Caledonian Sleeper

[peteb]

Only time I felt insecure in couchettes was when I was moving to Germany for my year out, and had £300 in travellers' cheques in my pocket (and I think £200 in DM cash) and £1000 worth of laptop in my bag. Needless to say no sleep.

My own experience travelling in couchettes on the continent varies. It all depends on whether the train is really a night time intercity with loads of stops which means people constantly entering and leaving couchettes, or (a much better experience usually) a very limited number of stops during the night, after the last of which you can safely lock the door as noone else is going to get on the train before the set down points. The CS operation is the latter with noone joining after Crewe, and thereafter us set down only, same pattern could apply to couchettes, so you would not for example get people joining a couchette at Edinburgh to go to Crianlarich!

My own experience travelling in couchettes on the continent varies. It all depends on whether the train is really a night time intercity with loads of stops which means people constantly entering and leaving couchettes, or (a much better experience usually) a very limited number of stops during the night, after the last of which you can safely lock the door as noone else is going to get on the train before the set down points. The CS operation is the latter with noone joining after Crewe, and thereafter us set down only, same pattern could apply to couchettes, so you would not for example get people joining a couchette at Edinburgh to go to Crianlarich!

The bad press that used to go with travelling in eastern europe was associated with the former stopping mode eg lots of stops at 2, 3 4am etc, meaning if there was an empty berth you never knew whether it was reserved from a 4am stop meaning the door had to be kept unlocked or didnt even have a lock!

 

[Peter Sarf]

I really wouldn’t want to rely on public transport in the Highlands - nowhere near enough accommodation to fall back on if it goes wrong.
Maybe they need to bring back Motorail.....

Gosh. Thats a point. Maybe. If the price was right I would be tempted but I would have to pay for the car and the sleeper !.

But realistically Motorail is less likely than decades ago when it demised. Roads are now better, cars are now better, flying has taken a chunk and day time trains are quicker than they used to be. They are the same reasons Sleeper demand is/was declining.

 

[Meerkat]

Gosh. Thats a point. Maybe. If the price was right I would be tempted but I would have to pay for the car and the sleeper !.

But realistically Motorail is less likely than decades ago when it demised. Roads are now better, cars are now better, flying has taken a chunk and day time trains are quicker than they used to be. They are the same reasons Sleeper demand is/was declining.

Particularly if urban folk move to little electric cars then maybe the market is delivering boxes to your home, which are then collected and taken to Fort William (by the train or by lorry). You travel on the sleeper with an overnight bag and turn up to find a family sized hire car and a crate of your stuff waiting for you.
It would be expensive but if it’s convenient enough then there are lots of rich folk in London who like a bit of greenwash!

 

[TimboM]

I will be sad to see the sleeper go but at the current prices I am already missing it. Realistically I am resigned to the fact that it merely fulfils a moral obligation. Maybe the resources and jobs could probably be better spent on improving other services.

Who said it was going? The current prices (to the customer) are still less than half what it actually costs for them to be on the train - that's still a great deal in my book.

Also the small matter of a 15 year franchise (and associated contracts on the back of it) with a decade still to run on it.

I am alarmed that in a 12+ hour shift they have no where for a quick rest during that shift.

The hosts do have places to rest - the dispute is the staff don't feel they are adequate and the management think they are.

This previous post gives a good 'inside' view of the issue I believe: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/caledonian-sleeper.176365/post-4775983

 

[Roger B]

For those who want to blame the unions for hastening the demise of sleeper services I would remind them the unions came into being a long time a go for a very good reason. Yes some unions have now got too big for their own boots. But if unions were not there then employers would have more free reign.

Completely agree with you Peter re unions, I wasn't seeking to apportion blame, just to point out that in such a loss-making venture, closure is a real possibility. Would industrial action be in the interest of RMT's members? - particularly if CS staff would prefer to retain their jobs with existing Ts & Cs, rather than being made redundant if the sleeper were to finish. So while RMT's intent in improving facilities for CS staff is reasonable (although their approach is less so), if agreement can't be reached (and yes, it takes two to tango) and the sleeper were to close, everyone would lose.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Particularly if urban folk move to little electric cars then maybe the market is delivering boxes to your home, which are then collected and taken to Fort William (by the train or by lorry). You travel on the sleeper with an overnight bag and turn up to find a family sized hire car and a crate of your stuff waiting for you.
It would be expensive but if it’s convenient enough then there are lots of rich folk in London who like a bit of greenwash!

Electric car - that triggers a thought. Ones own electric car will probably not have the range and so a Motorail service could be an option if taking ones own car to Scotland or wherever. I just brainstormed about deepest Europe - lets face it there is already a UK Motorail service - to France.

