sleeper trains to be axed?

[Barry J]

There is some sensible thinking behind at least some of the proposals.

 

Controlling alcohol consumption is admirable. In Australia we are not permitted to bring our own onto trains at any time. Most long-distance trains will however sell you a reasonable amount on board such as a small bottle of wine with a meal or a single "tinny" of beer at a time. That system gives a degree of consumption control comparable to that in any licensed establishment. I would welcome a "No bring-your-own" ruling on all British trains.

 

Operation of longer fixed-formation trains beyond core routes has never made best use of the rolling stock. A 9-coach HST may arrive at Edinburgh nearly full from the south but depart with less than a half-load and arrive in Aberdeen or Inverness with fewer than a hundred passengers aboard. This is one of the negatives of fixed-formation trains. In order to provide the highly-desirable through service a lot of empty seats are conveyed over quite long distances while passengers on the core routes may have to stand or be unable to use the train of their choice.

 

There isn't an easy answer to that one. It is too late in the day to start rebuilding HST sets with intermediate driving trailers for example and having them split at Waverley with the "Front 5 for stations to Aberdeen". That flexibility could however be built into the next generation of such rolling stock. It already exists with the Voyager fleet though the design of those has another negative in that they are effectively two trains coupled since it s not possible to access one portion from the other and duplicated staffing is required at a matching cost.

 

Franchising the sleepers is an idea which might work. Very much a case of unknown until tried. The service would need to be guaranteed however and not merely sold to an open-access operator who finds them insufficiently profitable and ceases running at a few days' notice. The Mk3 sleepers are quite old though haven't worked as hard as their equally aged HST sisters. They will not last for ever. There are also now few if any spares to be brought into use if, for example, there were a surge in demand or several vehicles were disabled for an extended time (or written off) through accident damage.

 

FGW are finding it harder and harder to accommodate the business offering on the Night Riviera and often require all their 10 sleeping cars in use of a night. I'm sure they would dearly love a few more. The Caledonian Sleepers cannot be lengthened as they run at maximum load 16 already but they could be run as three or four separate trains including more seated accommodation. Seats were once quite a popular budget travel option on the overnight runs and could be so marketed again. True there would be greater costs but with more accommodation comes the opportunity to generate more revenue as well.

 

From my experience, the once a day service from KX to Inverness and the 2hrly service to Aberdeen are amongst the busiest services East Coast operate. It's not unknown to find these services leaving Edinburgh northbound with very few seats available. Same goes for the overnight sleeper

[mjkerr]

From my experience, the once a day service from KX to Inverness and the 2hrly service to Aberdeen are amongst the busiest services East Coast operate. It's not unknown to find these services leaving Edinburgh northbound with very few seats available. Same goes for the overnight sleeper

Agreed, but I suspect the OP was referring to when the HST arrives / departs from Aberdeen / Inverness

The actual passenger numbers are very low, compared to when the train operates between Edinburgh and Kings Cross

 

The sleepers have very variable loadings

Aberdeen / Inverness / Fort William tend to be busier at weekends and during the Summer

Ironically the Fort William is strengthened northbound on Friday and southbound of Sunday, leaving the Aberdeen shorter

 

The Glasgow is less busier than the Edinburgh and this has been slowly falling over the last few years

Equally, if one of the Lounge Cars fails at Polmadie then the working one is placed on to the Edinburgh

[rodent279]

BBC News update:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-15933988

 

I smell a rat here. Offer will be withdrawn if they can't reach agreement by year end. Sounds like a convenient get you out clause for the Treasury.

[Gwiwer]

BBC News update:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-15933988

 

I smell a rat here. Offer will be withdrawn if they can't reach agreement by year end. Sounds like a convenient get you out clause for the Treasury.

 

I love the library image the BBC have on that link! Clapham Junction yard!!! Hardly relevant to the Anglo-Scottish sleeper services but what can we expect?

[rodent279]

I have to say there must be scope for economies of scale between the FGW sleepers & Scotrail sleepers. Maybe not in terms of a common pool of stock because they have different liveries etc, but (correct me if I'm wrong) both have separate facilities in London just a stones throw apart. Surely the two could be managed together from a common base at the London end? Is it really that difficult for two operators to talk to each other, reach agreement & work together?

[Edwin_m]

Do Scotrail do much to the sleepers in London apart from cleaning, laundry and essential repairs? I would have expected the heavier work to be in Scotland (though it should perhaps be switched to London if that would reduce costs). And do FGW do much in London either? Presumably whatever happens in London uses Virgin and FGW facilities that would have to exist anyway to service day trains.

