Caledonian Sleeper

[35B]

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.

Looking at it from the perspective of the customer, you have that the wrong way round. The one time my family used Motorail, the whole point was to do the trunk leg of the journey with a fully laden family car on a self catering holiday. If there hadn't been a Motorail operation for us to use, we'd have driven - hefting luggage and then hiring a car just wouldn't have happened.

 

[deltic]

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

The extension of EMA in Scotland is for a short period with the implication that existing contracts will be resumed. Grant Shapps announcement seems to imply that franchising is dead and in future there will be a move to concessions. Question is will Transport Scotland go the same way and specify services in future which will allow it to rethink the whole service pattern. Eg maybe it could reallocate sleeper resources to other destinations - eg strengthen Inverness services and scrap Fort William/Aberdeen if that is where demand is. Or just concentrate on the Glasgow/Edinburgh market.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The extension of EMA in Scotland is for a short period with the implication that existing contracts will be resumed. Grant Shapps announcement seems to imply that franchising is dead and in future there will be a move to concessions. Question is will Transport Scotland go the same way and specify services in future which will allow it to rethink the whole service pattern. Eg maybe it could reallocate sleeper resources to other destinations - eg strengthen Inverness services and scrap Fort William/Aberdeen if that is where demand is. Or just concentrate on the Glasgow/Edinburgh market.

It's Aberdeen that's weak. They could potentially simplify the Highlander by making it FW and Inverness only, though.

 

[BRX]

Looking at it from the perspective of the customer, you have that the wrong way round. The one time my family used Motorail, the whole point was to do the trunk leg of the journey with a fully laden family car on a self catering holiday. If there hadn't been a Motorail operation for us to use, we'd have driven - hefting luggage and then hiring a car just wouldn't have happened.

Sure - I realise that.
It's perfectly possible to do a self catering holiday without driving, but people will do it, as long as it is more convenient and not loads more expensive than alternatives.
Motorail makes taking your own car somewhere far away a little less damaging in environmental terms than it would be otherwise (maybe). But that's all.
From a customer point of view, of course it's an attractive option.

 

[Fishplate84]

Sure - I realise that.
It's perfectly possible to do a self catering holiday without driving, but people will do it, as long as it is more convenient and not loads more expensive than alternatives.
Motorail makes taking your own car somewhere far away a little less damaging in environmental terms than it would be otherwise (maybe). But that's all.
From a customer point of view, of course it's an attractive option.

From a practical point of view though it must be near impossible to deliver given the size of the average family car these days. Unless the motor-rail stock was open a bit like the freight shuttles on the Channel Tunnel, putting a conventional rail body around today's SUV type vehicle and having any room for opening doors etc would make them just to wide to fit the network. If new stock were built it would have to plan against the potential increase in vehicle sizes over the next 20 years otherwise it would be an option open only to a diminishing and niche market.
From an economic point of view, I can drive London to Scotland on far less than £100 worth of fuel. I've got all the other costs anyway so the only advantage is fuel cost saving. Given each seat as an Advanced Standard LNER London to Edinburgh is £74 or thereabouts, it's vastly cheaper to just drive if there is more than one of you.
If a motor rail coach is 22m long, you'll carry at (very) best 5 cars, more likely 4. 4 Families. Maximum rake of 16 coaches would carry what, 40 cars / 160 people if each had 4 people in. Reality would be a much lower ratio of people/cars. Even at 4 per car and they stayed in some sort of cabin thats 20 people per coach / 2 per cabin / 10 cabins per coach. Thats less than the current sleeper.
The economics of a motor rail service would horrific as the operating costs would be little different to a sleeper service with the added liability for vehicle damage.

If it were possible, the cost to use it would have to be hugely greater than the alternative of just driving or the level of subsidy eyewatering. And to what end? To capture a minuscule fraction of the overall tourism market. Scottish Government would be better advised to spend half the money on giving people free flights and hotel stays as an inducement to come and letting them spend in the economy when they got there.

