CAF to build new LHCS for Caledonian Sleeper

[Cornish Triang Paul]

At least we are keeping our seating. Again, an increase in numbers mean for the past two years we have been shunting extra coaches in for wed and Thurs nights in July and Aug.

I do hope all these numbers for the Scottish routes add up.

['CHARD]

I'm not party to Serco's FA, so I've no idea what's been agreed with TS other than what's in the public domain.  It's plausible that they have agreed options with TS that use cradle seating to get round whatever pathing and stopping pattern has been dictated in the outward northbound diagrams.

 

EDIT: the stopping patterns may of course have been redrawn to set down only.

Edited February 14, 2015 by 'CHARD

[Reorte]

Should the sleeper service, which is now a completely different franchise, different type of rail service and is being continued (only because of political intervention) to serve a specific purpose, be able to be used by non-sleeper service passengers?

 

From the post I made above, it appears that "ordinary" seating may be eliminated from the new sleeper trains when they are delivered..

If it can provide the additional service for non-sleeper passengers then why not? It depends whether it's adding to the cost, and whether passengers would rather drop those stops to get to Fort William earlier (I'm not mentioning the other sleepers since I've not used those and don't know where they stop).

Edited February 14, 2015 by Reorte

[Joseph_Pestell]

Sorry to veer a little OT but oddly, or very perceptively, that echoes something Roy Hattersley said at a railway industry dinner in 1995 or thereabouts, his words being that most MPs would be glad to see it privatised as it would mean a huge reduction in the size of their mailbags because there would no longer be complaints about BR and trains running late or not having enough seats.   I sometimes wonder what today's MPs would make of that comment?

Privately or publicly?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Innovation: risk-sharing partnerships and long term secure relationships for certain routes' rolling stock, most notably Virgin/ ex-Virgin through their contracts with Bombardier and Alstom, and SWT with Siemens, which have increased efficiency and brought trains of levels of complexity and performance into the market, in numbers that could never have been afforded/ would never have been sanctioned under Whitehall control.

 

There are a huge amount of fairly revolutionary new behaviours in certain parts of the supply chain that are not conspicuous to the travelling public or those at arms' length from the industry.  I don't really get the idea that accidents spare politicians' embarrassment, because of the amount of interference and micro-management by DfT in the franchises, and the fact that Network Rail is in the public sector effectively neutralises that from an infrastructure point of view.

 

It was innovative to rebuild the Borders line to Tweedbank, which could not have happened had devolution of Scotland not taken place, with the seceding of its own power to invest.  It's also been innovative to establish Network Rail's regulatory asset base (RAB) against which it can raise funds for ongoing improvement and investment (simplistically).

 

Whilst I acknowledge those achievements, I don't see them as being anything that a nationalised BR would/could not have achieved. Chris Green, for instance, was innovative both at Scotrail and Network SouthEast.

 

As you remark, the Treasury still has a lot of control and DaFT has made a complete mess of recent rolling stock acquisitions. But the Ministers don't get the scrutiny they uused to because the railways are supposedly privatised.

 

Scottish devolution is quite another matter. I am sure that Holyrood would have worked well with Scotrail.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Are you sure, because the TS blurb and the news surrounding the order for the new sleepers, clearly have no mention of "plain vanilla" seats in the new trains?

 

They say there are 4 levels of service - "Cradle seats", "Pod bed seats", "Berths" and "En-suit Berths".

 

I get the impression that the concept of First Class is being done away with, to be replaced by Business class en-suite accommodation.

 

Cradle seats are recliner seats akin to the old style business class airline seats.

There are 5 types of passenger vehicle in the new trains, possibly equating to the 4 levels of service, plus the new Club Car.

There is no mention of ordinary, non-sleeping capable, passenger seats anywhere.

 

.

 

Is it sensible to have five different types of vehicle. Can't they provide different types of sleeping accommodation in one vehicle with just the seats separate? It would be cheaper to tool up and also avoid one vehicle potentially being much heavier than the others.

[Reorte]

Is it sensible to have five different types of vehicle. Can't they provide different types of sleeping accommodation in one vehicle with just the seats separate? It would be cheaper to tool up and also avoid one vehicle potentially being much heavier than the others.

