Serco to end Caledonian Sleeper contract early?

[Coryton]

The fundamental problem with any sort of franchise operation has just been clearly demonstrated. Extensive curtailments and outright cancellations on the strength of a bad weather forecast, which in the event wasn’t borne out by events (at least initially). Their contracts indicated that this was the least worst option financially; there was no obligation to run a service; and the costs of lost time and lost work fell elsewhere.

 

That's certainly how it feels.

 

I was impressed the last time we had snow in Cardiff at the way that Cardiff Bus kept running as much as they could rather than taking the easy way out and suspending all services.

 

A few days ago I had an email from them "selling" Cardiff Bus as a way to get around in treacherous road conditions.

 

This may - or may not - be related to fact that they are still Council-owned. 

[ejstubbs]

Lothian Buses kept running until 7pm, although a lot of their further-out-of-town services were curtailed.

 

However, anyone who thinks that the bad weather forecast wasn't borne out by events is free to wade through the snow on my drive in southern Edinburgh and I'll happily invite them in for a chat about it.

 

There were 1,000 cars stuck on the M80 last night.  My missus was stuck for four hours on the city bypass until a number of drivers took the initiative and drove back the wrong way down the up ramp from the M8 roundabout in order to get on to one of the secondary roads that wasn't completely blocked by HGVs that couldn't get up the hill between Calder Road and Baberton junctions.

 

The conditions yesterday were far from trivial, and they have continued to be so today.  That's part of the problem: in the past the warnings do seem to have been excessive.  This time they were right, but people had got used to ignoring them.

 

And issuing a red "do not travel" warning as they did, at 10am on a weekday when most people will already be at work, was never likely to have precisely the desired effect.

[jjb1970]

I completely agree with that statement, though the obvious flaw from a taxpayer or consumer/user perspective is why they should be allowed to walk away!

They should be held to their contract, that is not necessarily the same as not being allowed to walk away as it all depends on what's in the contract. And being held to a contract is a two way thing, we're seeing franchises paying the price for over bidding which was their commercial risk and their problem, but we're also seeing a bit of a debacle resulting from NR's failure to deliver electrification etc. I suspect if it was allowed to go to court then none of the interested parties in the problem franchises (TOCs, NR and DafT) would come out of it well hence I suspect they'll try and avoid it getting that far.

[Joseph_Pestell]

It seems to me that franchising is the wrong way to go on a service such as this which everyone recognises needs subsidy and is run for largely political reasons.

 

Far better to put it out to a management contract where the operator's costs are guaranteed but the Govt (Edinburgh in this case) takes all the fares revenue. Such contracts have worked well elsewhere in the transport industry.

[mdvle]

They should be held to their contract, that is not necessarily the same as not being allowed to walk away as it all depends on what's in the contract. And being held to a contract is a two way thing, we're seeing franchises paying the price for over bidding which was their commercial risk and their problem, but we're also seeing a bit of a debacle resulting from NR's failure to deliver electrification etc. I suspect if it was allowed to go to court then none of the interested parties in the problem franchises (TOCs, NR and DafT) would come out of it well hence I suspect they'll try and avoid it getting that far.

 

But any bid should have included the possibility of NR not delivering on schedule, new trains not arriving on schedule, etc.  If the bidder bid on the assumption everything would work flawlessly then that is the bidders problem.

[mdvle]

The fundamental problem with any sort of franchise operation has just been clearly demonstrated. Extensive curtailments and outright cancellations on the strength of a bad weather forecast, which in the event wasn’t borne out by events (at least initially). Their contracts indicated that this was the least worst option financially; there was no obligation to run a service; and the costs of lost time and lost work fell elsewhere.

 

It is also a reflection that the railways no longer have an army of staff spread around the network to apply manual labour when the weather interferes with all the current technology.

[jjb1970]

But any bid should have included the possibility of NR not delivering on schedule, new trains not arriving on schedule, etc.  If the bidder bid on the assumption everything would work flawlessly then that is the bidders problem.

That all depends on the contract. If a condition of a contract includes commitments regarding critical interdependencies than it is entirely reasonable to put in a bid based on those commitments being delivered. And if they're not then you sort out the liquidated damages.

[JeremyC]

Lothian Buses kept running until 7pm, although a lot of their further-out-of-town services were curtailed.

 

However, anyone who thinks that the bad weather forecast wasn't borne out by events is free to wade through the snow on my drive in southern Edinburgh and I'll happily invite them in for a chat about it.

