sleeper trains to be axed?

[ess1uk]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-15743958

suggests that sleepers could be dropped

[96701]

I read the title and wondered how we were going to be able to maintain the track gauge, but then having read the report, I see someone has created a discussion document.

[Jamie]

BBC story full of Holyrood soundbites, little substance. Hopefully the Herald will do some better analysis (don't see it in today's online).

 

I'll have a read of the Transport Scotland document later, though I fear for what it may contain.

[Catkins]

This will be the same sleeper service that had "parlimentry" support from the scottish MP's during one of the franchise renewals then?

Maybe it's the SNP trying to throw some weight around!

[lonesome_whistle]

It's just one of a number of proposals being put forward for discussion but I have to say it's been a concern for me for a while - the SNP government might view one less connection with London as a positive step in their attempts to pull up the drawbridge. The curtailment of East Coast and AXC services north of Edinburgh is also a proposal. Scotland will just end up as the world's largest (in terms of area) metro system.

[Cornish Triang Paul]

As a First rail group emplyee, apart from the alcohol, i see little prospect of these proposals coming through.

[Guest Max Stafford]

I for one would welcome universal dry trains, seeing the problems drink causes on services every weekend.

Yes, it's a shame that some ordinary travellers will have to forgo a tipple now but if you can't last a couple of hours without one...

 

Dave.

[westie7]

I would take anything on the BBC "Scotland" News website right now with a pinch of salt. Wont go into the politics of it but since May 6th it has been "doom and gloom" for the future!

[TheSignalEngineer]

I for one would welcome universal dry trains, seeing the problems drink causes on services every weekend.

Yes, it's a shame that some ordinary travellers will have to forgo a tipple now but if you can't last a couple of hours without one...

 

Dave.

One of the biggest problems in open seated coaches on night trains across the border was the amount of alcohol consumed by some passengers and their behaviour before they fell asleep. The last one I travelled on arrived in Glasgow from Edinburgh full of drunks and they didn't settle down until past Shap

[Jamie]

I'll have a read of the Transport Scotland document later, though I fear for what it may contain.

Actually, on first read it's not the McNulty style essay I'd expected. Dare I suggest much actually sounds sensible, and well intentioned?

 

No drawbridges being raised that I can see - indeed the Scottish Exec/Govt.'s first stated principle is given as:

"Focus investment on making connections across, within and to/ from Scotland better, improving reliability and journey times, seeking to maximise the opportunities for employment, business, leisure and tourism"

 

Curtailment of Anglo-Scottish services at Edinburgh seems to be to reduce revenue abstraction amongst other, valid IMO, reasons given. Let's face it, other than the Fort Wullie sleeper travel through Glasgow already needs a (often less convenient) interchange as it is.

 

I'm surprised drink on the trains hadn't been covered by the existing public-space alcohol consumption legislation, though to be honest I don't know if that's country-wide or just local legislation.

[lonesome_whistle]

The last one I travelled on arrived in Glasgow from Edinburgh full of drunks and they didn't settle down until past Shap

 

Bit of a long way round from Edinburgh to Glasgow via Shap unless I'm mistaken.

[John M Upton]

It is actually against the railway bylaws to be on railway property whilst under the influence of drink/drugs anyway.

 

[Opens bag of pigeons - inserts cat - closes bag]

 

I would certainly like to see a nationwide ban on alcohol consumption and travelling whilst being under the influence thereof on all scheduled passenger services. It has after all worked on the London Underground to a fairly sucessful degree. Restrict alcohol to dedicated restaurant cars which are pre-booked and charter trains (and in the case of some of these, the excessive amount of drink consumed by some of the arm flailing so called enthusiasts needs to be cracked down upon.)

[TheSignalEngineer]

 

Bit of a long way round from Edinburgh to Glasgow via Shap unless I'm mistaken.

This was what the sleeper through Birmingham did after they stopped attaching / detaching at Carstairs. Plymouth and Poole portions were combined from Birmingham and reversed at Glasgow Central in both directions.

[Fay Singpoint]

If anything, at least reading the BBC story I have discovered a new word!

 

"Attuning" the number and location of stations sounds interesting.

 

F

[Guest Max Stafford]

"Attuning"? Oh, a nice new one for future 'Buzzword Bingo' games, I suspect!

 

Dave.

[Catkins]

 

Curtailment of Anglo-Scottish services at Edinburgh seems to be to reduce revenue abstraction amongst other, valid IMO, reasons given. Let's face it, other than the Fort Wullie sleeper travel through Glasgow already needs a (often less convenient) interchange as it is.

 

 

Could you clarify this part of your posting, as the only Anglo-scottish services that run through Edinburgh are those provided by East Coast, that can be used to ease Edinburgh to South Clydeside destinations, the Highland Chieftan and Northern Lights to Inverness and Aberdeen, and any Cross-Country services to the west coast of England - and I don't think they serve Glasgow ( I could be wrong).

