The 2+1 arrangement in the seated coach is akin to first class in any long distance, cross border service.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Is there way of making the Caledonian Sleeper more profitable?
- Thread starter trebor79
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I completley agree and ok maybe it's not marketed as a hotel but definitely as a luxury product which is why i also don't think they will go back to shared cabins.
They are the type of seats that would be used on regular first class services so there is an argument that they are first class seats.
Out of interest, which laws have changed since this was last done on the sleepers?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
They're the same as the First Class seats in 80x.
That's not a bargain, it's purgatory.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It's not fun but it is a bargain for what it is and far more comfortable than a road coach.
I agree.
On that note, when cabin sharing was a thing, just how many of these terrible incidents we're safeguarding against, actually happened?
Depends on fare you pay. £55 for a single between Euston to inverness without a railcard which is what I've paid before is a bargain for the journey but some of the cabins can be ridiculously expensive at times.
"Last done" being half an hour ago when tonight's Down Night Riviera commenced boarding passengers at Paddington.
Not exactly a high bar there. And the bar must be higher on overnight trains than on daytime journeys, people would like to get some sleep.
Nightjet seems to market itself well in both classes (screenshot of NJ homepage attached). I've just looked at Caledonian Double fares to Edinburgh, £360 for sole occupancy and £425 for a couple. For a couple that's little more than you might pay for standard class on some LNER services, and a considerable discount compared with 1st class daytime fares. Clearly popular as there's little availability so if they want to consider it a luxury product then they can hike the Caledonian Double prices up to reduce the train's subsidy, the premium product should only exist to subsidise the public service element. Surely a marketing manager with half a brain can produce tailored publicity that keeps both the Caledonian Double and an economy shared compartment fully occupied.
£55 is indeed cheap for travel from Euston to Inverness, but you need to accept a considerable amount of discomfort as a result. I've had enough of overnight travel in seated accommodation (ICE seats are awful to sleep in, Thalys not so bad) and would like an economical option that still permits me a decent night's sleep. Couchettes in Europe are a great compromise for this in my experience, I don't mind sharing as long as I've got a flat mattress to lie on. I've got the advantage that I'm rail staff and can usually get PRIV/FIP discount but many others would also like a decent sleep and are not so fortunate.
Last edited:
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
There is no sharing with strangers on the Night Riviera...
snowleopard
Member
What laws does the UK have, in your opinion, which would make this so risky for the Caledonian Sleeper as opposed to other (European) countries where this regularly occurs?
Also, I can use blablacar.co.uk to hitch a ride from London to Scotland with a complete stranger (and it's rather more difficult to get out of a moving car than out of a sleeper compartment). Yet Blablacar seems to have neither been sued into oblivion nor had any bad press from any incidents (if any occurred).
Is there a zero risk of something occurring? No, of course not. But if people consent to sharing a compartment with strangers for a discount (vis-à-vis sole occupancy), then I don't see what (a) the legal minefield would be or (b) the publicity risk.
Sorry what? You mean people who currently use the train (as sole occupancy travellers / sharers with people familiar to them) would stop using the train because other people might get the option of sharing compartments with strangers if they were comfortable in doing so? Assuming that CS would not switch to a model where every sole traveller is forced to share with a stranger and sole occupancy is taboo, I can't possibly see how any clientele could be lost...
When did that cease then? Presumably a covid thing that stuck.
BRX
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 3,649
Every time this comes around, it seems like some folk can't get their head around the idea that it's possible to give passengers the *option* to share a cabin whilst also allowing everyone who doesn't want to do that, not to do it.
Just like in the seated coach (with 2+1 seating) you can choose one of the single seats if you don't want to be sat right next to a stranger all night. If you're ok with sitting next to a stranger all night... you can choose one of the paired seats.
Personally I'd much sooner share a cabin with a stranger than sit right next to them in the seats...and it's an option I'd pay extra for if it was available.
Just like in the seated coach (with 2+1 seating) you can choose one of the single seats if you don't want to be sat right next to a stranger all night. If you're ok with sitting next to a stranger all night... you can choose one of the paired seats.
Personally I'd much sooner share a cabin with a stranger than sit right next to them in the seats...and it's an option I'd pay extra for if it was available.
Deafdoggie
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 3,119
Not been a thing for years.
jagardner1984
Member
- Joined
- 11 May 2008
- Messages
- 681
I think there is a lack of awareness as to how poisonous the gender “debate” has become in Scotland - weaponised by people who most certainly should know better in the media and politics, where at very least we can presumably agree people who have lived as themselves for many years, and have generally been faced with incredible discrimination and in many cases violence, should do so in peace and without fear.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this concept, you can pretty much guarantee the gutter press would have a journalist dispatched (complete with camera and tape measure) to exploit the potential controversy of any possibility of some nefarious person utilising the ability to select gender via a web interface to be in a place where they could place a danger to someone. Or worse the expectation of 2 or 3 lowly paid platform staff being expected to in some way police this.