 

[35B]

Sure - I realise that.
It's perfectly possible to do a self catering holiday without driving, but people will do it, as long as it is more convenient and not loads more expensive than alternatives.
Motorail makes taking your own car somewhere far away a little less damaging in environmental terms than it would be otherwise (maybe). But that's all.
From a customer point of view, of course it's an attractive option.

That misses the point altogether - holidays organised that way (family of 5 when I was a kid) would simply not have happened. And if we'd had to travel as you suggest, flying would have been much more attractive - the corralling wouldn't have been such a disadvantage.

 

[paul1609]

It's Aberdeen that's weak. They could potentially simplify the Highlander by making it FW and Inverness only, though.

Glasgow is pretty week too, I cant see it surviving a 22.00 HS2 departure from Euston arriving at Central at 01.40
Post HS2 maybe a combined one Cal with portions for FW, Inverness and Edinburgh.
Some stock cascaded to the Night Riviera?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Glasgow is pretty week too, I cant see it surviving a 22.00 HS2 departure from Euston arriving at Central at 01.40
Post HS2 maybe a combined one Cal with portions for FW, Inverness and Edinburgh.

That's not a terrible idea. I think post HS2 only the Highlander really has relevance. In that formation, you could have the lounge and seating cars in the FW bit, because you wouldn't need them in Edinburgh - you'd go and have breakfast "on land" (or do your drinking "on land" in the case of boarding southbound), and seated customers would just have to get off at 4am, it's a budget service anyway so you can't really complain about there not being a seated car to sit in for 2 hours in a platform. A couple of sleepers for Edinburgh would probably do as many would just use HS2 anyway.

Some stock cascaded to the Night Riviera?

If it's still going that is certainly an opportunity.

 

[popeter45]

That's not a terrible idea. I think post HS2 only the Highlander really has relevance. In that formation, you could have the lounge and seating cars in the FW bit, because you wouldn't need them in Edinburgh - you'd go and have breakfast "on land" (or do your drinking "on land" in the case of boarding southbound), and seated customers would just have to get off at 4am, it's a budget service anyway so you can't really complain about there not being a seated car to sit in for 2 hours in a platform. A couple of sleepers for Edinburgh would probably do as many would just use HS2 anyway.

if you allow disembarkation at Queen street low level on the FW portion that can cover any Glasgow travellers

is 16 cars the max Euston can manage or could it fit 18 to make a neat 6 cars per portion (FW, Inverness and Aberdeen) for a future single train? maybe with an altered Edinburgh arrivals time of 5-6am ish so make that more appealing that the 3:30am ish arrival the Highlander currently has

 

[Bletchleyite]

if you allow disembarkation at Queen street low level on the FW portion that can cover any Glasgow travellers

is 16 cars the max Euston can manage or could it fit 18 to make a neat 6 cars per portion (FW, Inverness and Aberdeen) for a future single train?

I think 16 because otherwise we would have the FW lounge and seats operating through.

 

[BRX]

HS2 completion is so far off that it seems a bit pointless to speculate what'll make sense then. All sorts of other things could have changed too.

 

[Bald Rick]

HS2 completion is so far off that it seems a bit pointless to speculate what'll make sense then. All sorts of other things could have changed too.

Well, you say that, but it’s likely that there will be some trains running London to Scotland via HS2 in around 4 hours within 8-9 years. To put that into context, it’s getting on for 6 years since the Mark 5s were ordered.

 

[adrock1976]

The post-HS2 sleeper could run to/from Inverness and Fort William via Birmingham, with the portions coupling/uncoupling at Mossend Yard.

The Fort William portion could be run from Mossend via Coatbridge Central and Blairhill if it is deemed essential to serve Glasgow Queen Street.

 

[markymark2000]

The post-HS2 sleeper could run to/from Inverness and Fort William via Birmingham, with the portions coupling/uncoupling at Mossend Yard.

The Fort William portion could be run from Mossend via Coatbridge Central and Blairhill if it is deemed essential to serve Glasgow Queen Street.

I've looked into that sort of thing before but I found that it wouldn't work with timings as the sleeper times from Dumbarton to Fort William (and vice versa) need to remain unchanged because of the paths.

