Is there way of making the Caledonian Sleeper more profitable?

[Bletchleyite]

Costs can't easily come down without dropping portions (or trains).

There's a not unreasonable argument to simplify the Highlander into just Inverness and Fort William as half-trains. Aberdeen is much less necessary as it can be reached by connection from the Lowlander at a reasonable time as it's not very far.

 

[Bald Rick]

Presumably you would remove the standing space from the cabins and load them from the corridor, a bit like deep shelving.

You‘d have to be a contortionist to do that in the current vehicles; the side corridor is rather narrow!

In the current vehicles, removing all but one of the Classic rooms in the regular bed coaches, and converting them to couchettes 4 to a room with one central ‘corridor’ to access the ’beds’ would add 2 beds to the current 20 per coach. Essentially 3 of the four classic rooms would go, replaced with 2x4 bed couchette rooms in the same footprint. That means a 10% increase in capacity in those coaches, of which there are usually 5 per half set on the. Glasgow, Edinburgh and Inverness, and 4 per half set on the combined Ft Bill / Aberdeen. Clearly no capacity increase in the accessible coach.

I make that an increase of 10 beds of the 112 per half set on the Glasgow / Edinburgh / Inverness, which is 9%, rather than 50%.

But that 9% is frankly irrelevant unless you charge a similar amount per bed as now, which obviously isn’t going to happen. Just on the economics of the couchettes vs proper beds, you canhet 8 couchettes in the space of 6 proper beds, which means to provide more revenue the avergae fare yield for a room of 4 would have to be over 150% of the current average fare yield for a classic room. And hope that other travellers are not put off by the removal of most of the classic rooms, particularly families / groups who would make use of the connecting room facility. I’ll leave others to speculate if that is realistic.

 

[zwk500]

There's a not unreasonable argument to simplify the Highlander into just Inverness and Fort William as half-trains. Aberdeen is much less necessary as it can be reached by connection from the Lowlander at a reasonable time as it's not very far.

Maybe. But given this doesn't save the shunting crew at Edinburgh, is losing a 3hr each way trip going to save that much money? Especially when Aberdeen has the oil industry connection as well as some tourism around shooting and balmoral.

 

[paul1609]

Ive very rarely used the Aberdeen Sleeper but I dont get the impression that the Oil Industry travels much further than Tyne/Teeside by rail. If youre coming in from offshore and heading to london or south of a flight must be much more practical in that your home in your own bed the same day.
Balmoral is 49 miles from Pitlochry and 47 from Aberdeen theres nothing in it in drive time.

 

[JonathanH]

Balmoral is 49 miles from Pitlochry and 47 from Aberdeen theres nothing in it in drive time.

That may well be the case but getting transport to Balmoral from Pitlochry, even a hire car isn't as practical as from Aberdeen.

 

[Krokodil]

How would the lounge car cope with the extra passengers? It already gets full. Or would these be sold with no lounge access? Would this be converting just one of the sleeper coaches to a couchette?

The couchette wouldn't have lounge access - it's a budget offering, after all. I don't know what the current lounge rules are (only time I've used the Mk5s were on the Lowlander where I didn't have the time) but when I travelled on the Highlander in Mk3 days it was only 1st class passengers who could use the lounge.

would it? how so?

A pair of sleeper compartments have a bunk bed, a standing space, then a bulkhead with connecting door, another standing space and another bunk bed.

A couchette compartment has a bunk bed, a standing space, and another bunk bed. So for the same number of beds you have just one standing space instead of two.

The 50% figure was arrived at by checking the layouts of European sleepers vs couchettes. A European sleeping car has 12 compartments, which if they are set up as two-berth (as per the UK) have 24 berths in total. A European couchette car has nine compartments which if set up as four-berth has 36 bunks. Layout plans source: https://www.seat61.com/sleepers.htm

The comparison is purely against the classic compartments, club compartments are less space efficient and therefore the difference would be even greater.

 

[Bald Rick]

The 50% figure was arrived at by checking the layouts of European sleepers vs couchettes. A European sleeping car has 12 compartments, which if they are set up as two-berth (as per the UK) have 24 berths in total. A European couchette car has nine compartments which if set up as four-berth has 36 bunks. Layout plans source: https://www.seat61.com/sleepers.htm

Suggest you look at the berth layouts more clsley, then read what i wrote above. Youd get an extra 2 beds in per coach.