 

There were 1,000 cars stuck on the M80 last night.  My missus was stuck for four hours on the city bypass until a number of drivers took the initiative and drove back the wrong way down the up ramp from the M8 roundabout in order to get on to one of the secondary roads that wasn't completely blocked by HGVs that couldn't get up the hill between Calder Road and Baberton junctions.

 

The conditions yesterday were far from trivial, and they have continued to be so today.  That's part of the problem: in the past the warnings do seem to have been excessive.  This time they were right, but people had got used to ignoring them.

 

And issuing a red "do not travel" warning as they did, at 10am on a weekday when most people will already be at work, was never likely to have precisely the desired effect.

It was the Met Office who issued the 'Red Warning of Snow' at that time not Transport Scotland, however the Scottish Transport Minister had been flagging up the probability of it since the previous evening and Transport Scotland had been advising people to avoid journeys while the previous Amber warning was in force. As was pointed out on another forum,  what colour of warning do you have to issue and how many times do the police have to say do not travel before people take any notice? What annoys me is that those who ignore these warnings then expect the personnel of the Emergency Services to risk their safety to recover them.

Edited March 1, 2018 by JeremyC

[JeremyC]

If you ask anyone not interested in Railways up here what they think of the current Scotrail franchise (I mean the majority of those commuting on it) giving it to Abelio has been a disaster. There are Facebook groups set up it’s on local town pages etc. Short formed trains due to the lease being up on the busiest routes is impacting on revenue and creating even more frustration. Electrification and the new trains will be positive but the cost of the late arrival might be too much. We will need to wait and see.

 

Mark

Unfortunately you cannot discuss the current railway scene in Scotland without running into the banned 'P' subject. How much of that dissatisfaction has been due to the anti Abellio drip feed campaign being waged by certain Scottish Newspapers (who I'm not convinced actually care about the subject)? I'm not defending Abellio's faults, but how many of their problems, such as late delivery of new rolling stock; delays to services caused by new infrastructure projects [many of which are themselves delayed] etc. are actually under their [or even ScotRails or the Scottish Governments] control. Personally I'm not sure why people think the situation would be any better under a different franchisee as the same problems would still exist.

The fact that many franchises are suffering major problem suggests to me that the present business structure of the railways as a whole is the actual problem.

Edited March 1, 2018 by JeremyC

[The Stationmaster]

Taking away political and commercial considerations, separating the Sleepers from the Scotrail franchise was a railway operator's nightmare; Working as I did in Network Rail Scotland Route Control, co-located with Scotrail Control, any issues in Scotland were usually resolved quickly through face-to-face contact, discussion and agreement. Conversely, we saw the difficulties Scotrail had when problems arose with the Sleepers south of the Border, and they had to deal over the phone with other Routes for whom the Sleepers were very much a minority operation. Now, the day-to-day running of the Sleepers is controlled remotely, all contact has to be by phone, and Serco do not have the resources of Scotrail to fall back on when things go wrong.

 

Personally, I was always surprised that the entire Caledonian Sleeper operation went to Scotrail at all on privatisation; A joint venture with the WCML operator would have seemed more logical, given that south of Carlisle the Sleepers were the only Scotrail services running over several hundred miles of route.

 

The Anglo-Scottish sleepers were specifically excluded from the WCML franchise in order - as much as anything - to try to ensure their continuation.  One night on the sleeper to Glasgow I happened to overhear a conversation between a well known figure in the railway industry and a, at that time, fairly high profile Scottish (Westminster) MP on the subject of the very train we were travelling on and in view of their positions at that time I wouldn't might betting that conversation had more than a little to do with where the sleeper management went.  And in reality it was of course quite logical that it should go to Scotland for managerial reasons as that is both where the main commercial and passenger interest lies and where the real complexity of the trains' operations lie.

 

Within the West Coast franchise the sleepers would have been very much a sideshow and probably one that attracted little real managerial interest beyond a few 'fluffy' headlines and some red uniforms for the customer service crew.  Managed as part of Scotland's rail network made a lot more sense.  What doesn't make quite so much sense - to me at any rate - is floating the thing off on its own.

[The Stationmaster]

Unfortunately you cannot discuss the current railway scene in Scotland without running into the banned 'P' subject. How much of that dissatisfaction has been due to the anti Abellio drip feed campaign being waged by certain Scottish Newspapers (who I'm not convinced actually care about the subject)? I'm not defending Abellio's faults, but how many of their problems, such as late delivery of new rolling stock; delays to services caused by new infrastructure projects [many of which are themselves delayed] etc. are actually under their [or even ScotRails or the Scottish Governments] control. Personally I'm not sure why people think the situation would be any better under a different franchisee as the same problems would still exist.