 

[CW2]

I'd try to run the Highlander slightly later ex Euston, about 21:45, load 16, portions to Inverness (8), Fort William via Glasgow (4), and Edinburgh (4). I wouldn't run via Birmingham as it would lose too much time.

I'd then use the Lowlander sleeper slot at Euston to run the Night Riviera to Penzance, using the Mk 5 sleepers. Maybe scope to use a class 92 through to/from Bristol (assuming a bit of wiring around Acton).

Result: all sleepers concentrated on one London terminus, handy for Eurostar, with interchangeability of rolling stock, and consolidation of staff.

 

[Speed43125]

Result: all sleepers concentrated on one London terminus, handy for Eurostar, with interchangeability of rolling stock, and consolidation of staff.

Terminate in the Eurostar platforms at St.pancras to increase the number of carriages we can have up to Edinburgh? at least after MML electrification?

 

[CW2]

Terminate in the Eurostar platforms at St.pancras to increase the number of carriages we can have up to Edinburgh? at least after MML electrification?

You'd get into all manner of difficulty trying to mix domestic passengers with international passengers in the customs/immigration secure area. Running a longer train would also rule out serving intermediate stations.

 

[Speed43125]

You'd get into all manner of difficulty trying to mix domestic passengers with international passengers in the customs/immigration secure area. Running a longer train would also rule out serving intermediate stations.

All a joke, as I'm sure you're aware. A more sensible suggestion may be to use the HS2 platforms at Euston when they're available if a path could be found on HS2 itself (very unlikely), or a crossover to the WCML line is provided in the station throat (IIRC, descoped out of the current HS2).

Overall, I think we are pretty much not going to be able to lengthen beyond 16 x 22.2m.

 

[BRX]

Well, you say that, but it’s likely that there will be some trains running London to Scotland via HS2 in around 4 hours within 8-9 years. To put that into context, it’s getting on for 6 years since the Mark 5s were ordered.

We already have trains running London to Scotland in around 4 hours.

Maybe after HS2 phase 2 is done, the difference in journey times will become more significant, but that's probably 15 years away.

 

[CW2]

We already have trains running London to Scotland in around 4 hours.

Maybe after HS2 phase 2 is done, the difference in journey times will become more significant, but that's probably 15 years away.

The main journey time saving of 30+ mins occurs with HS2 Phase 1. Phase 2A and 2B are incremental (lesser) improvements.

 

[Bald Rick]

We already have trains running London to Scotland in around 4 hours.

Which ones are those?

 

[gingerheid]

Which ones are those?

I guess it depends on the definition of "around", and the definition of "Scotland". At the moment I wouldn't say that "around" four hours is a valid description of a London to Glasgow or Edinburgh journey time, and I'd argue that Lockerbie doesn't really count in terms of the discussion!

Take 30 mins off the 'normal' journey times though and, much as I love the sleeper dearly, I'd struggle to find justification for using it from Glasgow or Edinburgh.

 

[Speed43125]

Which ones are those?

Weren't LNER talking of running a few more 4 hour Edinburgh to London trains? On top of the current once daily 4 hour train (southbound only I suspect).

 

[Bald Rick]

Weren't LNER talking of running a few more 4 hour Edinburgh to London trains? On top of the current once daily 4 hour train (southbound only I suspect).

Thinking about, yes. But not running. And neither has the one southbound 4 hour service been running for the last 6 months. Indeed I’d be surprised if we see that any time soon.

 

[BRX]

Which ones are those?

The LNER ones that take about 4h20. And we know it's possible to get it down to about 4h.

How significant is half an hour's saving, in terms of relative usefulness of night trains? A 3h30 journey time still means getting up at 4am or so, for someone wanting to get to a central location for a 9am start.

Like I said, many things might change in the next 10 or 15 years - maybe the idea of a 9am start for a face to face meeting will have become seen as unreasonable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How significant is half an hour's saving, in terms of relative usefulness of night trains? A 3h30 journey time still means getting up at 4am or so, for someone wanting to get to a central location for a 9am start.

Most people get more sleep by doing that in their own bed (and maybe going to bed early) than on the Sleeper.

Like I said, many things might change in the next 10 or 15 years - maybe the idea of a 9am start for a face to face meeting will have become seen as unreasonable.