Windows in different places and at a guess the weight isn't down to the design of the empty vehicle but whatever equipment is put in it (which I'm guessing will include a lot more water for the en-suite ones). Perhaps they could continue the modern trend of not caring where windows are relative to anything else to help standardise, so you've got the wall between berths half way across one

Edited February 15, 2015 by Reorte

[The Stationmaster]

Is it sensible to have five different types of vehicle. Can't they provide different types of sleeping accommodation in one vehicle with just the seats separate? It would be cheaper to tool up and also avoid one vehicle potentially being much heavier than the others.

I don't think we know how many bodyshell types they will use but I expect it may only be a couple - the big difference will be interior fit and while that will mean extra design work, and maybe some extra jigs, it simply boils down to there being more work input on the more complex vehicles.  They might well mix berths and en-suite berths in the same vehicle -which will slightly reduce the weight - or they might not, that depends entirely on the envisaged commercial mix and demand anticipated for the two different sorts of berths but it can affect the required ratio of spare vehicles.  

 

The vehicles with en-suite berths will involve some complex electrics and both water and waste plumbing and it will have to be crammed into, I presume, C3 Loading Gauge.  They will also require greater waste water tankage due to having individual showers etc so if they're anything like the (in many respects similar) ENS vehicles they are going to have wiring and plumbing shoehorned into wherever it can be put and potentially tracing minor faults can turn into big headaches.  It all depends on how clever the design is in making maintenance of all the installed services a simple task - but that won't make them any lighter (all the ENS vehicles turned the scales at in excess of 50 tonnes with the sleepers managing 53 tonnes - they were reputedly rejected as replacements for Mk3 sleepers on Anglo-Scottish routes due to their excess weight).

Edited February 15, 2015 by The Stationmaster

[Joseph_Pestell]

Windows in different places and at a guess the weight isn't down to the design of the empty vehicle but whatever equipment is put in it (which I'm guessing will include a lot more water for the en-suite ones). Perhaps they could continue the modern trend of not caring where windows are relative to anything else to help standardise, so you've got the wall between berths half way across one

 

That's exactly what I meant.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I don't think we know how many bodyshell types they will use but I expect it may only be a couple - the big difference will be interior fit and while that will mean extra design work, and maybe some extra jigs, it simply boils down to there being more work input on the more complex vehicles.  They might well mix berths and en-suite berths in the same vehicle -which will slightly reduce the weight - or they might not, that depends entirely on the envisaged commercial mix and demand anticipated for the two different sorts of berths but it can affect the required ratio of spare vehicles.  

 

The vehicles with en-suite berths will involve some complex electrics and both water and waste plumbing and it will have to be crammed into, I presume, C3 Loading Gauge.  They will also require greater waste water tankage due to having individual showers etc so if they're anything like the (in many respects similar) ENS vehicles they are going to have wiring and plumbing shoehorned into wherever it can be put and potentially tracing minor faults can turn into big headaches.  It all depends on how clever the design is in making maintenance of all the installed services a simple task - but that won't make them any lighter (all the ENS vehicles turned the scales at in excess of 50 tonnes with the sleepers managing 53 tonnes - they were reputedly rejected as replacements for Mk3 sleepers on Anglo-Scottish routes due to their excess weight).

 

Thanks, Mike. That's another reason for combining the different types of accommodation in one vehicle that I had forgotten - fewer spare vehicles.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Looking again at those pod beds, surely better use of space in a carriage to have 4-berth couchette compartments (not just a French idea, the LMS had them back in the 30s). They would give 32 passengers per carriage.

 

They could be used for 6 passengers seated on the Fort William to Edinburgh run and then rearranged for four passengers to sleep down to London.

 

Or perhaps bunks don't meet with Health & Safety these days?

['CHARD]

If you're talking about two distinctly segmented classes of berth offering, then Composite sleeping cars is the way to optimise vehicle weights once you add-in en-suites.  

 

Five vehicle types doesn't look on face value to be adopting this approach.  

