FOI/202600514623 Review of 202600510552 · FOI · not held
Caledonian Sleeper information: FOI Review
Information requested
Original request 202600510552
Please provide the following recorded information held by Transport Scotland, for the period 25 June 2023 to the date of your searches, relating to Caledonian Sleeper onboard sleeper-cabin upgrade pricing, lastminute pricing, yield management, unsold sleeper cabins, and associated public-value / revenue / utilisation considerations.
1. Any papers, briefings, submissions, meeting notes, agendas, minutes, presentations or correspondence concerning the pricing structure for onboard sleeper-cabin upgrades operated by Caledonian Sleeper after transfer into public ownership.
2. Any records showing whether Transport Scotland reviewed, approved, discussed, challenged or monitored that pricing structure, whether directly or through sponsorship / oversight arrangements.
3. Any records concerning the retention of inherited pricing arrangements after transfer on 25 June 2023, including any discussion of whether those arrangements should be reviewed or replaced.
4. Any modelling, options papers, analyses, appraisals, spreadsheets, forecasts, business cases or assessments concerning:
fixed onboard upgrade pricing; dynamic pricing; structured late-stage tariffing; revenue maximisation; utilisation of empty sleeper cabins; or revenue foregone from unsold premium capacity.
5. Any grant-agreement monitoring materials, sponsorship papers, performance reports, business-plan papers or related documents that discuss:
sleeper-cabin utilisation; unsold cabins; upgrade pricing; retail or ticketing strategy; or best-value / public-value implications of Caledonian Sleeper pricing.
6. Any correspondence between Transport Scotland and Scottish Rail Holdings Limited, and/or between Transport Scotland and Caledonian Sleeper Limited, concerning the subjects above.
7. Any records identifying the team or role-holder responsible within Transport Scotland for oversight of these matters.
Response
You submitted a request for a review on 14 April 2026 expressing dissatisfaction and specifically the six asks below:
1. conduct fresh searches for the period 25 June 2023 to 10 April 2026;
2. state which custodians, systems, search terms and date ranges were used;
3. reconsider points 1 to 4 in light of both the annex and the SRH letter of 13 April 2026;
4. disclose any further responsive information identified;
5. issue a corrected refusal notice where information is held but withheld; and
6. disclose, in relation to point 7 of my request, the role title, grade and business area of the relevant Transport Scotland post-holder or post-holders, even if personal names are withheld.
As part of my review, I have:
conducted fresh searches for the period 25 June 2023 to 12 March 2026; Please note that you have requested a review of your original request, which was received on 12 March 2026. With this in mind, you are only entitled to the information that we held at that date (12 March 2026). reviewed the annex originally disclosed alongside Transport Scotland’s response; considered the matters raised in your review request, including in the context of the letter of 13 April 2026 from the Chief Executive of Scottish Rail Holdings Limited; reconsidered the application of section 17, section 33(1)(b), and section 38(1)(b) of FOISA; and assessed whether any further information falling within the scope of your request could be identified and disclosed.
Taking each of the points in turn:
In this review request you have asked that we: reconsider points 1 to 4 in light of both the annex and the SRH letter of 13 April 2026;
Point 1 - Information “not held” and material disclosed in the annex
In relation to Point 1 of your original request
You state that Transport Scotland’s reliance on section 17 of FOISA for points 1 to 4 of your request is inconsistent with the material disclosed in the annex, which you consider responsive or materially proximate.
This point, as read in your original request is specifically focusing on ‘pricing structure for cabin upgrades’. I have performed an additional search of our database, which aimed at identifying any information related to this particular pricing structure. This search is conclusive and it presents evidence that no information is saved on our data base, which would include this specific information.
You make reference in your request for a review to an entry in the Caledonian Sleeper Ltd’s (CSL) business plan, which was released in the original reply to you. it might be helpful to explain that this information is related to the standard annual increase of fares, and it has no relation to any cabin upgrades; this is similar to the entry headed as ‘Retail and Ticketing Strategy’ again, our records do not support that said strategy includes any consideration of ‘pricing structure for cabin upgrades’.
You also make reference to the information related to the actual room capacity sold, total room capacity available and the estimated value of unsold rooms and fares-development scoping and strategy work, again, this information does not constitute ‘pricing structure for cabin upgrades’ specifically.
With the above in mind, I conclude that the notice under s17 FOISA – information not held was correctly issued to you and the decision should be upheld without modification.
In relation to Point 2 of your original request
In point 2, you seek information showing approval of the pricing structure mentioned in point 1 of your request. Please see point 1 above, which explains that we do not hold any information regarding the pricing structure of cabin upgrades.
With the above in mind, I conclude that the notice under s17 FOISA – information not held was correctly issued to you and the decision should be upheld without modification.
In relation to point 3 of your original request
In point 3 of your request you seek: Any records concerning the retention of inherited pricing arrangements after transfer on 25 June 2023 and any discussions whether this structure should be retained.