As an englander on the East Coast route, if I wanted to travel to Inverness, I would not want to have to change at Waverley -but if that is the only rail option, then I'd look at -

1) Driving, I'd be quite likley to go straight through to Inverness and stop in a 'Premier Inn' type hotel.

2) Flying, I'd happily take the costs incured to ease my travel.

3) Not actually going to Scotland - because it would be a holiday, and I hear Cornwall is rather pleasant.

[Catkins]

<p>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strike>Could you clarify this part of your posting</strike>, as the only Anglo-scottish services that run through Edinburgh are those provided by East Coast, that can be used to ease Edinburgh to South Clydeside destinations, the Highland Chieftan and Northern Lights to Inverness and Aberdeen, and any Cross-Country services to the west coast of England - and I don't think they serve Glasgow ( I could be wrong).</p>

<p>As an englander on the East Coast route, if I wanted to travel to Inverness, I would not want to have to change at Waverley -but if that is the only rail option, then I'd look at -</p>

<p> 1) Driving, I'd be quite likley to go straight through to Inverness and stop in a 'Premier Inn' type hotel.</p>

<p> 2) Flying, I'd happily take the costs incured to ease my travel.</p>

<p> 3) Not actually going to Scotland - because it would be a holiday, and I hear Cornwall is rather pleasant. <img alt="" class="bbc_emoticon" src="http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/public/style_emoticons/default/grin.gif" /></p>

<p>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>The proposals look worse that I thought - okay there are direct (4 hours) services from Birmingham to Edinburgh, There are some Cross-Country services that do start further north than Edinburgh, but there must be a business case for them, or they would have stopped by now - but the worst thing that I can see is, and these are straight quotes -</p>

<p> "8.6 We are therefore considering whether services north of Edinburgh should be provided by the Scottish franchisee, with Edinburgh becoming an interchange hub for cross-border services in the east of the country. In this scenario cross-border services would terminate at Edinburgh Waverley, with onward connections being provided by ScotRail."</p>

<p> </p>

<p> "8.8<u><strong><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"> Control</span></strong></u>: all services are controlled by Scottish franchise with no reliance on DfT franchised services for connectivity.</p>

<ul>

<li> 8.9 However, we recognise that there are some possible drawbacks to this scenario. These include a perceived or actual time penalty in having to change at Edinburgh for a journey that might have been previously direct, with the potential consequence that passengers choose instead to use other<u> modes of travel </u>to their final destinations.</li>

<li> 8.10 Onward connectivity will be crucial to the success of the hub scenario and we would look for increased service frequency and journey opportunities, so that the maximum value could be obtained from this arrangement."</li>

<li> </li>

<li>It seems to me that who ever has thought of this hasn't researched the history, geography or operational layout of Waverley Station. And I would like to draw attention to the first word of point 8.8, this is "sabre rattling" by the scottish parliment. Ending on a brighter note though, some-one has realised that an enforced change could force passengers to look at other means of travel.</li>

</ul>

 

[Clay Country]

You very rarely improve the quality of service by introducing a change of trains. I don't see how this can be done without a journey time and comfort penalty (Turbostar or Mk3? There's a big difference over a 3h journey). A lot of passengers travelling to Inverness and stations in the highlands will be carrying large bags, so they would need a good cross platform connection at Waverley and plenty of luggage space on the connecting train. Scotrail would need to ensure there is adequate seating capacity on trains to the north to reflect their new status. What happens to these passengers when there is a delay on the ECML, as there often is? This suggestion invites a lot of opportunities to make rail a very unattractive option for services to the north, when exactly the opposite needs to happen. And they will only provoke the DfT, which is already eager to pull the plug in through trains to Inverness, regardless of the consequences for passengers.

[sulzer27jd]

Another example of the BBC (especially BBC Scotland) making an anti SNP headline out of nothing. These are a daily occurrence and unravel at the first investigation. This consultation covers a wide range of issues. Unfortunately at present in Scotland there is little in the way of mainstream media that even resembles journalism. Its easier to just say and print what you are told. Perhaps that's why the two leading print titles have circulations that are falling like a stone.

 

It would clearly be too much to ask for a sensible critique of any proposals, or perhaps have the media run a campaign demanding better rail transport in Scotland. There is plenty to start with; Glasgow Queen Street is too small, trains are too short and over crowded, there is little or no freight movement etc etc. Perhaps not - after all it is easier to play party politics and and try and undermine what is after all a democratically elected popular government.

[Guest Max Stafford]

Aye. I've no wish to make this a political discussion, but given the background to this, it's rather difficult to avoid and readers should bear in mind that the BBC no longer has any concept of political impartiality. This is however, only a set of proposals and shouldn't be considered as anything else - there will be an awful lot of 'jaw-jaw' before any policy comes out of it.

 

Dave.

[Jamie]

 

Could you clarify this part of your posting...

 

Getting from England to anywhere other than Lockerbie, Motherwell and Glasgow city centre on the west side of the country requires a change at Central.

