Talltim Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 The point is that the contract/franchise isn't let by the UK government, its the Scottish government Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) Do we know how much the sleeper service is being subsidised by under the new contract? This was one of the reasons why the current franchise was split, as people wanted to know the actual finances of the sleeper service, part of which is hidden and absorbed within the current franchise There are two capital contributions The first is the £50m for rolling stock, increased to £60m if the bidder could show service enhancements The second is the £6m for stations (improvements), funded from Network Rail There are then the annual SQUIRE performance bonuses For every 1 point above 70, they receive £1m For every 1 point below 70, they are fined £1m (with an option to deduct from subsidy) The subsidy is loaded at 33% of revenue and the franchisee is free to apply any fare scheme (but must accept through tickets) In years 1 to 7 this represents 7% and in years 8 to 15 at 15% Therefore if the sleeper doesn't carry any passengers, they don't receive any subsidy This formula is intended to make up the additional cost between the number of actual passengers and the maximum capacity It is expected this could be any where between £187m and £320m (over the initial 15 year life of franchise, without extension) Serco are not expected to return a profit in years 1 and 2, returning to profit in years 2 and 3 Edited February 12, 2015 by mjkerr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted February 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) Put it this way if demand is any measure then yes it is - they are frequently packed! Thereafter the economic subsidy question is how much is being paid and how much would passengers continue to pay whilst maintaining the same level of demand. If they are "packed" (12 or 24 to a coach) and the passengers are making such a huge contribution to the economy or society of Scotland (an additional contribution that is to what could be achieved with day trains), why are we not building more than 75 carriages and expanding the service? Indeed, with en-suite shower rooms, the 75 new carriages will presumably have less capacity than the existing stock so existing capacity is not even being maintained. Last time I looked, there were amazing price promotions to encourage people to use the sleeper. But is that ticket price fair and reasonable when day trains, much cheaper to operate on a per passenger basis, are charging higher fares? And why was Euro Night Sleeper not viable or worth subsidising? Edited February 12, 2015 by Joseph_Pestell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 As an aside, I can't find anything that specifies the liverySo when the franchise comes up for renewal in 2030 the next franchisee could change the liveryThat's odd when you compare it to the ScotRail franchise Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Mike Posted February 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 12, 2015 If they are packed (12 or 24 to a coach) and the passengers are making such a huge contribution to the economy of Scotland (an additional contribution that is to what could be achieved with day trains), why are we not building more than 75 carriages and expanding the service? Last time I looked, there were amazing price promotions to encourage people to use the sleeper. But is that ticket price fair and reasonable when day trains, much cheaper to operate on a per passenger basis, are charging higher fares? Very good questions - didn't there used to be more individual sleepers rather than the 2 each way that split? They can't extend the current sleepers because they barely fit in the platforms as is. The price promotions (bargain berths) are very misleading given how few of them there were per train. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) If they are packed (12 or 24 to a coach) and the passengers are making such a huge contribution to the economy of Scotland (an additional contribution that is to what could be achieved with day trains), why are we not building more than 75 carriages and expanding the service? The paths for four sleepers in each direction still remain The franchisee is free to vary the number and types of services if they see fit, however any changes must be approved in advance TS was suggesting in the ITT to ending the Glasgow sleeper and operating from Edinburgh only It would appear this suggestion has been discounted by Serco and they would retain the Glasgow sleeper Equally, in the same way as Virgin Trains extended the Class 390 units, if expansion is required then it would be much easier now as new rolling stock will be in place Sourcing older sleepers would be quite difficult now However, once the new trains come into service, that's going to be a lot of spare Sleepers (assuming the Mark 2 coaches are binned) I can see some of those going straight to Great Western, some for spares The remaining Sleepers could easily operate one additional service in each direction until further new rolling stock arrives It had also been suggested from 2018 : the Fort William sleeper would operate via Glasgow the Edinburgh sleeper separate the Aberdeen and Inverness sleeper via Edinburgh Edited February 12, 2015 by mjkerr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted February 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 12, 2015 Just to illustrate the cost point. A 1st sleeper coach (high capital value) will transport just ten (?) people per day over the 400 miles from London to Glasgow. A 1st class Pendolino vehicle will transport about 50 people per coach but will make at least two and probably three journeys per day. So it transports possibly 15 times as many passengers paying a London-Glasgow fare. For the sleeper to be economically viable (and I am including reasonable subsidy in that), fares should be astronomical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrel Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 There used to be a sleeper service from Glasgow to Plymouth as well. Now if we lived in a country that had joined up thinking they could have split the great western sleepers from the great western franchise and made a sleeper franchise. The sleeper can be very busy especially Friday and Sunday night's sometimes it's fully booked. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Mike Posted February 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 12, 2015 Just to illustrate the cost point. A 1st sleeper coach (high capital value) will transport just ten (?) people per day over the 400 miles from London to Glasgow. A 1st class Pendolino vehicle will transport about 50 people per coach but will make at least two and probably three journeys per day. So it transports possibly 15 times as many passengers paying a London-Glasgow fare. For the sleeper to be economically viable (and I am including reasonable subsidy in that), fares should be astronomical. How do you define what is reasonable? On a pure cost basis you would close many of the rural lines and replace with buses. Furthermore the comparison between a sleeper and day coach is missing the point - they don't fulfil the same function. I'm using the sleeper twice over the next 3 months (once at a reasonably cheap price, once at a far from cheap price) - neither journey could easily be replicated by air or by day travel. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) Just to illustrate the cost point. A 1st sleeper coach (high capital value) will transport just ten (?) people per day over the 400 miles from London to Glasgow. A 1st class Pendolino vehicle will transport about 50 people per coach but will make at least two and probably three journeys per day. So it transports possibly 15 times as many passengers paying a London-Glasgow fare. For the sleeper to be economically viable (and I am including reasonable subsidy in that), fares should be astronomical. These don't compare very well based on the Fare Basket (as it is known) Virgin Trains can offer a whole variety of fares, from £20 right up to £550 (First Class Single for illustration) Equally, each seat can be empty, reused or used once The sleeper cannot offer this wide range as a berth can only be used once As a result there is a Berth Supplement, and this offsets the one only use The base fare is also higher The other remaining overall operational costs aren't that much higher As a result it may be possible to purchase a minimum fare in First Class : Virgin Trains Glasgow - Euston for £70 Sleeper Glasgow - Euston for £120 Equally, a passenger can present an Open ticket and pay the supplement Edited February 12, 2015 by mjkerr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted February 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 12, 2015 How do you define what is reasonable? On a pure cost basis you would close many of the rural lines and replace with buses. Furthermore the comparison between a sleeper and day coach is missing the point - they don't fulfil the same function. I'm using the sleeper twice over the next 3 months (once at a reasonably cheap price, once at a far from cheap price) - neither journey could easily be replicated by air or by day travel. No, I would not. I am not confusing price with value. Indeed, that is precisely my point. For the money being spent on the sleepers and operating subsidy, the Scottish Govt could achieve a lot more by putting the subsidy elsewhere on the Scottish rail network. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted February 12, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 12, 2015 How do you define what is reasonable? On a pure cost basis you would close many of the rural lines and replace with buses. Furthermore the comparison between a sleeper and day coach is missing the point - they don't fulfil the same function. I'm using the sleeper twice over the next 3 months (once at a reasonably cheap price, once at a far from cheap price) - neither journey could easily be replicated by air or by day travel. Some people would say "so what? Why go on anything other than a purely cost basis?" Personally speaking I find it very useful that these unprofitable services still exist for the odd times I need them so if some of my tax is going towards subsidising them, well, that's part of what it's for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted February 12, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 12, 2015 No, I would not. I am not confusing price with value. Indeed, that is precisely my point. For the money being spent on the sleepers and operating subsidy, the Scottish Govt could achieve a lot more by putting the subsidy elsewhere on the Scottish rail network. An improved service in one place at the cost of a complete removal of a different one? Not an idea I'm terribly keen on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted February 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 12, 2015 I have always taken the Berth Supplement to be there for the "hotel costs": linen, attendant, etc. It certainly does not compensate for there being only 12 berths rather than 48+ seats. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted February 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) An improved service in one place at the cost of a complete removal of a different one? Not an idea I'm terribly keen on. For that sort of money, they could improve services in many places and for a great many more people. And that could include completely new services/reopenings. Edited February 12, 2015 by Joseph_Pestell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Mike Posted February 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 12, 2015 No, I would not. I am not confusing price with value. Indeed, that is precisely my point. For the money being spent on the sleepers and operating subsidy, the Scottish Govt could achieve a lot more by putting the subsidy elsewhere on the Scottish rail network. That seems exactly what you are doing! How does spending money on other parts of the network achieve "more" (more what?) if the comparison is invalid as the functions are not the same? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Mike Posted February 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 12, 2015 Some people would say "so what? Why go on anything other than a purely cost basis?" Personally speaking I find it very useful that these unprofitable services still exist for the odd times I need them so if some of my tax is going towards subsidising them, well, that's part of what it's for. I agree! If things were just done purely on a cost basis a lot of the rail network might cease to exist! