Alstom celebrating 20 years anniversary of Voyager's introduction

[northernbelle]

The XC units are in a dire state internally. It’s very noticeable how the only bit that’s really been touched (other than removing the shop) is First Class and that was pretty much limited to reupholstering the seats.

A thorough mid life refurbishment is what is required by stripping them out and starting again.

Standard class has been reupholstered as well, just using the same moquette as before. It's interesting how not changing the colour scheme inside can have a psychological bearing on how people feel about a train interior - I think XC missed a trick by not moving away from the Virgin interior. Presumably there were whole-life savings to be had from the maintenance contract by keeping the same finishes as the West Coast sets.

Agree a top to bottom rethink of the interior is long overdue.

 

[yorksrob]

They've been out and about for twenty years now.

They are due a proper refurb.

 

[greatvoyager]

They've been out and about for twenty years now.

They are due a proper refurb.

Agreed, frankly something similar to what Avanti have done would do. 20 years is an awfully long time to keep the same look, albeit in Standard Class.

 

[yorksrob]

Standard class has been reupholstered as well, just using the same moquette as before. It's interesting how not changing the colour scheme inside can have a psychological bearing on how people feel about a train interior - I think XC missed a trick by not moving away from the Virgin interior. Presumably there were whole-life savings to be had from the maintenance contract by keeping the same finishes as the West Coast sets.

Agree a top to bottom rethink of the interior is long overdue.

Re-trimming is more of a "facelift".

Given the seats aren't all that comfortable to begin with, I'd say it's time to install some more comfortable seating.

But you're quite right. A change in colour scheme would have provided more of an impact for passengers. The seat backs still look quite worn with painted over scratches etc (I wonder if the cream paint accentuates this).

Agreed, frankly something similar to what Avanti have done would do. 20 years is an awfully long time to keep the same look, albeit in Standard Class.

I must admit, I can't remember the last time I was on an Avanti Voyager !

 

[greatvoyager]

I must admit, I can't remember the last time I was on an Avanti Voyager !

They certainly look much better at 20 years than the XC units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not really something that's anywhere near as bad on the 180s and 185s which share the same engines, with only the 185s being slightly newer than either the 180s or 22xs. Ok, the odd vehicle might seem to run a bit rough (First Class in 180101 was notoriously bad, I wonder if it's ever been sorted?), but it's the exception rather than the rule.

I find 185s far worse, the idle is very rough and the whole body moves with it.

180s I believe have a floating floor which will help.

 

[whoosh]

Let's celebrate 20 years of cooked poo fumes permeating the air and passengers clothes and not doing anything about it! Woo-hoo!

Do the 222s smell? I am interested why they didn’t retrofit the solution on the voyagers.

No, they don't.

I've never thought the 222s carried the Voyager's stench, though I've spent less time travelling on them. They've always felt more spacious inside to me, like the walls don't intrude as much. Whether that's a result of different seats or perhaps different luggage racks, or even different mouldings (I think a slight recess around the 222 windows may give passengers a few extra millimetres), but it all adds up to a much better feel inside.

They don't have panels that hide (221s), or are the same as panels that hide (220), tilting equipment, so they are a bit more spacious inside.

 

[Mollman]

For those wanting to know more about Operation Princess:
https://web.archive.org/web/2012072...VE/INF SRCS 2003/Informed Sources 01 2003.htm

 

[DarloRich]

getting ever closer to being life expired and replaced by nicer trains. Something to celebrate

 

[Mikey C]

After they disabled the tilt on the XC Class 221s, did it make any difference to journey times?

 

[Roast Veg]

Good train. Shame about the pollution they kick out - New Street copes well with 158s, 170s etc but one of them parks up.. god it's horrid.

Being at Birmingham New Street with a migraine was one of the single worst experiences I've ever had in my entire life. The voyagers are almost exclusively to blame.

I've never thought the 222s carried the Voyager's stench, though I've spent less time travelling on them. They've always felt more spacious inside to me, like the walls don't intrude as much. Whether that's a result of different seats or perhaps different luggage racks, or even different mouldings (I think a slight recess around the 222 windows may give passengers a few extra millimetres), but it all adds up to a much better feel inside.

The 222s didn't fix the waste toilet pipe running past the hot exhaust, no. They stink like crazy at times.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

After they disabled the tilt on the XC Class 221s, did it make any difference to journey times?