[Gwiwer]

The Caledonian sleepers are serviced at Wembley, the Night Riviera at Old Oak Common. Both are facilities which are a mere shadow of their former selves since the demise of loco-hauled coaching stock. Both however also deal with other trains so are not kept solely for the sleepers.

 

FGW on-board staff book off and on at Old Oak Common and (since they work nights) would be provided with daytime sleeping accommodation there or nearby. I cannot comment on the staffing arrangements for the Caledonian sleepers but see no reason why it should be different.

[Gwiwer]

Is it really that difficult for two operators to talk to each other, reach agreement & work together?

In today's railway I'm afraid the answer is yes. FGW would need to sign track access agreements to reach Wembley assuming paths were available and would need to have their drivers route-trained. It all adds to the cost of the service. I am making the assumption here that the shorter train would be moved to the depot servicing the two longer ones but even that isn't applying 'railway logic".

[rodent279]

But I thought privatisation was meant to bring in thrusting, dynamic private sector enterprise, and do away with the "dead hand of BR" , as John Major put it....was there something I didn't understand?

[The Stationmaster]

I have to say there must be scope for economies of scale between the FGW sleepers & Scotrail sleepers. Maybe not in terms of a common pool of stock because they have different liveries etc, but (correct me if I'm wrong) both have separate facilities in London just a stones throw apart. Surely the two could be managed together from a common base at the London end? Is it really that difficult for two operators to talk to each other, reach agreement & work together?

I wouldn't think much economy would offer and it would be outweighed by the awkwardness of the move - it might be a ston'es throw up the road but by rail it involves two reversals (unless the trip 'goes round Greenford') over some lines which vary between 'quite busy' and 'almost saturated' at certain times of day and it would introduce a lot more chances of dodgy reliability at a significant added movement cost and time lost 'on depot'.

And 'servicing' sleeping cars is basically a labour intensive activity which can only be done at a certain speed and which has to be done (if done properly) when a train come son depot - you can't get a human being to strip and make beds if they are already working at the sort of rate which would make some folk gasp in admiration. So basically more stock equals more labour.

 

You could possibly save on C&W staff and spares but, with one or two caveats, that saving could be much more effectively achieved by giving the C&W staff a van and letting them drive up & down Old Oak lane rather than shunting stock round awkward routes in north-west London (assuming they aren't at both depots for other work of course).

 

And knowing what I know of some privatised operators I suspect if there was any decent financial saving in it the change would have taken place at least 10 years ago.

['CHARD]

You're on the money there Mike. My team looked at this in 1999 and again a couple of years later and we couldn't guarantee enough savings from the move to outweigh the additional operating cost and, crucially, the risk - which was rigorously assessed.

 

For the record, this was with an aim of winning the FGW business for West Coast Traincare at Wembley CARMD, as it had and still has a very obvious workload fit.

[The Stationmaster]

You're on the money there Mike. My team looked at this in 1999 and again a couple of years later and we couldn't guarantee enough savings from the move to outweigh the additional operating cost and, crucially, the risk - which was rigorously assessed.

 

For the record, this was with an aim of winning the FGW business for West Coast Traincare at Wembley CARMD, as it had and still has a very obvious workload fit.

And that wasn't the first time it was looked at - BR looked at the idea at least once (and probably more than that) as by the the 1980s the Old Oak sleeper servicing and cleaning (non C&W work that is) was in the hands of a two lady team (it would be rude to call Connie and her mate 'women') which did impose a little bit of a reliability risk and problem at times of sickness etc.

[Jamie]

BBC News update:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-15933988

I smell a rat here. Offer will be withdrawn if they can't reach agreement by year end. Sounds like a convenient get you out clause for the Treasury.

 

Yep, reportedly not discussed this with the Scots Exec (who've to match the cash pound-for-pound, or get nowt). Hence when Edinburgh say they can't afford/justify the expenditure - surprise, Edinburgh gets the bad press and Westminster saves the £50M.

 

So cunning he could indeed pin a tail on it.

[Revolution Mike]

Yep, reportedly not discussed this with the Scots Exec (who've to match the cash pound-for-pound, or get nowt). Hence when Edinburgh say they can't afford/justify the expenditure - surprise, Edinburgh gets the bad press and Westminster saves the £50M.

 

So cunning he could indeed pin a tail on it.

 

Why not accept it for what it may be - an attempt to share the cost of new stock and keep the sleeper running?

It may be clever/fashionable/etc to look for a sting in the tail, but I don't really see a benefit to the UK or Scotland if the sleeper gets withdrawn.

[JohnR]

This is something that wont come along again - its basically saved £50m off the cost of new coaches, and I think everyone agrees they havnt got long left now - they simply arnt up to modern standards. I think the thing I would like to see in the new stock is en-suite toilet facilities - even if shared between two cabins.