Who said it was going? The current prices (to the customer) are still less than half what it actually costs for them to be on the train - that's still a great deal in my book.

Also the small matter of a 15 year franchise (and associated contracts on the back of it) with a decade still to run on it.


The hosts do have places to rest - the dispute is the staff don't feel they are adequate and the management think they are.

This previous post gives a good 'inside' view of the issue I believe: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/caledonian-sleeper.176365/post-4775983

To avoid alarm. I was not meaning to say CS is going to cease - apologies. I was just pondering the consequences of what is a merely a possibility.

Thanks for reminding me of the post - only read it a little while ago . It is the most info we have and I had already forgotten it. I have been catching up on a lot of threads this weekend !.

Completely agree with you Peter re unions, I wasn't seeking to apportion blame, just to point out that in such a loss-making venture, closure is a real possibility. Would industrial action be in the interest of RMT's members? - particularly if CS staff would prefer to retain their jobs with existing Ts & Cs, rather than being made redundant if the sleeper were to finish. So while RMT's intent in improving facilities for CS staff is reasonable (although their approach is less so), if agreement can't be reached (and yes, it takes two to tango) and the sleeper were to close, everyone would lose.

I have heard stories of how industrial action at Longbridge (car factory for Austin, then British Leyland, on South side of Birmingham) was a regular bringer of stress and hardship to the locals. A strike is never a nice thing and it is open to debate how necessary some are. There is a point that maybe the staff value their current Terms and Conditions. If the subsidies were spent on something else would they get better or worse in an alternative employment (ignoring the dark cloud of Covid-19).

A big example of workers struggles was the miners strikes. A long and very very bitter struggle to avert the end of gainful employment for the majority of people in many towns. With hindsight it was a futile waste - inevitable as cheaper coal from open cast mines flooded in from abroad. Nowadays if I wanted to open a traditional mine (with an underground seam) I doubt many people would want to work it - I even wonder how Health and Safety would allow it !.

But the scars are still there of communities that no longer had a reason to exist. I lived in Kent at the time and even the small mines in Kent showed us what the consequences were. Closer to home we lost our Naval Dockyard - Chatham. What surprised us was that most of the industry in the Medway towns then folded - because of course their bread and butter had gone. One can argue it is progress but it takes generations for a community to recover. I was at college at the time so not always in lectures midday. I noticed how the demographic in the shopping centre changed on weekdays from being mainly housewives to being housewives but many with their husbands.

Gone off on a bit of a tangent but what I am driving at is. It is one thing deciding something is un-sustainable and pulling the subsidy plug. But I just hope the social consequences are considered AND then effort and money would be put into nurturing replacement employment. In the case of CS there is no real evidence to say it is doomed but if it is....

 

[TimboM]

Completely agree with you Peter re unions, I wasn't seeking to apportion blame, just to point out that in such a loss-making venture, closure is a real possibility. Would industrial action be in the interest of RMT's members? - particularly if CS staff would prefer to retain their jobs with existing Ts & Cs, rather than being made redundant if the sleeper were to finish. So while RMT's intent in improving facilities for CS staff is reasonable (although their approach is less so), if agreement can't be reached (and yes, it takes two to tango) and the sleeper were to close, everyone would lose.

As above, where's all this talk of closure from? It's 5 years in to a 15 year franchise which has just had £150m invested in rolling stock dedicated to the service, not to mention the investment in the locos and other supporting infrastructure. c.2014 would've been the time to decide it was not viable and pull the plug if indeed that was the case.

It's also been a service that has been kept running through out lockdown at significant additional cost to the UK/Scottish government, indicating they see it as "essential" rather than some expensive luxury.

There's a much bigger picture at play as to the benefits the sleeper brings to the wider economy - and the bean counters in government who choose where to direct their limited funds would appear to be satisfied that the cost/benefit case stacks up. Also worth noting that to the average person on the street / railway forum the subsidies for the sleeper sound (and are) large - but in government spending terms it's a small fraction of what's spent.

 

[deltic]

Who said it was going? The current prices (to the customer) are still less than half what it actually costs for them to be on the train - that's still a great deal in my book.

Also the small matter of a 15 year franchise (and associated contracts on the back of it) with a decade still to run on it.

Presumably those contracts are all void now given the emergency measures. Given the level of subsidy the operation requires it is time the whole thing is scrapped.

There's a much bigger picture at play as to the benefits the sleeper brings to the wider economy - and the bean counters in government who choose where to direct their limited funds would appear to be satisfied that the cost/benefit case stacks up.