 

The point is, if TS have identified wasted capacity on Anglo-Scottish through services north of Edinburgh, possibly with revenue abstraction from the parallel internal service, then change at Edinburgh sounds equally acceptable to the situation on the west coast.

 

Better even, as all interchanges would be under the one roof.

 

I don't doubt that having to change trains is an inconvenience and discouragement - I don't particularly like it on my few trips south by rail - but it's a case of seeing the bigger picture, slight inconvenience for few through travellers vs. convenience, reliability etc for many more.

 

 

 

[Clay Country]

Another example of the BBC (especially BBC Scotland) making an anti SNP headline out of nothing. These are a daily occurrence and unravel at the first investigation. This consultation covers a wide range of issues. Unfortunately at present in Scotland there is little in the way of mainstream media that even resembles journalism. Its easier to just say and print what you are told. Perhaps that's why the two leading print titles have circulations that are falling like a stone.

 

Could it perhaps be because of falling circulation that journalistic standards are declining in Scotland? In many other parts of the country (and the wider world) falling ad revenues and declining circulation due to the internet have led to cutbacks in editorial offices, meaning fewer journalists are available to fill papers, news bulletins etc. If journalists are stretched, sooner or later editorial standards start to be compromised. It's quite possible that the journalist behind this piece was under pressure to hammer out a lot more copy that day, in which case further investigtation into this story might not be possible.

[The Stationmaster]

The point is, if TS have identified wasted capacity on Anglo-Scottish through services north of Edinburgh, possibly with revenue abstraction from the parallel internal service, then change at Edinburgh sounds equally acceptable to the situation on the west coast.

I wonder if it's not much more than a case of waking up to the fact of so-called revenue 'abstraction'? (It is of course actually revenue sharing) If we were to look at this from a slightly different angle and assume monetary support for Scottish internal services as coming from the Scottish budget then any sharing of revenue with operators based outside Scotland could be seen by some as 'Scottish money' being taken by the English. And if that wasn't allowed to happen a greater share, like 100%, would be retained in Scotland and that might open up the theory of possibly more money being available for other services due to the way the commercial and supported elements of the revenue split work.

 

All of that is of curse in many respects an absolutely daft scenario because in reality the money could just as readily go to French, Dutch or German francishees as it could to an England based TOC. But knowing the way some politicos brains work (if that is the right word) it could be just the sort of daft way they might think. And starting to regard railway stations as 'hubs' when it is out of the context of traffic flows and route geography suggests to me that someone who doesn't really understand rail travel and the reason why people use the train has been involved.

[definate maybe]

Other proposals include;

• raising fares on those routes which have benefited from improvement works - could be interesting to put into practice, especially on journeys over more than 1 route
  
• removing first-class services and providing additional capacity when overcrowding is an issue - can see some sense in this
  
• look at whether to increase the time passengers may have to stand how does that even work??
  
• considering separate franchise operators for sleeper services and other lines, such as Glasgow to Edinburgh seperate operator for sleeper - cant see who would want that as a stand alone service. On the other suggestion of seperating Glasgow - Edinburgh, surely that would only make the losses worse for the operator that runs the lighter services (i assume Glasgow - Edinburgh is quite profitable)
  
• encourage the next operator to make more money where possible, "without compromising the ScotRail brand" Surely that is the point of all business deals?
  
• working with the rail industry to improve mobile communications, including Wi-Fi - cutting down on expenditure and subsidy whilst introducing free services - be interesting to see how that would work short term
  
• Not cutting the number of stations but considering "attuning" their number and location -(is it me??) not closing any stations but moving existing ones to better locations? - Im lost. I know a lot of Scottish stations are in the middle of nowhere but without re-routing the whole line I dont really understand this
  
• Making Edinburgh Waverley an "interchange hub" for cross-border rail services, with journeys north of Edinburgh provided by the Scottish train operator - other than a few cross country and the ECML journeys through to Inverness Edinburgh isnt this already the case and how does this benefit Scotland is it is withdrawn?
  

In general I'm not sure if I'm incredibly stupid or if this is a typical political 'use hundreds of words, say nothing' statement

[Edwin_m]

The through services of English operators provide extra capacity, probably at marginal cost, for internal Scottish journeys at busy times of day too. For example an 0752 from Aberdeen is handy for a late morning meeting in Edinburgh and there was enough of an outcry when the East Coast Glasgow trains were taken off that they had to be replaced by CrossCountry. That was despite most journeys having faster and more frequent alternatives involving changes at Edinburgh. If other operators didn't run beyond Edinburgh then ScotRail would almost certainly have to lease more rolling stock to fill the gaps - but I don't know how this would alter the cost balance between governments.

 

The Scottish government has done some good things for rail, being very positive about electrification and not least specifying the ScotRail livery to avoid wasteful re-vinyling of the fleet for each new franchise. This one doesn't sound like something that will add to a creditable track record.