 

[Iskra]

In terms of profitability; withdrawing revenue-earning vehicles, for expensive modifications for a high risk concept with lower spend per passenger is probably not the way to go, it would have to be very popular to yield more.

All the market research for CS pointed towards customers not wanting to share rooms with strangers. It would be a bold, high risk move to go against that and to spend money doing so.

 

[Falcon1200]

There's a not unreasonable argument to simplify the Highlander into just Inverness and Fort William as half-trains.

But would there be sufficient demand to fill a half-train to Fort William? Personally I am very doubtful.

 

[Iskra]

But would there be sufficient demand to fill a half-train to Fort William? Personally I am very doubtful.

See post 93 for how to get around that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But would there be sufficient demand to fill a half-train to Fort William? Personally I am very doubtful.

In summer there absolutely would - it routinely sells out and gets the longer set now, things have changed a lot.

 

[paul1609]

That may well be the case but getting transport to Balmoral from Pitlochry, even a hire car isn't as practical as from Aberdeen.

Sorry thats not correct Pitlochry Car Hire a Vauxhall Dealer is about 10 mins walk from Pitlochry Station in one of the big hotels there. Taxis are available. Most Car Hire in Aberdeen area is centred around the airport which is a bus ride or £20 taxi ride away from the station.
True theres only a bus service from Aberdeen but I doubt that many sleeper customers are going to be using a bus that runs about 4 times a day takes 2 1/2 hours and involves a change in Ballater.
Nearly all country sports customers will be picked up from the station/ airport by a driver.

In summer there absolutely would - it routinely sells out and gets the longer set now, things have changed a lot.

Obviously things may have changed in the five years since I retired but it used to be the case that the Fort William train was very busy all the time that the southbound run accross Ranoch Moor was still in daylight. Directly the departure from Fort William was in the dark the business plummetted to the extent that Ive been on it during winter when theyve suffered rolling stock problems and only had the seating coach in use and still only been 50% full at Garelochead.
It is purely a tourist train the number of regulars 5 years ago I could have counted on 1 hand.

 

[Krokodil]

Suggest you look at the berth layouts more clsley, then read what i wrote above. Youd get an extra 2 beds in per coach.

You're assuming that it would just be a conversion of part of the existing coaches. A full coach conversion (or new build if the magic money tree were ever shaken for an expansion of the service) would yield 36 berths and 18 additional day seats.

But would there be sufficient demand to fill a half-train to Fort William? Personally I am very doubtful.

In the summer, definitely. Not in the winter though.

All the market research for CS pointed towards customers not wanting to share rooms with strangers

Being in a room alone with a stranger vs being in a room with three strangers is a very different prospect. Unless all three of them are together then you have safety in numbers. Even if they aren't, single sex couchettes are an option in Europe (at least for women).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Being in a room alone with a stranger vs being in a room with three strangers is a very different prospect. Unless all three of them are together then you have safety in numbers. Even if they aren't, single sex couchettes are an option in Europe (at least for women).

I do agree with that. I'm much happier in the seated coach with many others than in a berth shared with one other. If anything my preference would be longitudinal couchettes in an open coach, but they're not feasible for the same reason that pods weren't (i.e. reversal and risk of neck injury).

 

[Iskra]

Being in a room alone with a stranger vs being in a room with three strangers is a very different prospect. Unless all three of them are together then you have safety in numbers. Even if they aren't, single sex couchettes are an option in Europe (at least for women).

While I don’t disagree, that’s not what the market research says people want.

It’s covered in detail in this book, which is a decent history of the CS sleeper franchises more recently:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Anglo-Scottish-Sleepers-David-Meara/dp/1445672324

*while it’s a decent book for the more recent incarnations of the Scottish sleepers, it’s not the best on the history side of things. How someone can write a book with that title and completely omit the Thames-Clyde sleeper and the Stranraer one is pretty poor.