They dont - it is purely a political decision to keep it running. Neither Holywood nor Westminster wanted to take the flack of scrapping it. There is no economic rationale for the sleeper to continue.

 

[Peter Sarf]

As above, where's all this talk of closure from? It's 5 years in to a 15 year franchise which has just had £150m invested in rolling stock dedicated to the service, not to mention the investment in the locos and other supporting infrastructure. c.2014 would've been the time to decide it was not viable and pull the plug if indeed that was the case.

It's also been a service that has been kept running through out lockdown at significant additional cost to the UK/Scottish government, indicating they see it as "essential" rather than some expensive luxury.

There's a much bigger picture at play as to the benefits the sleeper brings to the wider economy - and the bean counters in government who choose where to direct their limited funds would appear to be satisfied that the cost/benefit case stacks up. Also worth noting that to the average person on the street / railway forum the subsidies for the sleeper sound (and are) large - but in government spending terms it's a small fraction of what's spent.

Yes I did not mean to assert that it was doomed.

As for its future. a lot has been invested in it as you say. It brings business and employment to the highlands. Also its business model is quite possibly very valid. Its no longer a nostalgic trip for enthusiasts (my loss !). It is now meant to bring in tourists who would never have considered it before and don't have a car in the UK as an alternative.

Your points really do chime with my "social conscience" point above.

 

[TimboM]

Presumably those contracts are all void now given the emergency measures. Given the level of subsidy the operation requires it is time the whole thing is scrapped.

Emergency Measures Agreements (EMAs) are temporary suspensions of the normal franchise financial mechanisms. They do not permanently void the franchise or underlying contracts (source: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/rail-emergency-measures-during-the-covid-19-pandemic). The CS EMA is due to run to mid/late October - this is via Transport Scotland rather than the DfT, but is the same mechanism.

 

[JonathanH]

The CS EMA is due to run to mid/late October

Extended to January now unless i am misreading this.
https://www.transport.gov.scot/news/further-financial-support-for-rail-services/

Further financial support for rail services

Michael Matheson, Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure & Connectivity said:

“The Emergency Measures Agreements which were put in place in April, temporarily varied the franchise agreements in order to minimise disruption to rail passengers and employees during the Covid-19 outbreak. These agreements are due to expire on 20 September.

“Following extensive discussions with our train operators we have put in place further Emergency Measures Agreements, which again will temporarily vary the ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper Franchises, from September to January 2021. During this time the train operators will receive payments to cover operating costs, as necessary because of reduced revenues. Under the new EMAs the payment of any management fees to Abellio ScotRail or Serco Caledonian Sleeper will depend entirely upon achieving satisfactory performance metrics.

“Given the extremely challenging budgetary position and the current uncertainty as to consequentials from the UK Government, the agreements will be in place until January 2021. This will ensure rail services continue and also provide stability for employees, passengers and suppliers at a time of unprecedented uncertainty.

“We will commence discussions immediately with both operators to seek to agree a longer term plan for our contractual arrangements after January 2021.”

 

[Peter Sarf]

Extended to January now unless i am misreading this.
https://www.transport.gov.scot/news/further-financial-support-for-rail-services/

Here's hoping it will get extended further beyond January. I cannot see much recovery of tourism happening in January. This Covid-19 thing is dragging on.

 

[alistairlees]

Emergency Measures Agreements (EMAs) are temporary suspensions of the normal franchise financial mechanisms. They do not permanently void the franchise or underlying contracts (source: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/rail-emergency-measures-during-the-covid-19-pandemic). The CS EMA is due to run to mid/late October - this is via Transport Scotland rather than the DfT, but is the same mechanism.

January 2021 currently.

 

[43 302]

Given the level of subsidy the operation requires it is time the whole thing is scrapped.

Just because something is massively subsidised does not mean that it shouldn't exist as it isn't beneficial in some way. In fact, I would say it's the opposite as that is why the government feel the need to give those subsidies in the first place. If what you are saying is true then farmers, for example, shouldn't receive subsidies and should all become redundant. That's just silly. They play an important part in the economy and that's why the government/EU has subsidised them.

There's no way the sleeper is going to be scrapped after the amount of money spent on it recently. Ten years ago it could have been, or ten years into the future possibly. The night Riviera is more at risk of disappearing due to covid and the age of the stock with nothing confirmed to replace it.