It might be helpful to note that when Caledonian Sleeper was taken into public ownership, existing price structure was adapted by CSL from the previous franchise on an ‘as is’ basis. I have performed searches of our data base, and whilst I recognise that there are entries in Scottish Rail Holdings business plan referring to fares development, I was not able to identify any information recorded on our database, related to discussions regarding a retention of the existing fares structure or any record of a decision made by Transport Scotland, to review said structure. I consider that the searches performed during the preparation of the original response to your request were proportionate and robust and having preformed additional searches, I conclude that the notice issued under s17 FOISA in respect to this point of your request was issued correctly. With this in mind, the decision should be upheld without modification.
In relation to point 4 of your original request
You have requested any modelling, options papers, analyses, appraisals, spreadsheets, forecasts, business cases or assessments concerning (…)various matters related to fares, revenue maximisation etc.
I have reviewed the searches performed during the preparation of your response and performed additional searches and concluded that we do not hold information you have asked for. Whilst the entries are in the business plans and periodic review documents, shared with you include reference to some of the topics you seek information on, I am satisfied that there are no materials, which would could be described as assessments or similar, therefore there is no information we can provide to you in response to this point.
It might be helpful to clarify that any such assessments would be prepared by CSL, as the commercial entity in the first instance. Caledonian Sleeper is part of SRH Group and any commercial discussions are held between Scottish Rail Holdings and CSL.
With the above in mind, I conclude that the notice under s17 FOISA – information not held was correctly issued to you and the decision should be upheld without modification.
Point 2 - SRH letter of 13 April 2026
You mention that statements in the letter from the Chief Executive of Scottish Rail Holdings Limited point to “obvious classes of recorded information” held by Transport Scotland.
Please see points made above. In addition to this, you will see in the revised Annex that we have identified CSL draft business plan, which includes information falling in the scope of point 5 of your request. You will see in that document that an entry titled as:
Analyse historical trends to grow capability in data driven decision making Working with ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper to deepen our understanding of revenue trends building on work to benchmark revenue.
This entry is marked as ‘new’ entry to the draft business plan. The reference made in the letter you quote in your request for a review is consistent with this newly added entry to the SRH draft business plan. It also supports our conclusion that that we do not hold information you have sought in your request in points 1-4.
Point 3 - Inconsistency in exemption applied
In this review request you have asked that we: issue a corrected refusal notice where information is held but withheld; and
The entry in the cover letter, is a sample entry, however I recognise that it would have been clearer to quote a specific exemption, which was used in our response to you. I can confirm that section 30(b)(i) has not been relied upon when considering the information that is in scope of your request and was not applied to any of the withheld information. Please accept my apologies for this error in its inclusion of our response to your initial request. This review outcome should be read as correcting this.
With this in mind, I can confirm that the text in the refusal notice you refer to, should be replaced with:
The information that has been redacted has been clearly marked with the relevant exemption i.e. Section 33(1)(b).
The remaining information that has been redacted is that which falls into the exemption of section 38 (1) (b) – third party and personal data.
Point 4 - Application of section 33(1)(b)
You request further explanation of the basis on which Transport Scotland considers disclosure of historic capacity and unsold‑value data to be substantially prejudicial to CSL’s commercial interests.
Specifically, you have asked to clarity on:
the relevant market definition relied upon; the competitor class said to benefit; the mechanism by which disclosure would be used to CSL’s detriment; and why
In the process of considering the information for release, we have consulted CSL directly. CSL has the business expertise, which we have taken into account when making the decision whether to disclose or withhold this specific information. Whilst, CSL cannot take the decision on release of information held by the Scottish Government, our consulting with the entity whose commercial interests are being at stake is a good practice. Please see information below, which was considered and addresses the points you have raised in your request for a review:
Detailed information about the loading, occupancy, and revenue generated by CSL trains is considered commercially sensitive and confidential by CSL. Its publication would create a substantially unfair advantage to CSL’s competitors if sensitive information about its occupancy and operational performance could be leveraged to undermine or undercut its pricing, and marketing strategies.
Albeit we appreciate this is not the reason for your request, publication of the information, would be likely to distort the integrity of CSL’s financial management and pricing strategy.
Disclosure of the information would create a specific unfair prejudice to CSL’s business, and revenue, because:
CSL operates as a commercial business within a strongly competitive market, both with other long distance train operators, airlines, as well as bus and coach operators. Any of CSL’s competitors are not equally subject to the same freedom of information laws – leaving CSL on a less even footing than those organisations if its detailed occupancy, pricing, revenue analysis, and marketing strategy information was published, effectively placing the foundations of CSL’s commercial revenue and pricing strategy in the public.
With the above in mind, the decision to apply section 33(1)(b) was correct. Furthermore, I have also considered if the exemption was applied in a proportionate manner and if application of public test interest was correct.
We recognise the public interest in transparency and accountability of the public sector. I have concluded that that the potential negative impact on commercial interests of CSL outweighs the benefits of disclosure in this case.
Disclosure of this information would not be in the public interest, as it would be likely to cause tangible harm to CSL’s commercial position and, in turn, increase pressure on the level of government subsidy required to sustain its operations.
