Future sleeper service safe in new franchise - minister

[whole diary]

[SapperPsmith]

Spending money on new stock and additional locomotives will make the economics of this service even worse.  I am not sure why the Penzance sleeper survives and suspect that the gap between costs and revenue is huge.  Is is fair that commuters and others are subsidising a few people who want to travel overnight?

[grahame]

Spending money on new stock and additional locomotives will make the economics of this service even worse.  I am not sure why the Penzance sleeper survives and suspect that the gap between costs and revenue is huge.  Is is fair that commuters and others are subsidising a few people who want to travel overnight?

At the time of the last franchise, the Penzance Sleeper was under threat, but it survived in no small part due to a vigorous campaign - see
http://www.andrewroden.com/page7.htm
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1490
(Does anyone have any better links, please?)

It has been raised again - but this time as a question with regards to the next franchise, rather than as a near-done deal which is (as I recall) how it was done last time.

Question 15 in the current consultation for the next franchise:

15. What should be the future of the overnight service between Paddington and Penzance, given that the sleeping cars and, especially, the locomotives, are ageing?

I don't know what the economics of the sleeper service are - but I do know that I have used sleepers in the far past, and also very recently, and they've been very effective in helping me make the best use of time.   There's an economic case for the areas served for them, the more so since they're often used by VIPs of the business / country operations world - I certainly had illustrious company on my sleeper train last year, and this needs to be considered rather than the pure operational cost v income formula.

Very brave question, SapperPsmith - thank you for raising it!

[Tim]

Spending money on new stock and additional locomotives will make the economics of this service even worse.  I am not sure why the Penzance sleeper survives and suspect that the gap between costs and revenue is huge.  Is is fair that commuters and others are subsidising a few people who want to travel overnight?

If new stock with modern facilities (showers etc) were provided then there would be an argument that fares could rise considerably which might narrow the gap between running costs and revenue.   AIUI^▸ (as I understand it), the "sleeper sublement" compares very favourably to a night's hotel accomodation. 

[The SprinterMeister]

I wouldn't mind there being a sleeper service from say Penzance to Aberdeen/Inverness especially if it stopped at at Bristol & Birmingham.

I have thought about visiting scotland but the only options available are to travel all day on a crosscountry voyager, atw to manchester then transpenine to Glasgow/Edingburgh. However another option is to fly from Cardiff airport (Not something i would fancy doing mind you)

You had a Plymouth - Glasgow sleeper train back in the day. When the railways were being set up for privatisation it became clear that no TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) could be identified to operate it so it was summarily axed. And that's the problem you'd have if you tried to get it reinstated.

[old original]

I wouldn't mind there being a sleeper service from say Penzance to Aberdeen/Inverness especially if it stopped at at Bristol & Birmingham.

I have thought about visiting scotland but the only options available are to travel all day on a crosscountry voyager, atw to manchester then transpenine to Glasgow/Edingburgh. However another option is to fly from Cardiff airport (Not something i would fancy doing mind you)

You had a Plymouth - Glasgow sleeper train back in the day. When the railways were being set up for privatisation it became clear that no TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) could be identified to operate it so it was summarily axed. And that's the problem you'd have if you tried to get it reinstated.

perhaps it would be possible as a free access toc, like grand central, but personally I don't think there would be enough money it for any one to take it on.

[The SprinterMeister]

If new stock with modern facilities (showers etc) were provided then there would be an argument that fares could rise considerably which might narrow the gap between running costs and revenue.   AIUI^▸ (as I understand it), the "sleeper sublement" compares very favourably to a night's hotel accomodation. 

There is also the counter argument that if you start hiking the ticket prices to pay for more luxurious stock you will actually drive people away from the sleeper services. The seated bit is usually well used, the train does run with empty berths as it is at certain times of the year. Start increasing the sleeper supplement and all you will do is fill up the seated coaches quicker. I'm not sure how you do bigger berths on a UK^▸ (United Kingdom) loading gauge 23 metre coach anyway, it's a work of art how they managed to fit all the bits into the Mk3 berths to be honest.

The sleepers survives mainly because the air transport links London - South West are to all intents and purposes non existent. Very little time saved by flying.

[The SprinterMeister]

You had a Plymouth - Glasgow sleeper train back in the day. When the railways were being set up for privatisation it became clear that no TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) could be identified to operate it so it was summarily axed. And that's the problem you'd have if you tried to get it reinstated.

perhaps it would be possible as a free access toc, like grand central, but personally I don't think there would be enough money it for any one to take it on.