 

[popeter45]

loads of people here seem to think subsidies are just money pits but don't seem to realise the economics behind them
if the subsidy per person on a room to Fort William is ~£200 they are assuming that person will generate >£200 for the local fort Williams economy in either direct spend (e.g. buying food and/or souvenirs) and/or job creation (e.g. hotels and the jacobite train) and that's feels about right so such High Subsidies do make sense

 

[deltic]

Emergency Measures Agreements (EMAs) are temporary suspensions of the normal franchise financial mechanisms. They do not permanently void the franchise or underlying contracts (source: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/rail-emergency-measures-during-the-covid-19-pandemic). The CS EMA is due to run to mid/late October - this is via Transport Scotland rather than the DfT, but is the same mechanism.

The question is how temporary - there is no chance demand is going to return to the same levels as proposed in the original agreement for some time. Presumably the contract has a force majeure clause that either side can activate.

Just because something is massively subsidised does not mean that it shouldn't exist as it isn't beneficial in some way. In fact, I would say it's the opposite as that is why the government feel the need to give those subsidies in the first place. If what you are saying is true then farmers, for example, shouldn't receive subsidies and should all become redundant. That's just silly. They play an important part in the economy and that's why the government/EU has subsidised them.

There's no way the sleeper is going to be scrapped after the amount of money spent on it recently. Ten years ago it could have been, or ten years into the future possibly. The night Riviera is more at risk of disappearing due to covid and the age of the stock with nothing confirmed to replace it.

Amount of money spent to date is irrelevant the question is how much subsidy will be required to keep the service going. Each trip was being subsidised by around £100 a time for people who are generally already well off. I fail to see how the sleeper is that beneficial that it should be subsidised to that level.

 

[47421]

That assumes that if sleeper not available that tourist's spending will be lost entirely. In reality that is unlikely as many will travel to the highlands by alternative means, including by day train

 

[deltic]

loads of people here seem to think subsidies are just money pits but don't seem to realise the economics behind them
if the subsidy per person on a room to Fort William is ~£200 they are assuming that person will generate >£200 for the local fort Williams economy in either direct spend (e.g. buying food and/or souvenirs) and/or job creation (e.g. hotels and the jacobite train) and that's feels about right so such High Subsidies do make sense

Problem is that there does not seem to be any analysis showing what the economic benefits of the sleeper are. How many passengers are really additional - would they reached Fort William by other services etc.

 

[peteb]

I've had holidays in the west highlands where I took my own car, and ones where I relied on public transport. Both were e cellent although the latter was somewhat limited in scope and required more planning. A joined up transport system which allowed me to take the train at night then complete my holiday by hire car would be ideal, and it can be done, but at such a cost its usually cheaper to drive and stay in a hotel on the way up and back. Reinstating luggage cans so you could pack a large suitcase or two, and/ or bikes, whether on day or night services would introduce flexibility. It's not clear that the CS cabins have room for two large cases, is this feasible or is there a luggage van?

 

[Bald Rick]

Problem is that there does not seem to be any analysis showing what the economic benefits of the sleeper are. How many passengers are really additional - would they reached Fort William by other services etc.

Exactly. The socio economic benefits of the Sleeper broadly boil down to two things:

1) inward flow of tourist income to Scotland, particularly the highlands
2) time savings to passengers compared to other methods of making the journey

1) is tricky. Without the sleeper how many tourists would not travel to the highlands? Some, presumably, but many (most?) would still travel. But those that don’t - would they spend their money elsewhere in Scotland (or the UK) instead?

2) this is a clear social benefit to some passengers, principally those travelling for non Leisure reasons, which arguably is more likely to be accruing to those based in Scotland. But, it is still a lot of money per passenger.

It's not clear that the CS cabins have room for two large cases, is this feasible or is there a luggage van?

No luggage van. If you are travelling on your own, and have a berth, you could comfortably get 3 large cases in. If two of you are sharing a berth, two would be possible, but depending on size one may have to be on the foot of the berth itself, making it a little tight for space.

 

[peteb]

Exactly. The socio economic benefits of the Sleeper broadly boil down to two things:

1) inward flow of tourist income to Scotland, particularly the highlands
2) time savings to passengers compared to other methods of making the journey

1) is tricky. Without the sleeper how many tourists would not travel to the highlands? Some, presumably, but many (most?) would still travel. But those that don’t - would they spend their money elsewhere in Scotland (or the UK) instead?

2) this is a clear social benefit to some passengers, principally those travelling for non Leisure reasons, which arguably is more likely to be accruing to those based in Scotland. But, it is still a lot of money per passenger.



No luggage van. If you are travelling on your own, and have a berth, you could comfortably get 3 large cases in. If two of you are sharing a berth, two would be possible, but depending on size one may have to be on the foot of the berth itself, making it a little tight for space.

Thanks for that.