 

[Nunners]

There's a lot of talk about increasing the number of beds, but not much about reducing the number of locomotives used. If I was tasked with making the sleeper profitable, I would:

• Buy some ex-TPE DVTs, and use these to drive the empty train into Euston, therefore saving a locomotive and adding a carriage to both the lowlander and the highlander
• Bin the Aberdeen portion, but run the Inverness portion via Aberdeen on some nights where this is better economics
• Split the highlander at Carstairs, reducing the mileage and time taken by the highlander portions
• In the Edinburgh festival, do not run to Glasgow and run the 17 carriage train to Edinburgh
• Run on Saturday nights during July/August

The number of locks required would be reduced to 4 electric and 2 diesel per night:

• No shunting locos required in London due to the DVTs
• The highlander would run with electric until Carstairs, where the electric loco would come off to work a portion of the lowlander
• 2 diesel locos (1 each for Inverness/FW) will already have come off the up highlander to work the down highlander
• The lowlander would need 1 electric until Carstairs, where it gets an extra loco from the highlander. The Glasgow portion would get the DVT, and therefore not required an extra shunting locos
• The layout of Edinburgh means that the loco can run round and no DVT/shunting loco is needed

 

[Falcon1200]

See post 93 for how to get around that.

(Your) post 93 suggested;

London-Glasgow-Fort William
London-Edinburgh-Inverness

How many vehicles would the Glasgow/Fort William train convey? Certainly not 16, due to no demand and no capacity at either Glasgow terminal! Even with just say 12 (8 Glasgow and 4 Fort William) it could only run via Glasgow Central, would need an interesting shunt there to combine the two southbound trains, and represents a reduction in current overnight capacity. While the Edinburgh/Inverness train could still run with 16 coaches, but is now conveying Edinburgh. Aberdeen and Inverness passengers.

 

[Iskra]

(Your) post 93 suggested;



How many vehicles would the Glasgow/Fort William train convey? Certainly not 16, due to no demand and no capacity at either Glasgow terminal! Even with just say 12 (8 Glasgow and 4 Fort William) it could only run via Glasgow Central, would need an interesting shunt there to combine the two southbound trains, and represents a reduction in current overnight capacity. While the Edinburgh/Inverness train could still run with 16 coaches, but is now conveying Edinburgh. Aberdeen and Inverness passengers.

8 to Glasgow/Fort William 8 to Edinburgh/Inverness and it can run on the low level as it does sometimes anyway, removing any need for reversals and reducing shunting as it could just split at Carstairs.

You’re missing the point that this thread is about growing profitability, not capacity. It’s possible to run less capacity but improve profitability by removing the amount of loco’s/shunts/staff/paths needed and selling off the surplus coaches to the Night Riviera.

 

[Falcon1200]

You’re missing the point that this thread is about growing profitability, not capacity.

Running 50% fewer trains might I suppose reduce losses - Not improve profitability as the service does not, and never will, make a profit, and there would still be the overhead costs to be supported by much reduced income. Although I do like the idea of chucking bleary-eyed Glasgow passengers off the train at Queen St Low Level at the start of the morning peak!

 

[Iskra]

Running 50% fewer trains might I suppose reduce losses - Not improve profitability as the service does not, and never will, make a profit, and there would still be the overhead costs to be supported by much reduced income. Although I do like the idea of chucking bleary-eyed Glasgow passengers off the train at Queen St Low Level at the start of the morning peak!

It would be more likely to sell-out all year round. Reducing losses is the same thing as improving profitability. As per my previous posts in this thread, the overheads would be reduced by the more efficient operation I propose, but also by re-merging the CS with Scotrail to improve crewing and back-of-house efficiencies/management/control costs, substantially reducing overheads. Glasgow is a secondary market only as there are more other travel options and the CS are quite keen to detrain passengers anyway, so I don't see how being de-trained at the low-level platforms is an issue.

 

[Mainline421]

All the market research for CS pointed towards customers not wanting to share rooms with strangers. It would be a bold, high risk move to go against that and to spend money doing so.

Well obviously if you ask people the question "do you want share a room with a stranger" you'll get a very different response to "Do you want a couchette berth for £65 or a compartment for £240?" (exact figures not important here)

 

[Iskra]

Well obviously if you ask people the question "do you want share a room with a stranger" you'll get a very different response to "Do you want a couchette berth for £65 or a compartment for £240?" (exact figures not important here)

Appreciated, but berths are selling out whereas there is still a significant risk in introducing Couchette’s which I believe would be a new concept for the UK. I think it would be foolish to take a carriage that sells out and convert it to a new culturally alien concept. Maybe if you were able to add an additional carriage it may be worthwhile, but not instead of. Are the seats different enough to warrant further subdivision of that more budget market?