Publication of sensitive data relating to occupancy, operational performance, pricing, revenue, and marketing strategies would provide competitors mentioned above with valuable commercial insights.
This could enable them to undercut or target CSL’s services more effectively, weakening its market position in an already highly competitive environment.
Such an outcome would directly impact CSL’s revenue generation capability. Any reduction in commercial performance would need to be offset through increased public funding to maintain service levels, thereby placing a greater financial burden on the taxpayer. In this context, disclosure would undermine, rather than serve, the public interest.
For these reasons, withholding the information better serves the public interest by protecting CSL’s financial sustainability and helping to minimise the level of public subsidy required.
With this in mind, the decision to withhold the information under section 33(1)(b) FOISA should be upheld without modification.
Additional matters raised
SRH approves the pricing tiers in CSL’s dynamic pricing model;
This is correct. Seeing that SRH is a separate entity to Transport Scotland and subject to FOISA, this point has no material bearing on the outcome of this review.
on-train upgrade prices are determined on the basis of fare differentials between accommodation types;
Again, the point made has no bearing on the outcome of this review.
at quieter times pricing is modified to reflect unsold capacity, subject to a pricing floor;
As above. In addition, it is our understanding that by quieter time, it is meant ‘time of the year’.
discounted upgrades via Seat Frog were withdrawn in 2024 as not commercially viable;
The decision to introduce this initiative was made by CSL. In general, commercial decisions of this type would require approval of CSL board and not from Transport Scotland or Scottish Ministers.
CSL has undertaken extensive analysis of historic revenue and patronage trends and consumer research; and nine initiatives for rail year 2026/27 will be tracked through governance arrangements between SRH and Transport Scotland.
As mentioned above and below, the information you quote above is recorded in the SRH draft business plan for the current year 2026/27. You will note that the entry related to this information is marked as ‘new’ (for the year 2026/27). The reference made in the letter you quote in your request for a review is consistent with this newly added entry to the SRH draft business plan. It also supports our conclusion that that we do not hold information you have sought in your request in points 1-4.
With the above in mind, the points you have made, have no bearing on the outcome of this review.
For points 5 and 6 of your original request
In this review request you have asked that we: disclose any further responsive information identified;
I have performed additional searches for the information you have requested in addition to performing the searches done originally. I have identified additional information.
With this in mind, in relation to the points 5 and 6 specifically, I have concluded that the original decision should be confirmed, with modifications.
I have provided the additional information for release as an attachment containing the original information that was released to you and added the additional information. If you require me to provide this to you highlighted in an alternative format please do not hesitate to request this.
For point 7 of your original request
In this review request you have asked that we: disclose, in relation to point 7 of my request, the role title, grade and business area of the relevant Transport Scotland post-holder or post-holders, even if personal names are withheld.
In your original request you have asked for any record identifying the Sponsor team. Please note that any staff appointments would be personal details of team members. With this in mind, I uphold the decision that this information would fall under the Data Protection Act and should not be disclosed. With this in mind, the decision to withhold the information should be upheld without modification.
Further to your request for a review, please see as follows: the Transport Scotland SRH Sponsorship team comprises of: Rail Services Sponsorship Team Leader C1 and Rail Services Sponsorship Manager x 2 B3; Rail Services Sponsorship Officer B2; Rail Services Sponsorship Support Officer B1.
Your additional request under this review:
1. conduct fresh searches for the period 25 June 2023 to 12 March 2026;
Response: I can confirm that this request has been met under this review.
1. state which custodians, systems, search terms and date ranges were used;
Response: All information is held on Scottish Government’s eRDM (electronic Record and Data Management system) and in colleagues’ emails and these have been examined when identifying the information, which would fall in the scope of your request.
I have copied all the searches from both searches templates to one document (Annex B).
About FOI
The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.
Detected exemption language
reviewed the annex originally disclosed alongside Transport Scotland’s response; considered the matters raised in your review request, including in the context of the letter of 13 April 2026 from the Chief Executive of Scottish Rail Holdings Limited; reconsidered the application of section 17, section 33(1)(b), and section 38(1)(b) of FOISA; and assessed whether any further information falling within the scope of your request could be identified and disclosed. Taking each of the points in turn: In this review request you have asked that we: reconsider points 1 to 4 in light of both the annex and the SRH letter of 13 April 2026; Point 1 - Information “not held” and material disclosed in the annex In relation to Point 1 of your original request You state that Transport Scotland’s reliance on section 17 of FOISA for points 1 to 4 of your request is inconsistent with the material disclosed in the annex, which you consider responsive or materially proximate. Point 3 - Inconsistency in exemption applied In this review request you have asked that we: issue a corrected refusal notice where information is held but withheld; and The entry in the cover letter, is a sample entry, however I recognise that it would have been clearer to quote a specific exemption, which was used in our response to you. I can confirm that section 30(b)(i) has not been relied upon when considering the information that is in scope of your request and was not applied to any of the withheld information. With this in mind, I can confirm that the text in the refusal notice you refer to, should be replaced with: The information that has been redacted has been clearly marked with the relevant exemption i.e.