It already is seen as unreasonable, and anyone who does it and doesn't fund a hotel for the night before is just inconsiderate. But in 19 years of my career with plenty of business travel (before more things went online) I have never, ever had to do it. Is it even a thing? I'd have said 10 was more common, as it gives time for the meeting organiser to arrive, read their emails, have a coffee and prepare the room before being ready to accept visitors.

 

[Bald Rick]

How significant is half an hour's saving, in terms of relative usefulness of night trains?

For some people, a significant difference, particularly if it is combined with a slightly later arrival meaning, say, an hour later departure from London. This would pick up quite a few non-fliers who cant get to KX / Euston for the last day trains (which are still relatively early for late meetings).

 

[BRX]

Most people get more sleep by doing that in their own bed (and maybe going to bed early) than on the Sleeper.



It already is seen as unreasonable, and anyone who does it and doesn't fund a hotel for the night before is just inconsiderate. But in 19 years of my career with plenty of business travel (before more things went online) I have never, ever had to do it. Is it even a thing? I'd have said 10 was more common, as it gives time for the meeting organiser to arrive, read their emails, have a coffee and prepare the room before being ready to accept visitors.

My point is I guess, regardless of the exact meeting start time and the person's preference between early start/sleeper/hotel, I'm not sure that half an hour would change that many people's decision. If HS2 shrunk the journey to something like 2hrs (as a high speed line all the way might just about manage) then that would be a game changer. But that's not what we'll be getting in the foreseeable future.

You could of course argue that the lowlander sleeper is already unecessary, because it's servicing a journey that can be done in around 4 hrs on a day time.

The point is whether HS2 really changes all that much.

 

[trebor79]

My point is I guess, regardless of the exact meeting start time and the person's preference between early start/sleeper/hotel, I'm not sure that half an hour would change that many people's decision. If HS2 shrunk the journey to something like 2hrs (as a high speed line all the way might just about manage) then that would be a game changer. But that's not what we'll be getting in the foreseeable future.

You could of course argue that the lowlander sleeper is already unecessary, because it's servicing a journey that can be done in around 4 hrs on a day time.

The point is whether HS2 really changes all that much.

I think there will still be a use for the sleeper even after HS2 opens. I've attended conferences in Glasgow, for example where I've travelled up the day before (or on an early flight). I have a full day at the conference and then dinner with some contacts before getting the sleeper back to London. In the morning I then travel home to Norfolk and can be back at my company or home office by mid morning. If there's no sleeper then it's either another night in Glasgow and the next day wasted travelling or a late night flight or train to London with a night in London due to no onward connections.

The sleeper serves people from further afield than it's destinations.

 

[paul1609]

My point is I guess, regardless of the exact meeting start time and the person's preference between early start/sleeper/hotel, I'm not sure that half an hour would change that many people's decision. If HS2 shrunk the journey to something like 2hrs (as a high speed line all the way might just about manage) then that would be a game changer. But that's not what we'll be getting in the foreseeable future.

You could of course argue that the lowlander sleeper is already unecessary, because it's servicing a journey that can be done in around 4 hrs on a day time.

The point is whether HS2 really changes all that much.

I was a regular user of the sleeper West Highland and lowlander to Glasgow until I retired in 2019.
It was very noticeable how passenger numbers on the Glasgow portion declined (especially Southbound)once the West Coast Modernisation was completed.
The West Coast modernisation meant for me that it was possible to get home to Romney Marsh off the mid day train from the West Highland Stations for the first time or from Helensburgh at around 3 pm.
Even pre-covid there wasn't any 4 hour trains to London from Glasgow if you were lucky it was closer to 5 hours with many hours requiring a change at Crewe or a lengthy trundle via Birmingham.
The headline times promised for the West Coast modernisation were never achieved because of Network rails inability to deliver on 140 mph running and Virgins policy of using London to Scotland Expresses to provide Inter Lancashire shopping specials on most hours.
If the Hs2 website is to be believed London to Glasgow will drop to 3 hrs 40 mins if delivered in my opinion that will kill the Glasgow sleeper market.