Great Western Coffee Shop

Will the next generation of sleeper services - the night riviera - look like the offering from Japan highlighted in the ?

 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/travel/starlight-express-mizukaze-and-train-suite-shiki-shima-japans-in/Daily Telegraph[/url)

Presuming that we are talking about UK sleeper services, then I cant see any such radical changes happening.
The principle causes of dissatisfaction with current UK sleepers are that no showers are available and that the beds are too small.
Addressing these issues should arguably be a higher priority.

Larger beds are easy to provide but would probably reduce the number of berths per vehicle and thereby increase prices.
Showers are slightly more challenging on account of the amount of water needed, but should be doable. I see no need for retention tanks for showers, the only slightly dirty water from a shower could be dumped on the track, unlike toilet waste. It might be worth reusing shower water for toilet flushing, thereby reducing the total volume of water needed.

If I were designing new sleeper stock for the UK, I would provide two classes of accommodation.
Standard class similar to that provided at present, shared toilet and shower at end of coach. Choice of single berth or twin bunks, the latter only for people booking both berths, not for sharing with strangers.
First class, with larger beds and en-suite toilet and shower, choice of single or double bed.

If sleeper services are to remain viable in the UK, then IMHO the routes served need to be re-considered with a view to services from the West country to Scotland for example.

Many of your internal configuration aspirations, such as showers and double beds, are being met by the new Mark V's for the Caledonian Sleepers that are currently being built by CAF.

I had a glimmer of hope that GWR might consider piggy-backing on that order for the Cornish Riviera, but it looks like we'll be soldiering on with a tart up of the existing Mk III's for a while longer.

With the easy availability of flights to Scotland from Newquay, Exeter and Bristol I struggle to see where the demand for sleeper services from the Westcountry would come from?

It's an interminable journey by train against a 1hr 15min flight from Bristol or 1hr 30 from Exeter - can't see it appealing to the Business customer?

The Mark IIIs are decades old.  Is it really the case that technology in the intervening years has not advanced sufficiently so that a 3 ft wide bed cannot be provided for the cost of a 2 ft wide bed?  In almost every other area of commerce we have seen efficiency savings.  Cars, airplanes, ships are all better than they were in the 1980s without a commensurate increase in operating cost.  We should also remember that the country is almost twice as rich as it was in the 1980s so even if the cost of providing decent beds is higher, there is more wealth around (both private and public) to pay for it. 
 

I feel certain that significant numbers of both business and leisure travelers would use a sleeper service between the southwest and Scotland.
Firstly say 8 or 10 hours on a sleeper train is spent sleeping/relaxing and is no more wasted than is the time spent sleeping any other night.
If I had to be in Scotland by say 10-00 I would prefer to arrive well rested from perhaps 10 hours on a sleeper train, than after waking before dawn to get an expensive taxi to the airport to check in at perhaps 06-00 for a flight that departs at 07-30 and arrives at 08-45.

Also, new sleeper stock is a significant long term investment that might last 30 or 40 years. During that time I expect oil supplies to decline very significantly and lead to the demise of short haul air travel.
A diesel hauled sleeper is more economical than the same number of passengers flying or driving, electric haulage better still of course.

Until the late 70's /early 80's there used to be a Sleeper (and seated) service between Bristol TM and Edinburgh via the West Coast, with I think a Glasgow portion.
This train was withdrawn, presumably through reducing demand and the high costs of provision.
In those days there were not the numerous polluting air flights between the SW and the NE/Scotland as now ..just walk through a Cross Country train to appreciate how few reservations there are these days for such long distance travellers choosing rail...true the uncomfortable sewage stench 'Voyagers' do not encourage passengers.

....added to which air is often quite a bit cheaper (and faster door-to-door in many cases).

As I reported before (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=12675.msg136227#msg136227), I used that service from Edinburgh to London in September 1979 (not July - the first Balloon Festival/Fiesta was 7-9 Sept).