Not sure how many of the Mk3 sleepers used on that service actually survive in a useable state, the Mk2^▸ (Mark 2 coach) seated coaches have presumably long since gone. Therefore to restart that service your going to need to throw serious cash at it. Problem being that air competition to non London destinations is a bit more prevalent from Exeter / Bristol airports.

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

That service as open access could make money... If the price was cheaper than xc you would get people overnight just to avoid ^400 fairs!

[A V Lowe]

Scotrail consultation for 2014 refranchising is taking place now, and it would not be that difficult to propose that a Night train franchise is offered for a single operator to run overnight services, which could include services in to Europe.  This could mean that all night, sleeper services ran with common stock and used just one London terminus - I would suggest Waterloo International as it has the platform length, and can be reached from both GW^▸ (Great Western) and WC^▸ (Wiltshire Council (Unitary Authority)) main lines, and from the EC without reversal in Brent Yard.  It also retains a route out via Ashford to the Channel Tunnel. In thjis way we get the economy of one operator specialising in overnight services.  In summer there may be sufficient traffic to run Highland and Lowland services through the week but one option on weeknights would be to run a cross-channel service with 'spare' coaches.  Waterloo would actually place the sleeper service closer to some key customers - MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament), and government officials, as well as having a dedicated station option, with that station designed for the long haul traveller, releasing platform space at EUS and PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) for the morning peak.  WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) night time blockades South of Rugby could also be bypassed via the GW/GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) joint line when required rather than the time consuming ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) diversion 

A second detail to divert HEx and GatEx to also run in to Waterloo International would provide early connections from an overnight rail service to flights and vice verse for late arrivals inbound. This would remove the confusion - especially at VIC of dumping airline pax with luggage in the melee of a busy commuter terminus, and instead having a long haul station.  It would additionally provide a BTN-WAT direct service and cut down on some churn at CPJ where all the BTN pax want to cross to the SW and all the SW pax want to get to VIC!  Again it offers a second route for GatEx via BXN and the viaduct. Obviously less of a problem at PAD but if both HEx and GatEx run at 15 min frequency in to the same station then a cross-platform interchange (or even shared stock with linked diagrams) could offer an LHR-LGW transfer in under 70 minutes.

The Scottish day coach facility should be replaced by a Voyager or Class 185 overnight switch, starting from GLC^▸ (Glasgow Central) at 00.00 and running via EDB (collecting day-coach pax from Highlands) and then running either to MAN/WVH to connect with an early departure and making all the current stops CAR-PRE-CRE^» (Crewe - next trains)-WFJ, but possibly also including BHM to offer a real range of choice for BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains)/SOU/CDF^» (Cardiff - next trains) etc, at present the Highland Sleeper does offer a decent Glasgow-Bristol arriving at a time not that far removed from the old direct train (Change CRE with a choice of 2 routes).  The day coach facility for the West might be similarly served, cutting the costly stops for the sleeper itself and putting a unit with faster acceleration and lower access charges to run just ahead of the sleeper on an Up service, just behind on the Down?  The day train would also again serve BRI, and provide a late train connection in Down & Up directions with last service from BHM and Midlands, providing a start of day arrival for factory and building sites (ie by 08.00)     

So you GW guys should be responding to the Scotrail consultation as well!

[paul7575]

Forget Waterloo for airport trains. 

Running HEx and GatEx into Paddington and Victoria is precisely what makes them Express services. 

However HEx is now earmarked for transfer to Crossrail - and running onto Crossrail will benefit nearly all passengers who don't actually want to be at Paddington.   Airtrack (before it was cancelled) would never have been an express service, the existing services on the Windsor side of Waterloo would still be there, stopping at all stations.

GatEx cannot be a fast service and go into Waterloo - because the fast lines it runs on are aimed towards Victoria. However in this case there are definite plans to stop Gat Ex at Clapham Jn anyway - its days as a dedicated airport service are numbered.

I'd completely forget running international sleepers via Waterloo and South London as well.  The purpose of the HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) - HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) link is to provide the route for such services - which would run through entirely on 25 kV.  No-one is likely to want to provide DC^▸ (Direct Current) international stock again, and to provide the passport and immigration facilites at Waterloo again now that they are needed at three other stations anyway would be an extravagance.

