that would otherwise be without, then the sleeper can be withdrawn without formal procedures or notice.
It could be diverted to Oban, it could run without sleeping cars, it could be replaced with a midday local service from Dumbarton to Edinburgh once a week, or a bus from Croy to Dalmuir - and the same would be the case in the mid 90s or now. Do you see what I'm getting at?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Im suprised it has lasted this long after Privatisation really, it was only a matter of time before it was withdrawn.

Luckily I have already been able to travel to both Lowland destinations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top