The fact that many franchises are suffering major problem suggests to me that the present business structure of the railways as a whole is the actual problem.

 

I don't think the franchise structure per se is the problem - but the way DafT are 'managing' it is a problem.  

 

Generally franchising has worked quite well and the only real problems which have emerged are prospective franchisees overbidding (although often on the basis of data supplied by the Civil Service, arguably the infrastructure owner failing to deliver projects on time (not that timescales have always been quoted by the infrastructure owner itself), and Civil servants accepting over ambitious bids because they provide the biggest promises of payback.  The fact that all of those things have happened does not mean the system is wrong although I have always held the view that the length of franchises is hardly efficient or offers the best deal.

[cal.n]

Remember the investment of the mk5s was made by the Scottish Ministers, not Serco and they are fully owned by the Scottish government, not Serco or any ROSCO. Serco have no real investment in the contract, even the Scottish Ministers own the own all the branding and logos.

 

If the possible Thurso/Wick Sleeper was to go ahead, would the decision be made by Holyrood or Serco?

[caradoc]

The fundamental problem with any sort of franchise operation has just been clearly demonstrated. Extensive curtailments and outright cancellations on the strength of a bad weather forecast, which in the event wasn’t borne out by events (at least initially). Their contracts indicated that this was the least worst option financially; there was no obligation to run a service; and the costs of lost time and lost work fell elsewhere.

 

Sorry, but I cannot agree with that allegation, at all.

 

As a (now former) railway employee, I have been involved in situations, well after privatisation, where we effectively promised we would provide a full passenger service despite severe weather warnings, but in the event failed miserably to do so. Where heavy snow occurred, we have ended up with trains trapped in snowdrifts, and on one occasion had to rescue passengers from a train on the Stranraer line, in the middle of nowhere, by helicopter.

 

In January 2012, high winds were forecast in Scotland, however only limited service alterations were planned (for vulnerable locations, eg Saltcoats and Craigendoran) and everything else ran. During the morning several electric trains became trapped with the wires down around them, and passengers had to be evacuated in the teeth of a howling gale - Both passengers and staff were put at serious risk. By midday every passenger service in Scotland had been withdrawn. It then took days to repair the damage, and this was delayed by the presence of the stricken trains, which hampered repairs.

 

Inquiries follow these kind of incidents, leading to the present situation where the weather forecast is reviewed every single day, and when severe or extreme conditions are predicted, the likely effect on the railway is assessed and pre-emptive action taken accordingly. Of course, although (IMHO) weather forecasting is more accurate now than ever, no-one can forecast exactly where the heaviest snowfall or strongest winds will actually occur, leading sometimes to complaints of over-reaction. However it is far better to plan ahead and let people know in plenty of time what is going to happen than to do nothing, sit back, hope everything will be OK, and then have to react to incidents as they occur, and in my experience frequently struggle to cope with the number of issues requiring urgent attention, all at the same time.

[jjb1970]

The TOCs seem to have replaced the ROSCOs as the convenient whipping boys of choice to explain away any inconvenient aspects of the modern railway in some circles.

[rockershovel]

I wasn't referring to the M80, a far-off country of which I know little (oddly enough, I've never driven to Scotland, although I've travelled by train or flown often enough).

 

My point was that certain services in the South-East and ECML were curtailed and cancelled for no sufficient reason, as evidenced by the way some routes ran trains overnight to keep lines clear, and the actual weather conditions on the first 24 hours or so of the cold spell. Given the high proportion of ECML traffic which consists of commuter traffic joining at Peterborough, compensation for delays gets expensive very quickly so the incentive is obvious. 

 

TBH, I'm far from convinced that the regime of compensation for quite minor delays serves any useful purpose. The delays clearly aren't in anyone's interest, they go on happening ... when I was commuting in the 80s and early 90s it was generally accepted that any train leaving within 5-10 minutes and arriving within 10-15 minutes of its due time was "near enough", commuters were much more concerned about getting a seat in those days. I strongly suspect that the compensation regime actually contributes to the increasingly adversarial relationship between the railway and commuters on that route, my son-in-law keeps close records of his various delays and has had a couple of quite worthwhile compensation awards for levels of service which in my commuting days, were regarded as "all in the nature of things`"

Edited March 1, 2018 by rockershovel

[Bomag]

and passengers had to be evacuated in the teeth of a howling gale

 

That would have been a bit messy; it may have been better to evacuate the train.