I know I replaced our MD at the UAV conference at short notice, so I may have taken over his booking. But it's a long time ago, so I can't really say whether we considered the air alternative or what it was. I may well have preferred the train, in any case - as might our MD!

 

The benefits of advancing technology seem little felt on the railway.
Ships, cars and aircraft are indeed better than was the case decades ago, cars at least are also much cheaper after correcting for inflation, and I suspect that aircraft are also cheaper. Passenger ships have probably changed too much for a valid comparison.
Trains by contrast seem to be getting more expensive to build.

Whilst the country is indeed about twice as rich as rich as was the case about 30 years ago, this is certainly not reflected in the comfort of rail travel.
Facing seats at tables, ample space for luggage and cycles, and buffets, on full length loco hauled trains used to be the norm, yet now with the country more than twice as wealthy as it was when the HST was new, we are told that these are now unaffordable luxuries and that new trains must maximise the number of seats over all other facilities.

I'm sorry but that's simply not how the vast majority of business travellers think - if the choice is between a 20 hour round trip by train (including overnight) or 6 hours by air (including airport logistics) I suggest that 95%+ will choose the latter.

Time at home is precious and time is money - I'd sooner have the night at home with my family and get up early for a quick hop up to Edinburgh or Glasgow by air than spend the best part of 24 hours getting there and back - I'm sure my Boss (as well as my family!) would agree!

As AMLAG has noted, a sleeper from the Westcountry to Scotland has been done before and was withdrawn due to lack of demand - and that was at a time when there were a lot fewer domestic air options, and those that did exist were much more expensive.

I appreciate that it has a wistful appeal for rail enthusiasts however I very much doubt that would be sufficient to resurrect it.

Agree with you fully TG.

The rest of western Europe has largely abandoned sleeper and motor-rail trains in favour of short haul flights and high speed rail.

It's also worth noting that the current Caledonian sleeper, even with advance purchase, is vastly more expensive than domestic flights or equivalent distance high speed rail on the continent, or even day trains which travel over the same routes.

I may have posted this quote before from Bill Bryson who first came to Britain in the 1970s.  On comparing what had changed between then and now he said..

"Food and service are both much better than when I first came here. Attitudes have also changed mostly for the better, although not always. There is this paradox that Britain has never been so rich and the amount of money and possessions most people have cannot be compared with what people had when I first arrived. And yet the country behaves as if it has never been so poor. The refrain you constantly hear is “we can’t afford it”. It feels like we are permanently in this age of austerity in which we not only can’t afford large things – housing for all that need it, cottage hospitals in every town – but also small things such as flower beds on roundabouts. All these things the country had when I first came here, and when we were all much poorer.

Nostalgia tends to cast a rosy glow...........I am only just old enough to remember the nd of the 1970s, but it was a pretty grim time for the UK in most respects and certainly having studied Economics it was a disastrous era in that context.

except we don't need to completely rely on nostalgia because we have the HST still running from the 1970s and 1980s.   Two toilets per coach, spacious buffets, no underfloor engines, ample bike space. Objectively it compares rather well with what is on offer today. 

And I think we are partly arguing on the same side.  Economically the country was in a very poor shape for the 1970s and early 1980s (and the 50 and 60s were not great either), that is one of the premises of Bryson's argument.   

 

Economically not such a great time, but we did have cheerful flower beds on roundabouts all over the place - I definitely remember those from the first half of the 1980's  :)

Indeed.....they certainly brightened up the Winter of Discontent!  :D

I'm not quite old enough to remember that, thank you very much!  ;D

I've done a few day trips to Scotland in recent years (both Glasgow and Edinburgh) for business (I've been teaching a class there).

It's great to have a (reasonable) sleep in your own bed, then go back to sleep in your own bed the same night, ready for work the next day (in all cases I've been home between 9pm and 10pm).  I live alone, but if I had a family, this would be a massively important factor in the decision making.

Also cheaper to fly.  No sleeper berth needed, fewer meals out and less time spent away from the office.  Less luggage to carry*.