 

[Krokodil]

Well obviously if you ask people the question "do you want share a room with a stranger" you'll get a very different response to "Do you want a couchette berth for £65 or a compartment for £240?" (exact figures not important here)

Indeed, you can get a survey to produce any result you like, as Yes, Prime Minister once illustrated:

"Would you prefer to walk to a buffet car or would you like an at-seat service?" produces a different result to "Do you want hot food on a long-distance train or is an overpriced Mars bar enough?"

 

[Starmill]

The best thing to do while stuck leasing this stock would be to just refurbish the seated coach so that it's got the same cushions Transport for Wales have bought, and a soft, high quality dark green or blue (or whatever) moquette. The actual seats are otherwise the same as in Standard Plus on class 197s. The current setup is incredibly tatty and uncomfortable for a 10-12 hour journey.

Once the lease expires just abandon it. There's no meaningful way to reduce the subsidy the service requires, as it is already exorbitantly expensive in all classes, for the product on offer, so there's a serious credibility issue trying to raise prices further. Also, there's simply no way capacity can be increased. Currently the maximum number of people each train can convey is hilariously low. In practice it's impossible to fill completely for the reasons discussed in this thread. As such the subsidy will just keep going up and up, which would be far better spent actually in Scotland on ScotRail services. The staff would be gainfully employed working for ScotRail.

 

[Bald Rick]

You're assuming that it would just be a conversion of part of the existing coaches.

I was, because you said:

Even four-berth couchettes would increase capacity by 50% compared with classic sleeper berths.

Which led me to assume,not unreasonably, that you were thinking of changing exchanging existing classic sleeper berths for couchettes.

Well obviously if you ask people the question "do you want share a room with a stranger" you'll get a very different response to "Do you want a couchette berth for £65 or a compartment for £240?" (exact figures not important here)

The exact figure isnt important, but in the right ball park is. In the context of this thread, it would be:

Do you want a private room for £250, or a share of a room for four £180?

 

[Krokodil]

I was, because you said:

A 50% increase is how much more space efficient they are. The fact that the current layout of the rest of the vehicle doesn't fit doesn't mean that a single-class couchette car would have the same issues. Personally I'd have ordered them instead of the seated cars (once the compartments are converted to daytime use you gain an extra couple of seats each for the local traffic the Highlander carries).

The exact figure isnt important, but in the right ball park is. In the context of this thread, it would be:

Do you want a private room for £250, or a share of a room for four £180?

That quote wasn't mine. Please attribute it to the actual author.

As it happens though, you would have change from £100 in a couchette on the Lowlander.

 

[popeter45]

bold idea but if they could recofigure the insides as well as Nightjet style pods could they rebuild some sleepers into a fashion similar to the original style of CIWL Type-P's? (staggered upper and lower berths to allow to be their own cabin)

 

[Bald Rick]

That quote wasn't mine. Please attribute it to the actual author.

As it happens though, you would have change from £100 in a couchette on the Lowlander.

Apologies, not sure how that happened.

 

[Manutd1999]

Could there be a market for airline style lie-flat seats? I.e., an open-plan setup with seats which fold out into flatbeds, similar to airline business-class.

By getting rid of the compartment dividers, washrooms etc you would radically increase capacity - there should be space for ~25 seats per carriage in a 1-1 configuration. This would create a third service class, a halfway house between the regular seats and the rooms which could be priced accordingly.

VY seem to offer something similar in Norway ("PlusNight" - https://www.vy.no/en/buy-tickets/train-tickets/plusnight) and long-distance buses in other countries have a similar arrangement.

Maybe it could be an option for UK night trains? If it works for business travel by air, why for not rail?

 

[HSTEd]

Could there be a market for airline style lie-flat seats? I.e., an open-plan setup with seats which fold out into flatbeds, similar to airline business-class.

Such seats got scotched by the regulator because of concerns about neck injuries during end on collisions.

I dont think there is sufficient space to arrange them crossways unfortunately.