It would have only have made a difference on Birmingham-Manchester runs, as the Stone-Cheadle Hulme EPS speeds would be unavailable.
Much of the North Staffs route is limited to 85mph, while EPS speeds are up to 125mph over relatively short distances.
Journey times were also affected by conflicts at Norton Bridge, now eliminated by the flyover there.
The odd XC service also runs via Crewe, so they are limited to 110mph Crewe-Stafford.
There was an EPS section in the Cherwell Valley between Banbury and Oxford but I don't think it was ever planned in the timetable, and soon removed.

 

[fgwrich]

The fact that there is a socking great engine underneath! There is only so much you can do with mountings. OK, 80x are much better but they are also much newer.

I would agree that XC haven't looked after them, the WCML ones are in an altogether better state particularly post refurb. It doesn't help their cause that XC is just such a bad TOC.

There is that, but the unit I was sat in this morning was shaking pretty horrendously at every moment in Idle, not making for a comfortable experience. Certainly compared to other underfloor engine DMUs at least, the 22X seems pretty poor in that regard.

I saw the "Voyager 20" unit yesterday. Funny how Alstom were able to tart that unit up but the unit it was coupled to was looking decidedly tired! XC's units are in desperate need of a deep clean and refurb.

Funny enough I’m travelling on the unit now, tarted up is a bit strong. Cleaned maybe, but it’s still looking fairly tatty.

 

[Mikey C]

It would have only have made a difference on Birmingham-Manchester runs, as the Stone-Cheadle Hulme EPS speeds would be unavailable.
Much of the North Staffs route is limited to 85mph, while EPS speeds are up to 125mph over relatively short distances.
Journey times were also affected by conflicts at Norton Bridge, now eliminated by the flyover there.
The odd XC service also runs via Crewe, so they are limited to 110mph Crewe-Stafford.
There was an EPS section in the Cherwell Valley between Banbury and Oxford but I don't think it was ever planned in the timetable, and soon removed.

It would be interesting to know the time deficit as a result of removing the tilt ability, seeing how compromised the Voyagers are by being designed for Tilt (the 221s) with the space taken up inside, and sloping bodysides and the extra weight

 

[Journeyman]

I'm firmly of the opinion that the problems with the Voyagers lie in the way they've been used. That's not the fault of those who designed and built them, who (largely) created a train that reliably does what it was meant to do.

 

[MCR247]

I'm firmly of the opinion that the problems with the Voyagers lie in the way they've been used. That's not the fault of those who designed and built them, who (largely) created a train that reliably does what it was meant to do.

Minus the smelly toilet issue and the appalling use of space I’d largely agree

 

[Journeyman]

Minus the smelly toilet issue

Admittedly that's always been a problem.

and the appalling use of space I’d largely agree

I'd say that isn't the builders' fault - they delivered what Virgin asked for, with the aforementioned abortive plan for "Value" class.

The 222s were much better in that regard.

 

[Bayum]

The 220/221 unfortunately suffered being the elder siblings of the fleet. Some changes and modifications were able to be made with the 222. It’s a shame that the fleet weren’t built to a gauge where they wouldn’t tilt but the huge modernisation programme on the WCML wouldn’t have allowed that.

 

[MCR247]

Admittedly that's always been a problem.

I'd say that isn't the builders' fault - they delivered what Virgin asked for, with the aforementioned abortive plan for "Value" class.

The 222s were much better in that regard.

I’m not necessarily referring to the excessive universal toilets, more the inefficient use of saloon space, as mentioned previously

62 max as built, reduced to 60 for additional luggage space. Increased to 66 by AXC.

Even 66 is ridiculously low for the length of vehicle.

Given that the high density GWR layout (which is a similar idea in terms of the layout, actually with more legroom, and also a 23m vehicle) manages 84 in a full length vehicle or 72 with accessible bog and wheelchair space, it's truly appalling.

 

[Taunton]

Here's the article by Roger Ford from Modern Railways, shortly after their introduction

INFORMED SOURCES January 2003 (archive.org)

Interesting how many of the issues were never cracked, and also how many markets they withdrew from. Also a bit disappointed in Chris Green, 20 years ago, excusing the poor performance principally on global warming. Thought he was better than that.

The proposal for the electric pantograph car, e-Voyager or "Project Thor", is interesting to ponder, it sounded straightforward, but given the extensive problems other conversions of mid-life trains to various multiple/alternative power systems have run into recently, I wonder.

I have never understood how the appalling racket of all the diesel engines in a station has never been overcome, completely drowning out the station PA. Modern engines and alternator systems of that size should be able to generate AC and lighting power on tickover, and not have to be run at high revs when stationary.