[Gwiwer]

Toilets (whether en-suite or not) and showers please! It should be possible to incorporate two toilets and two showers per car albeit at the loss of perhaps one compartment.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Toilets (whether en-suite or not) and showers please! It should be possible to incorporate two toilets and two showers per car albeit at the loss of perhaps one compartment.

En-suite is the only way they could be considered up to modern standards. That will take up a lot of room.

I dread to think how much these vehicles will cost. It'll make the cost of the Nightstar debacle look like chicken feed.

 

.

[rodent279]

Go and have a ride on the Spanish Talgo sleepers on Barcelona-Paris to see what a modern sleeper should be like. Toilet in each compartment, showers as well if you go royalty class. Nice.

[Jamie]

Why not accept it for what it may be - an attempt to share the cost of new stock and keep the sleeper running?

I was unaware of an immediate threat of life-expiry between now and the year end (ref. funding condition). Granted, they won't last forever...

 

It may be clever/fashionable/etc to look for a sting in the tail, but I don't really see a benefit to the UK or Scotland if the sleeper gets withdrawn.

I don't think you'll find I'm a follower of fashion. I just like to look at things pragmatically:

 

Something has to give to find the other half of the money - hence my comment about it landing Holyrood in a tight spot.

Given that the Scottish Exec are looking at value for money in the Scotrail operation, springing a 'now or never' offer like that, (reportedly) without prior discussion is ill advised, if you do want a constructive beneficial outcome.

 

With my pro-rail biased hat on, yes, the sleeper's nice to have (but no more than that).

 

But at what price - Edinburgh-Glasgow route upgrade, of value to many, many more people daily? Forth Bridge replacement/repair? Borders Railway? M8 completion? None of the above - NHS, or welfare budget instead?

Doesn't come out of thin air.

[caradoc]

The Caledonian sleepers are serviced at Wembley, the Night Riviera at Old Oak Common. Both are facilities which are a mere shadow of their former selves since the demise of loco-hauled coaching stock. Both however also deal with other trains so are not kept solely for the sleepers.

 

FGW on-board staff book off and on at Old Oak Common and (since they work nights) would be provided with daytime sleeping accommodation there or nearby. I cannot comment on the staffing arrangements for the Caledonian sleepers but see no reason why it should be different.

 

Scotrail's sleeper coaches are serviced at Wembley (and other locations) but all maintenance is done at Inverness. Which makes some sense as it is their depot, whereas most of the other places where the sleeper coaches spend the day are somebody else's.

[298]

Call me sceptical, but the announcement seems to highlight the replacement cost in a attempt to prove how uneconomical the service is (Southern Pacific did the same with steam loco maintenance to bring on dieselisation at a quicker rate).

 

There is also a traction issue, the contract goes out to tender and is quite restrictive, for example 90's sometimes struggle with current train weights over the hills and I'd put money on the "new" stock being heavier, but 92's can't be used on a regular basis because the train is sometimes has to run at 100mph south of Crewe. So I wonder if the finances factor in the additional cost of leasing UK spec Bombardier Traxx for the new stock...?

[The Stationmaster]

En-suite is the only way they could be considered up to modern standards. That will take up a lot of room.

I dread to think how much these vehicles will cost. It'll make the cost of the Nightstar debacle look like chicken feed

Well they could have had the Nightstar coaches but (very sensibly in my view) nobody in the UK wanted them. They must have ranked as some of the most complex passenger carrying vehicles ever built put together in Britain and I suspect they would have quickly turned into a maintenance nightmare with loads of small bore plumbing and more electric wiring than even the most lavishly wired 1st Generation BR mainline diesel plus an electrical load which might even have made 25kv overhead cough. However at least the towels would have stayed dry in the wet-floor shower area - after MetCam bunged in a VO well above ten grand for designing a suitable dry storage area for towels that you also needed to use so they had to be accessible.

[Revolution Ben]

HI all,

 

A couple of years ago I had to do some work in Newquay, so I decided to forego driving and staying in a hotel, and took the FGW sleeper to get from London to Cornwall. I slept well enough, but was genuinely shocked to discover that there were no showers on the train; for business use in the present day I felt the facilities were inadequate.

 

If there were showers available I imagine more might use it.

 

cheers

 

Ben A

[scottishlocos]

HI ALL

 

Didnt we have modern sleeper stock for the channel tunnel that got scrapped and or exported??????

[westie7]

Yep, reportedly not discussed this with the Scots Exec (who've to match the cash pound-for-pound, or get nowt). Hence when Edinburgh say they can't afford/justify the expenditure - surprise, Edinburgh gets the bad press and Westminster saves the £50M.

 

So cunning he could indeed pin a tail on it.

 

Do you smell what I smell?