Lastly, forget about the idea of using Waterloo in the morning peak to release platforms at Paddington and Euston - the approaches into Waterloo are just as full as anywhere else in the morning peak, and the Eurostar platforms will be used as part of the station rebuild for 10/12 car inner suburban services anyway.

Paul

 

[The SprinterMeister]

Lastly, forget about the idea of using Waterloo in the morning peak to release platforms at Paddington and Euston - the approaches into Waterloo are just as full as anywhere else in the morning peak, and the Eurostar platforms will be used as part of the station rebuild for 10/12 car inner suburban services anyway.

Paul

 

The FGW^▸ (First Great Western) sleeper stock usually leaves Padd at around 07:50 from platorm 1 for OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) at around 07:50 anyway. All platforms available from that time.

[Rhydgaled]

When I was reading about the number of locos required for the ScotRail sleeper the other day, an idea came to me. Several of the locos where just for ECS^▸ (Empty Coaching Stock) moves between stations and depots, presumablly these stations were termini without run-round loops .

Anyway, that got me wondering why, since that sleeper is hauled by class 90s and only 3 deisel locos were listed (suggesting the can run-round at Fort William, Aberdeen and Inverness) why there is not a DVT^‡(resolve) to cut down the number of locos required. Of course, in this case, the split means the DVT couldn't do both the Glasgow and Edinbrough workings, and one of the ECS moves could perhaps be getting the day coaches for the Highland sleeper portion which is only night coaches from Euston to Edinbrough.

Anyway, they need a loco for ECS at Paddington (why did they get rid of run-round loops, or did they have this problem when mainline services from Paddington where loco-hauled?) with the GW^▸ (Great Western) sleeper as well, so if you had a diesel TDM fitted loco (non exist at the moment) to haul it then a DVT could be useful there too. Anyway, once you have the DVT I was wondering if the train could be limited to 100mph to allow passengers to be in the DVT. Obviously, as they are with not many windows, passengers wouldn't want to be in the DVT. However, if you want shower facilities, a DVT might be the best existing vehicle to use, with the rest of the train replaced with new mark 5 day and night coaches. More mrk 5 day coaches, and mrk5 DVTs with windows seats, would be ordered for daytime Intercity services to get ecconomy of scale, including mrk5 DVTs to replace mrk3 and mrk4 DVTs on day services.

[inspector_blakey]

I've thought for a while that a sensible option for a future sleeper service would be something similar to airline flat beds. That would mean more capacity per coach and the need to have en-suite facilities would go away. After all, if flat beds are deemed acceptable for business folk paying ^3k+ for a seat, then they should be OK for trips to Scotland and Cornwall.

I think that's a good idea. Having experienced both a mark 3 sleeper and a BA^» (British Airways - about) ClubWorld flat bed airline seat (I got lucky and was upgraded one Christmas on an overbooked transatlantic flight, sadly I'm not rich enough to afford to fly in business class routinely!) I'd say that the more comfortable bed was actually the airline seat.

Down sides I can see are that the airline-style "pods" clearly offer less privacy than sleeper cabins, and people may feel uncomfortable about using them on a train making several stops on its journey from a point of view of personal/luggage security.

[The SprinterMeister]

Anyway, they need a loco for ECS^▸ (Empty Coaching Stock) at Paddington (why did they get rid of run-round loops, or did they have this problem when mainline services from Paddington where loco-hauled?) with the GW^▸ (Great Western) sleeper as well, so if you had a diesel TDM fitted loco (non exist at the moment) to haul it then a DVT^‡(resolve) could be useful there too.

When loco hauled trains were more in vogue at Paddington the train would run in with a loco which would then be uncoupled from the train. Another loco would then run in from Ranleigh Bridge or OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) and attach to the rear of the train, this would then be the train loco for that set of coaches next working. Once released by the departing train the loco that had bought the train in would run down to Ranleigh Bridge for the next working. You needed rather more loco's than sets of coaches of course but it worked.

At Penzance there was (until about 1985) I believe a loco release crossover worked by a ground frame released from Penzance signalbox at the buffer stop ends of platforms three and four. Train obviously had to stop a sufficient distance short of the canopy to allow the engine to be uncoupled and run through the crossover.

[grahame]

If  you had a crossover at Paddington and were to run around a train in platform 1, you would require platform 2 to be empty.  That's why many stations in the past had extra loco release lines. And if you don't bring the train right up to the buffer retarder to leave the crossover clear, you need a longer platform at the outer end, limit yourself to shorter trains, or have to employ selective door opening even at the terminus (and is that allowable?)