 

[43096]

I'm firmly of the opinion that the problems with the Voyagers lie in the way they've been used. That's not the fault of those who designed and built them, who (largely) created a train that reliably does what it was meant to do.

I disagree. They’ve been used on the duties they were designed for throughout their lives and they aren’t suitable for those duties.

 

[Falcon1200]

My first trip on a Voyager was an Edinburgh-Preston crew training run, on the fateful date of 11th September 2001 (Pre-mobile phone, it was not until I got home that I knew of the dreadful events across the Atlantic). I recall being told that a Voyager could never become a complete failure as every car was powered; However some time later one failed near Carstairs and had to be assisted, it transpired that that the two compressor-fitted cars had failed so no air on the unit. I believe they were later modified to eliminate this problem ? The reason behind the failure was stated as salt water inundation at Dawlish some time earlier.

One major advance with Operation Princess was the introduction of an hourly XC service to and from Edinburgh via the ECML, previously there had been just a handful of such services. Subsequently, when GNER almost abandoned Glasgow Central, a two-hourly XC extension from Edinburgh was introduced instead.

 

[yorksrob]

The voyager fleet was essentially a result of the privatisation era failure to electrify. That lies at the heart of the issue.

 

[XAM2175]

The proposal for the electric pantograph car, e-Voyager or "Project Thor", is interesting to ponder, it sounded straightforward, but given the extensive problems other conversions of mid-life trains to various multiple/alternative power systems have run into recently, I wonder.

Without a through-train traction power bus it was never going to be straightforward, as has already been discussed here many times.

 

[greatvoyager]

The voyager fleet was essentially a result of the privatisation era failure to electrify. That lies at the heart of the issue.

And also a lack of bi-mode technology.

 

[Journeyman]

The voyager fleet was essentially a result of the privatisation era failure to electrify. That lies at the heart of the issue.

That's a bit simplistic. Although the core of the XC network was electrified, a huge chunk of it wasn't, and even if efforts had been made to start the job immediately, wiring all of it would have taken a very long time.

And also a lack of bi-mode technology.

That's essentially the issue. I'm not sure a successful bi-mode train could have been delivered at the time.

 

[DB]

And also a lack of bi-mode technology.

Not really. That's been possible for decades - the point is that it has significant downsides in terms of all the compromises which have to be made versus straight EMUs. They have only become accepted now because there's more of a push to reduce emissions, and for decades there has been a complete lack of a coherent plan for wiring the network.

 

[Mat17]

I don't see anything to celebrate.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think Voyagers are bad trains, in fact I think they're fairly decent, but not comparable to what they replaced, nor have they been utilised correctly.

I stand by the statement I made in 2002 - replacing a 7 carriage train, that could often be busy with a 4 coach train, that had a carriage lost to first class, and at least half a coach length of seating lost to bike spaces and a shop, meant 5 or 6 HST carriage worth of people rammed into 2 1/2 carriages.

I did travel regularly from Sheffield to York in the latter days of the HST, but when the Voyagers arrived and I ended up stood up for most journeys wedged into a vestibule, it became just awful and intolerable, I battled on for a while, but in the end I gave up. Since 2005 when I go to York, I travel to Leeds and change for a transpennine train there now... The stood up portion being of much shorter duration, or better still I catch the parliamentary service via Pontefract, takes longer but I get to sit down.

So Voyagers lost my custom. They'd been much better on Transpennine services, at least in 5 car formation.

 

[Journeyman]

I don't see anything to celebrate.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think Voyagers are bad trains, in fact I think they're fairly decent, but not comparable to what they replaced, nor have they been utilised correctly.

I stand by the statement I made in 2002 - replacing a 7 carriage train, that could often be busy with a 4 coach train, that had a carriage lost to first class, and at least half a coach length of seating lost to bike spaces and a shop, meant 5 or 6 HST carriage worth of people rammed into 2 1/2 carriages.

I did travel regularly from Sheffield to York in the latter days of the HST, but when the Voyagers arrived and I ended up stood up for most journeys wedged into a vestibule, it became just awful and intolerable, I battled on for a while, but in the end I gave up. Since 2005 when I go to York, I travel to Leeds and change for a transpennine train there now... The stood up portion being of much shorter duration, or better still I catch the parliamentary service via Pontefract, takes longer but I get to sit down.

So Voyagers lost my custom. They'd been much better on Transpennine services, at least in 5 car formation.

None of these things are the fault of the builders, though. They built what was ordered, and it worked. The utilisation and train lengths were the fault of Virgin and the DfT.

 

[Mat17]

You'll note I did say that, it's the way they were utilised that was the issue.