* = Even on day trips, I carried a change of shirt and underwear, in the unlikely event the flight was cancelled.

Regardless of what I've written above, the sleeper definitely has it's uses.  If I were making a longer business trip, I would consider using the sleeper either side.

All you youngsters should be aware that I not only remember the introduction of the HSTs, but also recall steamers in everyday BR use, not preservation .

I remember steam on BR too. Used to love the trip to Devil's Bridge!

Sleeper services require a lot of subsidy, for the relatively low number of passengers that use them.  There is a difference between withdrawing what's already there (as was seen from the outcry when it was proposed to withdraw the Fort William service a few years back), and someone putting their hand in their pocket to start a new route.

The Highland sleepers serve numerous communities en route to their final destination, and in some cases those communities are a long way from the nearest airport, so they have a genuine local use that can justify public funds keeping them running.  In contrast, any service from the West Country would only be to the lowland destinations, where as has been noted airports offer a very real attractive alternative.  I can't see the Scottish Government dipping into their pocket to subsidise a service that would have limited economic benefit.

I would love there to be such a service, and I would use it like a shot.  But I cannot see it happening.  

There's also the question of access once Sturgeon has built her wall across the border - who will pay for the tunnel?  ;)

I'm not going to disagree with broadgage that it was often a nice experience to travel 30 or so years ago, there were well under half the number of journeys made than today after all.  I used to enjoy many trips on Mk II and Mk III on loco-hauled trains when they tended to be a lot less crowded than today.  A great example of which was across the Pennines behind a Class 45 and rake of 6 or 7 Mk II's whereas now (at least for the time being) it's often on a crowded 3-car Class 185.  If you smoked you could enjoy having a fag to your hearts content in the smoking carriage which of course you can't do now.

However, for all those plusses back in the 70s and 80s there was an awful lot wrong and an awful lot which is much better than back then.  A few examples:

1) Stations were generally in a poor condition with few facilities.  Leaking roofs, dank toilets, few passenger lifts, poor lighting, few retail outlets (a Travellers Fare and John Menzies if you were lucky) were common sights at many stations, including some of the larger ones.  Far more have modern facilities today, they are brighter, have disabled toilets, and a range of quality (if often pricey) retail outlets - even many smaller stations now have a coffee stall.

2) On-Train facilities were worse in many respects.  Yes, you might have had a nice carriage with lots of tables, but try selling that in a positive light to customers confined in wheelchairs who were often unceremoniously dumped in the guards van on a lot of trains which had no wheelchair facilities.  Now, increasingly, most trains have dedicated disabled bays and a universal access toilet.  Information displays now provide useful information for the passengers that never existed in the 70s and 80s - many trains back then didn't even have a PA system.

3) Safety has improved massively.  We've just passed the 10 year mark since a passenger fatality in train accident.  In the last decade there have been just 5 deaths from accidents on UK railways and stations. In the 70s there were more than 70 deaths and in the 80s there were more than 80 deaths.  Not only are the chances of being involved in an incident much less, but if you are the design of the rolling stock makes it much less likely you will be killed or seriously injured.  Not to mention the fact that now doors are locked when the train is moving makes for a much safer environment - even if I do miss the sight of thirty or forty commuters leaping off trains arriving at Waterloo when they'd barely even reached the platform end.

4) Train frequencies have generally improved considerably.  Most routes now have much more frequent trains than they did back then, some routes have more than twice as many trains.  It's also possible on many routes to get somewhere on a Sunday morning, which often wasn't the case back in the 70s and 80s as many routes didn't really get going until the afternoon.

So, perhaps nostalgia's rosy glow does indeed conceal some real improvements...

Sorry for heading off topic.  Regarding the sleeper between Scotland and the west country, yes it would require significant subsidy, so I don't think we'll see it anytime soon.

The topics of sleepers, and how relative costs have changed over time, have both been raised here. So here's a bit of reasonably hard data to think about.