Weirdly, I think if there was a way of configuring a fixed open door cabin (whilst managing light and noise levels and security in some as yet not established way) - I think there would be some possibility of this standing up. I would assume the amount of “full changing” that occurred in Stranger cabins was minimal anyway.
As it is, CS and their political masters will avoid all of the above like a hole in the head, even if it results in more costly subsidy.
Given the predicted financial climate as the recession takes hold, and swathing public sector cuts outside of protected departments, and catastrophic cuts to public services caused by local cuts in some areas (such as the closure of almost all of Birmingham’s libraries) - in the maelstrom of messy political argument to come, it does not seem impossible that the viability of some or all of CS’ service will be called into question, even on a “if its full and turning people away, why are we subsidising it so much ?” basis, which seems relevant to this capacity debate.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this concept, you can pretty much guarantee the gutter press would have a journalist dispatched (complete with camera and tape measure) to exploit the potential controversy of any possibility of some nefarious person utilising the ability to select gender via a web interface to be in a place where they could place a danger to someone. Or worse the expectation of 2 or 3 lowly paid platform staff being expected to in some way police this.
Weirdly, I think if there was a way of configuring a fixed open door cabin (whilst managing light and noise levels and security in some as yet not established way) - I think there would be some possibility of this standing up. I would assume the amount of “full changing” that occurred in Stranger cabins was minimal anyway.
As it is, CS and their political masters will avoid all of the above like a hole in the head, even if it results in more costly subsidy.
Given the predicted financial climate as the recession takes hold, and swathing public sector cuts outside of protected departments, and catastrophic cuts to public services caused by local cuts in some areas (such as the closure of almost all of Birmingham’s libraries) - in the maelstrom of messy political argument to come, it does not seem impossible that the viability of some or all of CS’ service will be called into question, even on a “if its full and turning people away, why are we subsidising it so much ?” basis, which seems relevant to this capacity debate.
The Puddock
Member
I last travelled on it in 2017 and there was no cabin sharing then.
If Caledonian Sleeper want to try and reintroduce cabin sharing (which I’m sure they don’t since personally I think the demand for only exists on this forum) then they could look to the policies and procedures of another Serco operated Scottish public transport company, Northlink Ferries.
On an entirely pedantic note Serco have nothing to do with CS as of last year - it’s now run by a company owned 100% by Transport Scotland.
snowleopard
Member
For anyone who doesn't happen to be familiar with the policies of Northlink Ferries, this appears to be the relevant part of their website (https://www.northlinkferries.co.uk/booking-info/faqs/):
So pretty much the same as on CS currently, it seems.
Re whether demand exists only on this forum: I suppose the only way to really find out is doing some market research a.k.a a survey, ideally among both current CS customers, and the general public (to capture those who have given CS a miss to date due to pricing). Instinctively it would seem to me that at least for the Highlander, where tourists are a very substantial segment of the market, it would surprise me if, say, a German or Italian tourist who has previously shared cabins with strangers on the continent would not be willing to do the same on this island, especially if it reduces the fare somewhat. Whether Brits (and Americans...) would be equally willing to do this is a different question, but again, perhaps we're underestimating the number of those who already experienced this abroad anyway and are not as outraged by the idea as we might think?
BTW: I don't think "low/zero number of people who emailed CS and asked about sharing cabins with strangers" would be a reliable indicator of lack of interest. Just because I've never actively reached out to Avanti to ask whether they could start serving airline-style meals in standard class seats (Indian Railways Shatabdi Express says hi) doesn't mean that I wouldn't say "Yes" in a survey about it...
The Puddock
Member
That's interesting, they must have changed this during covid.
paul1609
Established Member
Thats a personal judgement. I much prefer the overnight non stop Megabus over the Caledonian Sleeper seats even if it means I have a proper breakfast in Glasgow and then go on to the Highlands.
It is inevitable that Caledonian Sleeper will never be profit making, but it is an interesting one to see where it can gain more income.
Personally I think the new trains could have been better designed to accommodate more rooms by maintaining the discrepancies in carriage lengths between the seats/lounge and the sleepers like under the Mk3s and Mk2s. Or perhaps going for slightly shorter sleeper vehicles with one set of doors on each side. Lots of options that could have been chosen but obviously the priority was ensuring equal length carriages could fit into Euston to maximise the flexibility of the formations available.
It might have also been a missed trick by not going for lower floors to allow for more headroom or a triple bunk, or for not risking it with replacing the initial pods design with NightJet style cubicles.
Apart from the above, the only other thing I can see making it more profitable is integrating it back within ScotRail to save cash on director roles which would otherwise be absorbed.