[jjb1970]

There is still a niche for over night trains I think. Few people enjoy getting up in the quiet hours to get to the airport for an early-o-clock flight while enjoying an evening at home and taking a late night train strikes me as preferable to leaving home mid-late afternoon and staying in a hotel. This maybe just my own prejudices but as somebody who has to travel a lot I find flying to be thoroughly unenjoyable and staying in souless business hotels on your own soon loses any attractiveness. I generally end up passing the time by a combination of working and reading on my E-reader as at least now with wi-fi you can pretty much work anywhere. Provided overnight trains offer good reliability and provide facilities to wash and change clothes (or even if such facilities are made available in stations) then I'd much rather take the train.

[Joseph_Pestell]

There is still a niche for over night trains I think. Few people enjoy getting up in the quiet hours to get to the airport for an early-o-clock flight while enjoying an evening at home and taking a late night train strikes me as preferable to leaving home mid-late afternoon and staying in a hotel. This maybe just my own prejudices but as somebody who has to travel a lot I find flying to be thoroughly unenjoyable and staying in souless business hotels on your own soon loses any attractiveness. I generally end up passing the time by a combination of working and reading on my E-reader as at least now with wi-fi you can pretty much work anywhere. Provided overnight trains offer good reliability and provide facilities to wash and change clothes (or even if such facilities are made available in stations) then I'd much rather take the train.

 

So would I. But I don't think that I can justify asking the taxpayer to subsidise it.

[Reorte]

So would I. But I don't think that I can justify asking the taxpayer to subsidise it.

Almost every taxpayer has something they appreciate along similar lines. They subsidise some of the things you want, you subsidise some of the things they want. It would be a much poorer country (figuratively rather than literally) if this wasn't the case.

[mjkerr]

They say there are 4 levels of service - "Cradle seats", "Pod bed seats", "Berths" and "En-suit Berths".

 

There are 5 types of passenger vehicle in the new trains, possibly equating to the 4 levels of service, plus the new Club Car.

.

I have today sent a request to Serco (sleeper.scot) for details of the rolling stock, along with some other questions I have

[mjkerr]

Is it sensible to have five different types of vehicle. Can't they provide different types of sleeping accommodation in one vehicle with just the seats separate? It would be cheaper to tool up and also avoid one vehicle potentially being much heavier than the others.

There are currently five (six if you include the spare RLO/RFB) different types of vehicles :

BUO - Brake Unclassified

RLO / RFB - Lounge Car

SLEP - Sleeper with Pantry

SLED - Sleeper, Disabled specification

SLE - Sleeper

[mjkerr]

That cannot be good news for staff at Inverness.

Abellio have now responded to this question

Inverness will cease maintaining the Sleeper coaches from 01 April 2015, allowing them to concentrate solely on ScotRail rolling stock

HST maintenance will be split between Craigentinny (Hitachi) and Inverness

EGIP rolling stock will initially be allocated to Millerhilll and maintained at Craigentinny (Hitachi)

This is due to the increase in rolling stock between 2015 and 2019

Replacement rolling stock contracts are required by March, so full details should be available shortly afterwards

 

This therefore makes sense that Serco have signed a new contract with Alstom, for maintenance at Polmadie and Wembley (removing Inverness)

[Joseph_Pestell]

There are currently five (six if you include the spare RLO/RFB) different types of vehicles :

BUO - Brake Unclassified

RLO / RFB - Lounge Car

SLEP - Sleeper with Pantry

SLED - Sleeper, Disabled specification

SLE - Sleeper

 

SLE/SLEP/SLED are all very similar and in the same bodyshell. The Mk3 sleeper gives good operational flexibility if one accepts the concept of single occupancy cabin = 1st class, double occupancy cabin = Standard class.

 

The other vehicles are conversions of existing stock so rather cheaper than the £2M per vehicle of the new trains.

 

Presumably Serco have had access to current ridership figures and can assess the balance of accommodation that they will need to provide. You are right to point out the need for a diability accessible cabin, That complicates the issue because you would not want one in every carriage. So that implies at least two types of sleeper vehicle.

[Ron Ron Ron]

The £2M per vehicle is obviously an average cost.

Presumably some of these different vehicle types will cost more than £2M and some less, depending on the fitting out and on-board services required?