I know the first big train (and very probably the first train journey) I went on was the 6:55 sleeper from Kings Cross to Aberdeen on Saturday 12th August 1950. The cost of that isn't recorded, but when the family went on holiday in 1956 the cost was £19-13s for two and two halves return London-Aberdeen (less perhaps 6s for tube fares in that) plus £2-1s for four 3rd class sleeper berths each way (7 p.m. Tuesday 24th July, returning 7:10 p.m. Thursday 9th August).

To make sense of that you need to know what pay levels were. I find that much more meaningful than a composite retail prices index if you are comparing prices and affordability over more than a couple of decades. It does mean that you can't get a single multiplier to make prices comparable, as it depends on your source of income, but that does reflect reality.

I have two ways of coming at that. Dad was paid £1000 that year, as a civil servant, nominally quite junior. But career progressions were very different then, and distorted by war service, so his grade isn't very meaningful; he was just about getting into real management tasks at the age of 38. Also all civil servants were still relatively well paid then, more so than today. So I'd guess that an equivalent pay today is about 40 times that. The other way is from some figures I have from official data of pay levels for a range of jobs. Railways are well represented, and in 1955/6 most skilled trades paid £500 or a little above, with unskilled men getting £350-£400 and engine drivers £622. That suggests a rather higher multiplier.

Using 40 puts the cost of the return fare at about £270, and the berth at £20 each way (though 3rd class sleepers with four berths per cabin don't exist now, of course). There were no dynamically priced advance fares, of course - that was just THE fare, and it is hard to compare with today's range of about £160-330. But it suggests that, without looking into the level of loss or subsidy involved in running the railways (or just sleepers) in 1956, fares were similar to now, sleepers priced much lower. I suspect that reflects the nature of the business, with a high proportion of staff costs, limited impact of electronics and digits on costs, and less still of mass production. Of course a higher multiplier for income would put that price above all but the highest anytime fare.

Elsewhere in Europe, sleeper services gave withered or are withering.  More and faster daytime trains, more and cheaper flights, and the much more efficient use of day stock all act against them.  I've used the Caledonian sleeper a few times, but the wait around until Silly O'Clock after a day's work in Glasgow or Edinburgh is off-putting.  Moves towards the "24 hour railway" seem to have slowed, except on the tube (never was a sleeper to Loughton, mind you!).

I can leave Motherwell at 15:16 and reach Bradford-on-Avon at 23:56 ... or at 00:01 on the sleeper and get there at 09:47, neither of which allows me back to back working days in the two places.  When I've used it, the 23:56 arrival at B-o-A has been heaving, though longer distance mid-evening elements of that itinerary have not been. After a Saturday working in Motherwell, I had a requirement to get home by mid morning Sunday, and the only way (there not being a sleeper that night, nor lateer flights) was the overnight national express coach; I managed to vary the requirement.

The idea of catching a service at around 7 or 8 p.m., relaxing over a meal the having a good nights sleep before getting off again at destination, showered and ready to go, at my choice of time between 6 and 7:30 a.m. is customer-attractive to me; it saves the airport hassle, it saves on hotel bills, it naturally connects from and to local public transport if I'm not looking to be within walking distance of the hubs at both ends.   Even over shorter distances this schedule might work for me ... but then I can leave Leeds at 18:45 and get to B-o-A at 23:56;  if B-o-A was home (or I ca get a lift  taxi home) that makes sense; if it was the far end of a business trip, I could get a hotel for the night, and the shorter distance sleeper option might be more attractive - but it would be niche, expensive to run, and wouldn't attract the subsidy needed simply to compete with hotels.

The drive for 3 hour services between Plymouth and London - should it be achieved makes the case for the Night Riviera all the harder; the 21:30 off Paddington reaching Plymouth at 00:30 ...

Agree with the duration, achieving a 3 hour journey to the South West's most important city should be a priority - but make it an 0600 departure to arrive at Plymouth 0900, with a Pullman style business breakfast on offer.

