DarloRich
Veteran Member
So do the Voyagers just need a fGW HST-esque "rip it all out and start again" interior rebuild?
Potentially. Plus some damping on the engine rafts/mounts and transfer to services i don't have to use
So do the Voyagers just need a fGW HST-esque "rip it all out and start again" interior rebuild?
Potentially. Plus some damping on the engine rafts/mounts and transfer to services i don't have to use
Funny you mention that - I find that once they get going the engines aren't disruptive at all, it's more of a low rumble not hugely different from track noise on older, poorly insulated LHCS like Mk2s. If you want noisy engines, try Class 158 whine or Class 150/156 roar, or indeed Pacer unhealthy wheezing.
I've seen a lot of people who aren't too keen on the Voyagers. Aside from them being quite a nice looking design on the outside, it seems that these trains just aren't very well received by passengers. Some complaints include...
- They're very small for the routes they serve which can lead to overcrowding, especially Aberdeen to Penzance.
- They have a few toilet problems with smell that spreads throughout the train and maybe cause vomiting (they are nicknamed "Vomiters" sometimes)
- They, being Diesel Electric Multiple Units, are noisy and cause uncomfortable vibrations for passengers when they engines are right under the carriage floors.
- Maybe the care taken by CrossCountry and Bombardier could be less than it is, though I don't travel on XC Voyagers so I can't judge really.
Considering the stock that they replaced had about eight to ten coaches per train in contrast to the smaller four and five carriage Voyagers, along with being more comfortable in comparison if you go by some passenger surveys, it makes me beg the question on if the Voyagers are really fit for purpose... or if maybe they're just on the wrong routes. Think about it, maybe some of the technical issues may be more bearable if you only had to put up with them on shorter journeys rather than maybe being crazy enough to ride the trip from Aberdeen to Penzance.
What do you think? Are the Voyagers fit for purpose, or are they actually just on the wrong kind of routes? If you think the latter maybe give me some routes they might be best suited for. Take note that I have never ridden on CrossCountry. Thanks.
You'd think so. It's called the ICE.
But then Germany always took a different approach to us.
That has the benefit of electric traction, continued lack of which in the UK is the real problem.
OThat basically looks like an order for bi-modal units would be sensible (given that some services (i.e. Newcastle/Scotland to Reading) would involve quite a lot of under wire running.
You'd think so. It's called the ICE.
But then Germany always took a different approach to us.
DB have some ICE diesel units and in all honesty the ride quality is no different to a Voyager / Meridian.
The interior is far, far better, though.
The interior is far, far better, though.
I think they would have been better used by the new (current) ScotRail franchise instead of short HSTs. Put the ex-GWR HSTs back on CrossCountry where the capacity is needed, in full 7 or 8 coach formations, and use the Voyager's few good points to maximum benefit in Scotland, i.e. superior acceleration and braking (plenty of power over the hills and quicker getaways from the higher number of station stops) and power doors. And those big windows of course.
IIRC it is intended to fit power doors to the HSTs for ScotRail, but obviously with the Voyagers already having them it's a further benefit.
.....At the risk of adding something new to a "Voyagers aren't very good" thread, I wonder why so many enthusiasts accept the 1/3 2/3 door positions on TPE (due to the large number of people doing city-to-city journeys) but any discussion of XC stock replacement always requires end doors?....
.....Is it nosier than a 222? Because I don't see the same complaints about their underfloor engines....
.....Which stock has been introduced over the past thirty years where seats fully line up with windows?....
I'm sure that's in part due to the more generous loading gauge that German railways have.
It may be heresy, but dare I challenge the current orthodoxy that trains running beyond the wires must be either bi-mode or diesel powered under the wires.
This has its roots in 2 factors:-
Neither of these need be true. Modern multiple units are coupled and uncoupled in stations requiring no more manpower than the train crew where these are portion worked.
- British rail's belated recognition that, with the technology of the time, locomotive changes imposed a large manpower cost.
- The view within the D[aft]FT that locomotive attachment/detachment could not be guaranteed to take less than 9 minutes.
With modern technology applied to locomotive couplings it should be possible for a train to approach a waiting locomotive under permissive block and the coupling to be achieved quickly.
Not a bad shout mind you. Practically validates the main point - quicker acceleration on the scots lines which they can do, have them running in a 5 car formation, they wouldn't look bad at all in the scotsrail livery either
The width is, but that's no reason not to select higher quality materials and provide more legroom.
In any case it's not *much* wider, maybe 10-12cm, and most of it goes on a wider aisle.
...the way that the UIC gauges are defined creates a far greater reduction in permissible width with increasing length, than is initially the case with the BR gauge. Thus while the short-wheelbase four-wheeler goods wagon of yesteryear would be a good foot wider on the mainland than here, the standard 26m-long UIC passenger coach has to be no more than 2,825mm wide. For the imperially minded that is 9ft 3.5in, which is (surprise) exactly the same overall width over door handles on a BR Mk 1 coach.
With modern technology applied to locomotive couplings it should be possible for a train to approach a waiting locomotive under permissive block and the coupling to be achieved quickly.
I hadn't come across that before, it's very funny. It may as well say 'no trains originally ordered by Virgin and built in Belgium since 2000'.Ah, but the Scots are far too canny to have Voyagers foisted upon them:
ScotRail Franchise Invitation to Tender
...
Service Type Inter-city
Central Belt Perth/Stirling/Dundee/Aberdeen and Inverness
Aberdeen Inverness
Rolling stock minimum attributes
...
Shoulder room and leg room should not be reduced from that currently provided on each route
...
Toilet provision on board which is no less than currently provided on each route and that avoids smell being noticeable in seated areas
It doesn't help though, that we have taper profiles on stock that no longer tilts. Or stock that never has and never will tilt! :roll:So the standard go-everywhere UIC coach is not much wider at all! However, some German and Austrian stock (possibly also Swiss) is a bit wider and the reduced number of networks they can use can be seen on the Railway Administration matrix near the solebar.
Shoulder room and leg room should not be reduced from that currently provided on each route
So the standard go-everywhere UIC coach is not much wider at all! However, some German and Austrian stock (possibly also Swiss) is a bit wider and the reduced number of networks they can use can be seen on the Railway Administration matrix near the solebar.
It doesn't help though, that we have taper profiles on stock that no longer tilts. Or stock that never has and never will tilt! :roll:
The only other train type I get the same buzz off is the equally nasty 180.
One of the nice features of Desiros is that there is almost no taper. That said, the new Desiro body is tapered but isn't unpleasant.
Would the cancelled "eVoyager" project have improved capacity?
Yes as it would have added a load of extra coaches.
One of the problems with it was the need (IIRC) for 2 pantograph coaches for any unit longer then 5 coaches. As such I think that we would have seen:
34x5 coach 220's with XC
36x5 coach 221's (including use of the stored end coaches)
8x9 coach 221's (probably mostly with ICWC but a few could have gone to XC)
That would have required 86 pantograph coaches.
If it were possible to run 12 coach trains on the routes which see pairs of 221's on ICWC we could have seen them with an extra pantograph coach added to each unit to make the total 106 pantograph coaches.
However all of that would have been less than most minimum orders, so unless the 222's were also included and/or more units were going to be ordered the cost per coach would have been fairly high.