 

[47271]

The question is how temporary - there is no chance demand is going to return to the same levels as proposed in the original agreement for some time.

I don't know about the Fort William section or the Lowlander, but I can tell you that getting a cabin northbound on the Inverness train on a Thursday or Friday night is every bit as difficult now as it was pre Covid.

I live in the Highlands and we were rammed with tourists from the moment they could come again from mid July onwards. Judging by Inverness station when I passed through on a couple of mornings in August, plenty of them were arriving by sleeper.

I agree that it was a political decision to maintain the service, with the UK and Scottish Governments competing with each other to invest, but that's the reality and it's done now. The consequences of Scottish Government abandonment would put the sleeper in the same category of transport fiasco afflicting areas outside the SNP heartland such as the new CalMac ferries rusting in Port Glasgow, the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route delays, or the HST timetable due in 2018 but that never comes to the Highland Main Line. The outcry up here would be immense at a time when they need to keep us on side for, firstly, next year's Scottish Parliament elections and, secondly, the inevitable build up to a new independence referendum.

 

[telstarbox]

Do Scottish MPs tend to use the service to and from Westminster?

 

[norbitonflyer]

Electric car - that triggers a thought. Ones own electric car will probably not have the range and so a Motorail service could be an option if taking ones own car to Scotland or wherever.

Especially if you were allowed to plug it in and charge it up en route. That could be a real game changer on some of the shorter motorail routes as well, such as the Channel or some of the Alpine routes. (Although the power drain of a full load of 120 cars all drawing 22kW from on-board fast chargers would be 2.6MW, a significant drain even on the 14MW combined output of the two locomotives on a Channel Tunnel train......). The 35 minute Channel Crossing wouldn't give anything like a full charge, but it would be a useful boost (and you might be able to charge up whilst waiting to board too). On an overnight, though, it would be plenty (and could even be charged at a slower rate, to avoid overtaxing the train's power supply)

 

[Roger B]

And on a more mundane level ........ How are the repairs to 15340 coming on, and when's the earliest it's expected back in service? I've not been able to see it when passing Polmadie - not greatly surprised, as it'll almost certainly be inside the shed for repairs - and away from prying tabloid photographers!

 

[Fishplate84]

As above, where's all this talk of closure from? It's 5 years in to a 15 year franchise which has just had £150m invested in rolling stock dedicated to the service, not to mention the investment in the locos and other supporting infrastructure. c.2014 would've been the time to decide it was not viable and pull the plug if indeed that was the case.

It's also been a service that has been kept running through out lockdown at significant additional cost to the UK/Scottish government, indicating they see it as "essential" rather than some expensive luxury.

There's a much bigger picture at play as to the benefits the sleeper brings to the wider economy - and the bean counters in government who choose where to direct their limited funds would appear to be satisfied that the cost/benefit case stacks up. Also worth noting that to the average person on the street / railway forum the subsidies for the sleeper sound (and are) large - but in government spending terms it's a small fraction of what's spent.

The picture may have been very different had another operator won the franchise and chosen to use the old rolling stock with as much refurb as the money would allow. I'd suggest that Serco's decision to bite the bullet and propose a new fleet rather than warm over an already ancient fleet has given the service many more future options in this franchise and whatever comes after it. As has been said, it'll never be viable in the accepted sense of the word so it has to deliver on so many more levels to justify itself.
Some may complain about Serco as an operator, but strategically they are doing exactly the right thing to ensure the Scottish Government keep supporting it.

 

[deltic]

Does today's announcement that franchises are scrapped also apply to Scotland?

 

[Bald Rick]

Does today's announcement that franchises are scrapped also apply to Scotland?

The Scotland announcement was last week.

 

[JonathanH]

Does today's announcement that franchises are scrapped also apply to Scotland?

Transport Scotland already announced the extension of the emergency measures agreements last week as noted on this page.

 

[BRX]

Especially if you were allowed to plug it in and charge it up en route. That could be a real game changer on some of the shorter motorail routes as well, such as the Channel or some of the Alpine routes. (Although the power drain of a full load of 120 cars all drawing 22kW from on-board fast chargers would be 2.6MW, a significant drain even on the 14MW combined output of the two locomotives on a Channel Tunnel train......). The 35 minute Channel Crossing wouldn't give anything like a full charge, but it would be a useful boost (and you might be able to charge up whilst waiting to board too). On an overnight, though, it would be plenty (and could even be charged at a slower rate, to avoid overtaxing the train's power supply)

Long distance Motorail has always seemed in principle rather wasteful to me. Essentially you are just hauling very heavy suitcases around for people. In energy terms it would really make loads more sense to get the train wherever, and then just hire a car.