Whichever way you go you'll split the market / opinion between those two options.  How to get to Paddington for 06:00 (you'll need a new 05:00 from Taplow to PAD, or a new 05:54 Taplow to RDG if the Plymouth train actually calls there) ... or how to get to final destination in Plymouth in the early hours.

.........naturally the stopping pattern would be Paddington - Taplow - Reading - Exeter - Plymouth!  ;D

I have probably travelled on the Night Riviera a dozen times this year (I do keep records but not in a position to check them at the moment) and I had yet to travel on a set with the refurbished coach.  That was until Friday night when not only was the coach in the formation, I was booked into one of the berths in the coach.

It is quite hard to get decent photos of the cabin, especially if you haven't got a short focus length lens with you.  However here goes.

The first thing you notice is the bed is arranged the other way round, with the head end at the outside end rather than by the door.  This means the lid of the sink unit can be used as a bedside table.

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/newsleep1.jpg)

Above the bed is a 3 pin mains socket and two USB charging ports (per bed) plus a reading light for the lower berth.  There is also the call button if you need to summon the steward.  (I often wonder how many people use it to try to get room service from the buffet.)

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/newsleep2.jpg)

As before there is the option for staff to set up the upper berth to make it a twin cabin.  The ladder for the upper berth collapses into a frame and can easily be released from the wall by the lower bed.

The bottom bed will also convert into a sofa, although I didn't try to follow the instructions.

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/newsleepsofa.jpg)

All the cabins now have a keycard as found in many hotels these days.  No longer do you have to find the steward to lock your door before you go to the buffet for a night cap and then locate them again to let you back in.  However I gather there has been a problem with people not leaving the cards behind and the stock of replacements keeps needing to be topped up.

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/newsleep3.jpg)

Opposite the bed there is still a place to hang your clothes - only it now features wardrobe style doors to hide them.  With my fashion sense that is probably a good idea but I am not sure it is really necessary.  The complimentary bottle of water, which used to be above the sink, is now stored in a special receptacle at the bottom of the wardrobe.

I think the soundproofing is slightly better than the existing coach.  I also noticed they are rated for 125mph running rather than 100mph - and are slightly heavier.

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/sleepnew.jpg) (http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/sleepold.jpg)

The lighting is now all LED and for the most part very good, although it could be improved over the sink and adjoining mirror where you tend to be standing in your own light.

I gather there is only one coach in service at the moment but another is due very soon.

Very nice..and to pay for it the price is going up £10 a berth in late May £45 sharing & £70 singles.

Looks very nice - I'll have to have a go on it again sometime as it was back in the British Rail days when I last had a trip on it.  I'll be interested to see how the brand new sleeper carriages being built for Caledonian Sleepers compare with this (impressive looking) makeover of old carriages.

I know it tends to be very busy heading West on a Friday night and the other way on a Sunday night but how busy does the sleeper tend to be midweek? (Either way)

I've never been on a UK sleeper train and the last ones I went on anywhere were (nearly) back in the days of BR. France in the late 80s, parts of Soviet Union similar time, and Slovakia early 2000s. This new British sleeper looks nothing like any of them. It looks more like a rather luxurious version of the those Japanese pod hotels! A basin! A wardrobe! A key card! The French and Soviet sleepers had no locks whatsoever and you were sharing with strangers anyway, the Slovak one was un/locked by an attendant. What well cared for lives we live nowadays! (I still think I'd rather travel by day though as I find it difficult to sleep in trains, or buses, planes, etc.)

In my younger days I have shared with strangers on both the Cornish and Scottish sleepers but too old for all that now.

After a couple of G&Ts I usually sleep quite well, particularly if I get my head down before the train leaves.

Having said that I've just had them and with the sleeper approaching Camborne I'm off to bed!

Correction to my post above: on the Russian train we weren't in with strangers, it was just a huge group. It was more spacious and perhaps slightly comfier than the French one.