Personally I think the new trains could have been better designed to accommodate more rooms by maintaining the discrepancies in carriage lengths between the seats/lounge and the sleepers like under the Mk3s and Mk2s. Or perhaps going for slightly shorter sleeper vehicles with one set of doors on each side. Lots of options that could have been chosen but obviously the priority was ensuring equal length carriages could fit into Euston to maximise the flexibility of the formations available.
It might have also been a missed trick by not going for lower floors to allow for more headroom or a triple bunk, or for not risking it with replacing the initial pods design with NightJet style cubicles.
Apart from the above, the only other thing I can see making it more profitable is integrating it back within ScotRail to save cash on director roles which would otherwise be absorbed.
Trainbike46
Established Member
To try and answer the question in the new thread title, some options to reduce the subsidies to CS
Increase revenue
- sell more cabins and seats
- sell cabins and seats for more money each
Reduce costs
- More efficient staff use by sharing staff with scotrail
- I don't see any other obvious ways for CS to reduce costs, but it is an option
in some more detail:
Sell more cabins and seats
- Train often sells out, even in the seats - more could be sold if more were available
- run longer trains (but often already at maximum length)
- Redo seating coach in 2+2 with better seats (like the avanti standard class seats - a win for comfort and capacity)
Sell cabins and seats for higher fares
- Fares already very high
- Risk of not selling out if pushed too far, so is a balancing act
Increase revenue
- sell more cabins and seats
- sell cabins and seats for more money each
Reduce costs
- More efficient staff use by sharing staff with scotrail
- I don't see any other obvious ways for CS to reduce costs, but it is an option
in some more detail:
Sell more cabins and seats
- Train often sells out, even in the seats - more could be sold if more were available
- run longer trains (but often already at maximum length)
- Redo seating coach in 2+2 with better seats (like the avanti standard class seats - a win for comfort and capacity)
Sell cabins and seats for higher fares
- Fares already very high
- Risk of not selling out if pushed too far, so is a balancing act
paul1609
Established Member
1) Reconfigure the rolling stock with low speed cabs to eliminate shunting engines and staff.
2) Eliminate the Carstairs shunt on the Lowlander running the whole train to Edinburgh, detaching a 1/3rdish portion for Glasgow QS via Falkirk.
3) Delay the departure of the Highlander to 23.30 enabling the trains to be flighted.
4) remove the Crewe and Carlisle stops replacing it with one at Lochabie.
5) Abolish the Aberdeen Portion replacing it with a daytime connecting train/ road coach from Perth.
6) Divert the West Highland portion to Oban calling at only Dumbarton, Arrocher, Crianlarich,Connel Ferry and Oban. A coach link from Connel serves Balluchlish and Fort Willaim.
7) Abolish local passengers on both Highlander Trains.
8) Rationalise the stops on the Highland Main Line.
9) Introduce DOO operation with a senior steward having safety responsibility for train evacuation.
10) replace all locos north of edinburgh with 1 bi mode loco (ac/ diesel) capable of hauling 8 coaches on all routes.
2) Eliminate the Carstairs shunt on the Lowlander running the whole train to Edinburgh, detaching a 1/3rdish portion for Glasgow QS via Falkirk.
3) Delay the departure of the Highlander to 23.30 enabling the trains to be flighted.
4) remove the Crewe and Carlisle stops replacing it with one at Lochabie.
5) Abolish the Aberdeen Portion replacing it with a daytime connecting train/ road coach from Perth.
6) Divert the West Highland portion to Oban calling at only Dumbarton, Arrocher, Crianlarich,Connel Ferry and Oban. A coach link from Connel serves Balluchlish and Fort Willaim.
7) Abolish local passengers on both Highlander Trains.
8) Rationalise the stops on the Highland Main Line.
9) Introduce DOO operation with a senior steward having safety responsibility for train evacuation.
10) replace all locos north of edinburgh with 1 bi mode loco (ac/ diesel) capable of hauling 8 coaches on all routes.
I might prefer to get to Fort William before Midday
paul1609
Established Member
Its not going to Fort william anymore, Obans nicer anyway.I might prefer to get to Fort William before Midday
I wouldn't have thought that society had changed that dramatically in the relatively short time since cabin sharing was permitted on the Caledonian Sleeper. But maybe I'm wrong and by the time it stopped very few people were perpared to book a shared cabin.
I can quite imagine though that most North Americans would be horrified by the idea now, bit also would have been 20 years ago.
I don't think there was ever a tradition of cabin sharing in North America - single travellers would have a roomette or section, wouldn't they?
Shame, the line from Crianlarich to Fort William is golden but whatever suits
Iskra
Established Member
I think that the easiest way to improve efficiency and profitability would be to re-integrate everything with Scotrail (e.g. guards, catering staff, lounge hosts, control, head office people, customer services). It's just unnecessary duplication and resource-inefficient.