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakydoke Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 As it appears to include a maintenance contract it strikes me as quite a good price .......this price doesn't sound too bad if maintenance and spares are included... There is no mention of a maintenance contract in this deal. CAF are providing spares and technical support for an unspecified period of time. Technical support is not maintenance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Phatbob Posted February 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 12, 2015 Can I add something to the discussion on the value earned to local ecconomies by a sleeper service by way of an actual example? Last summer, Roundhouse and I, along with a couple of others, went down to Penzance on the sleeper on a Thursday night and spent a very nice long weekend spinning around the branchlines (and the pubs along those branchlines) of the west of England and south Wales on three day rover tickets. We stayed in local independent hotels on the Friday and Saturday night and injected a fair amount of our hard-earned in to the local ecconomies along the way. We had a great time, but it did cost us! The ability to travel overnight, after a days work, was the key enabler. If either the sleeper, or the rail rovers had not existed, the whole trip would never have taken place. Simples.Cheers all,Bob. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 12, 2015 There is no mention of a maintenance contract in this deal. CAF are providing spares and technical support for an unspecified period of time. Technical support is not maintenance. Not exactly - but technical support is an essential part of keeping a fleet of vehicles or locos in service. And who draws up the maintenance programme - those providing the technical support because they know the various periodicities at which attention will be required. So they won't provide the fitters or wield the spanners etc but they'll be giving those who do the technical wherewithal to due their jobs and that can be worth a lot of money - I wonder how much a Fleet Engineer would cost nowadays? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckymucklebackit Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 As an aside, I can't find anything that specifies the livery So when the franchise comes up for renewal in 2030 the next franchisee could change the livery That's odd when you compare it to the ScotRail franchise I would imagine they would emerge in the "spotty saltire" Scotrail Livery as applied to the DME/EMU fleet or a slight variatoin of that. This livery is not set by the Franchisee it is controlled byTransport Scotland and it will pass from First to Abelio then on to whoever comes next, only the logos change. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 I would imagine they would emerge in the "spotty saltire" Scotrail Livery as applied to the DME/EMU fleet or a slight variatoin of that. This livery is not set by the Franchisee it is controlled byTransport Scotland and it will pass from First to Abelio then on to whoever comes next, only the logos change. The Caledonian Sleeper livery is going to be used, details are already on the Serco website and TS documents However, unlike the ScotRail livery it has not been specified in any part of the ITT The two liveries are quite different Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted February 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 12, 2015 Can I add something to the discussion on the value earned to local ecconomies by a sleeper service by way of an actual example? Last summer, Roundhouse and I, along with a couple of others, went down to Penzance on the sleeper on a Thursday night and spent a very nice long weekend spinning around the branchlines (and the pubs along those branchlines) of the west of England and south Wales on three day rover tickets. We stayed in local independent hotels on the Friday and Saturday night and injected a fair amount of our hard-earned in to the local ecconomies along the way. We had a great time, but it did cost us! The ability to travel overnight, after a days work, was the key enabler. If either the sleeper, or the rail rovers had not existed, the whole trip would never have taken place. Simples. Cheers all, Bob. Bob, We all understand the importance of tourism income. And personally I have always greatly enjoyed sleeper trains, even most French couchettes. I can also see some sense in Penzance and Fort William sleepers because those are journeys that you can not easily achieve by other means. The train journey by day is too long and there is not really a good air option. But with fast daytime rail services between London and Edinburgh/Glasgow, and a good air alternative to Aberdeen and Inverness, I don't think that sleepers to those places are worth huge wads of subsidy if that subsidy can be spent in Scotland helping, say, more commuters get from Fife to jobs in Edinburgh. Those commuters will make many times more journeys than can be accommodated on the sleeper. But anyway, it's done now. Let's see how long they last. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted February 12, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 12, 2015 Would the Fort William sleeper be completely unviable without the Aberdeen and Inverness portions though? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 with fast daytime rail services between London and Edinburgh/Glasgow, and a good air alternative to Aberdeen and Inverness, I don't think that sleepers to those places are worth huge wads of subsidy if that subsidy can be spent in Scotland helping, say, more commuters get from Fife to jobs in Edinburgh. Those commuters will make many times more journeys than can be accommodated on the sleeper. There was a proposal to cut the sleepers back even further just before privitisation This would have seen an end to the Aberdeen and Inverness sleepers, with connections via Edinburgh The proposal to cut the Fort William sleeper nearly succeeded It was one of the government proposals at the time, for privitisation, that services which were deemed socially necessary would not be withdrawn Sadly this has been twisted slightly since as some routes have changed since privitisation Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now