As such, the more expensive vehicles (e.g. Business Class En-Suite?) might be closer to £3M a vehicle.

That's without the additional cost of separate maintenance contracts.

 

 

.

[Fat Controller]

I don't think we know how many bodyshell types they will use but I expect it may only be a couple - the big difference will be interior fit and while that will mean extra design work, and maybe some extra jigs, it simply boils down to there being more work input on the more complex vehicles.  They might well mix berths and en-suite berths in the same vehicle -which will slightly reduce the weight - or they might not, that depends entirely on the envisaged commercial mix and demand anticipated for the two different sorts of berths but it can affect the required ratio of spare vehicles.  

 

The vehicles with en-suite berths will involve some complex electrics and both water and waste plumbing and it will have to be crammed into, I presume, C3 Loading Gauge.  They will also require greater waste water tankage due to having individual showers etc so if they're anything like the (in many respects similar) ENS vehicles they are going to have wiring and plumbing shoehorned into wherever it can be put and potentially tracing minor faults can turn into big headaches.  It all depends on how clever the design is in making maintenance of all the installed services a simple task - but that won't make them any lighter (all the ENS vehicles turned the scales at in excess of 50 tonnes with the sleepers managing 53 tonnes - they were reputedly rejected as replacements for Mk3 sleepers on Anglo-Scottish routes due to their excess weight).

Would they be able to discharge the 'grey' water from the showers/basins on to the track? I can't think why they wouldn't be able too. I would suggest that the 'grey' water be used for toilet-flushing, but am all too aware of the problems this can cause- mainly the toillets locking out because of supply problems.

[luckymucklebackit]

There is still a niche for over night trains I think. Few people enjoy getting up in the quiet hours to get to the airport for an early-o-clock flight while enjoying an evening at home and taking a late night train strikes me as preferable to leaving home mid-late afternoon and staying in a hotel. This maybe just my own prejudices but as somebody who has to travel a lot I find flying to be thoroughly unenjoyable and staying in souless business hotels on your own soon loses any attractiveness. I generally end up passing the time by a combination of working and reading on my E-reader as at least now with wi-fi you can pretty much work anywhere. Provided overnight trains offer good reliability and provide facilities to wash and change clothes (or even if such facilities are made available in stations) then I'd much rather take the train.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with this, however I am unlikely to ever use the sleeper as my business travel does not involve travel to London City Centre, which is all these sleepers are good for (to most Scots), there is no co-ordination between the sleepers and Eurostar for onward Travel into Europe, so it has to be the early flight from Glasgow and a transfer through Heathrow/Gatwick/Schipol, and in the vast majority of cases the flight option is still considerably cheaper, which means that due to our company expenses policy that is the option that must be taken.

 

Jim

[Talltim]

Would they be able to discharge the 'grey' water from the showers/basins on to the track? I can't think why they wouldn't be able too. I would suggest that the 'grey' water be used for toilet-flushing, but am all too aware of the problems this can cause- mainly the toillets locking out because of supply problems.

You can't have a poo until you've had a shower?

[mjkerr]

Presumably Serco have had access to current ridership figures and can assess the balance of accommodation that they will need to provide. You are right to point out the need for a diability accessible cabin, That complicates the issue because you would not want one in every carriage. So that implies at least two types of sleeper vehicle.

Serco already have the passenger loading and fare basket details from the previous three years and last year (April 2013 to March 2014) and will shortly be receiving the mailing list

 

All the new rolling stock will be DAA compliant, so there is no need for a specifically modified vehicle

Instead the four cabins nearest to the Club Car will be set up for disabled access, but it could be increased to nine depending on demand

Edited February 16, 2015 by mjkerr

[Glorious NSE]

SLE/SLEP/SLED are all very similar and in the same bodyshell. The Mk3 sleeper gives good operational flexibility if one accepts the concept of single occupancy cabin = 1st class, double occupancy cabin = Standard class.

 

The other vehicles are conversions of existing stock so rather cheaper than the £2M per vehicle of the new trains

Yes - we don't know yet that the new vehicles will have 5 different *bodyshells* - just that they are 5 different vehicles.