[frobisher]

OK, so one can fly from London to Edinburgh for £30 each way.

Fly up the evening before and stay in a hotel, next morning take a train to wherever your choice of destination.

My questions are, what is the point of the sleeper trains, and why should I or any other taxpayer pay for someone else to use them?

There's a whole bunch of factors you need to consider; I used to frequently fly down to London from Edinburgh and back for one day business trips. Train made no sense for that. I paid the slight premium to fly into City Airport, saving a lot of hassle in regards travelling in from Heathrow. For meetings over multiple days, it made sense to travel down by sleeper (from Dundee where I was working) because of multiple factors. I didn't have to pay for car parking at Edinburgh Airport over those two-three days (I could leave the car in my company parking space and walk into the station from where I was), I didn't have to find a hotel/B&B for two nights and could arrive earlier on the first day and leave later on the last day. I wasn't limited on the amount of luggage I could then take with me in the quite the same way.

 

I found the multiple day meetings so much less stressful, and hence those generally ended up more productive.

 

Conversely, we previously had a direct air link to London City from Dundee. It wasn't fit for purpose (and guess what we don't have any more..?). Flights timetable meant that it was impossible to do a meaningful day trip to London, it was eyewateringly expensive compared to flying from Edinburgh to City and the timetable varied day to day (one day it was viable to get down early, the next it wasn't and the converse applied for late return flights).

 

Of course one issue Edinburgh airport has is its connectivity to the rail network...

[jjb1970]

The potential to effectively get a night at home with the family and arrive at your destination without a very early start should be a huge selling point for sleeper trains but it all depends on price.

[Edwin_m]

And the ability to get a good night's sleep, and for privacy and security I wouldn't share with a stranger and I suspect my employer has some policy that says the same.  Does the new stock have single cabins at less than exorbitant prices? 

[Coryton]

And the ability to get a good night's sleep, and for privacy and security I wouldn't share with a stranger and I suspect my employer has some policy that says the same.  Does the new stock have single cabins at less than exorbitant prices? 

 

I can see why the idea doesn't appeal...but I've done it many times (mostly in the UK, but also in other countries) and lived to tell the tale.

 

If both occupants are in their bunks there's a fair amount of privacy given that you can't see from one into the other.

[mdvle]

I can see why the idea doesn't appeal...but I've done it many times (mostly in the UK, but also in other countries) and lived to tell the tale.

 

If both occupants are in their bunks there's a fair amount of privacy given that you can't see from one into the other.

 

On business it is the matter of leaving business items like laptops, which likely have confidential information, accessible to outsiders, that would prohibit sharing.

[rockershovel]

I never gave it a thought in the days when I travelled regularly on the old East Coast sleeper to Aberdeen, then again offshore workers were and are, accustomed to random cabin-sharing. I also found that most travellers were more scared of me, than I ever was of them... especially on the return leg (when the beer and whiskey would flow; tbh, I don’t think the railway grieved the loss of that traffic)

 

When I travelled occasionally as a consultant in the 90s I never shared. The ability to command single accommodation is a powerful incentive offshore, insisted upon by anyone who can manage it.

[ejstubbs]

Of course one issue Edinburgh airport has is its connectivity to the rail network...

 

Which is better than it was, with Edinburgh Gateway station having a fall-out-of-the-train-and-on-to-the-tram connection to the airport these days.  Assuming  your train stops at Edinburgh Gateway, of course (which the ones from Dundee do).

 

The tram pricing is still out of whack, though: £6 single for the sub-ten-minute ride to the airport vs £1.70 single for the 20-minute-plus ride in to Princes Street.  (I understand that it's reasonable to charge a bit extra for time saving and convenience but £4.30/nearly four times as much looks sufficiently like gouging to put many people off altogether - especially Edinburghers, renowned for their grippiness!)

Edited March 3, 2018 by ejstubbs

[Coryton]

And issuing a red "do not travel" warning as they did, at 10am on a weekday when most people will already be at work, was never likely to have precisely the desired effect.

 

That's pretty much what happened with the one that applied to Cardiff.

 

I got to work a bit before 9. At 10 we were all told to go home. It seemed a bit premature given the warning was for 3 pm onwards...but better than the companies that made everyone stay till after the trains and rural buses had stopped running. Cardiff Bus carried until around 6pm which was pretty impressive.