CrossCountry voyagers due for a referb?

py_megapixel said:

Oh come on, the North is still stuck with Pacers and you think that the Voyagers need to be scrapped? A refurbishment, fine, but getting rid of them after that small amount of time?

Click to expand...

I find it interesting that Pacers and Voyagers are either loved or hated.

Give me a Pacer any time. Voyagers I prefer to avoid.

oliverpckehoe said:

Pacers are barely comfortable enough for Paignton-Exmouth, let alone Aberdeen-Penzance.

Click to expand...

They are more comfortable than standing with someone's head in your armpit because successive administrations have failed to deal with the capacity issue on XC.

Richard Scott said:

Big problem with voyagers is they were virtually outdated before they were built. By that I mean 4/5 fuel hungry diesel engines, no provision for over head collection. Real retrograde step when in loco hauled days an 86 would take over on the electrified sections. Now have the stupid situation of them running for a couple of hours or more on electrified track (York to Edinburgh/Glasgow for example). They have too few coaches and are too noisy, even my mother comments on how bad they are when using them so must be bad. Whilst we have stock shortages who is going to really want them if they were cascaded due to their fuel consumption (I was told by someone who worked for XC that a Voyager used as much fuel as a 7 coach HST)? They're likely to eek their days out on XC and may end up prematurely scrapped due to lack of ability to run off 25kV overheads?

Click to expand...

I think there's an element of rose tinted specs there - BR certainly used 86s (etc) on Glasgow/ Edinburgh - Carlisle - Wigan - Birmingham services (with 47s etc taking over for the section towards Bristol etc) - but I certainly don't remember any electric XC services through York.

Same with the Glasgow/ Edinburgh - Carlisle - Manchester - Birmingham services (which were diesel operated IIRC, rather than 86 hauled from Scotland to Preston, then swapped for a 47 to Manchester then another 86 picking it up - however nice that'd have been for enthusiasts).

rdeez said:

To be fair, XC's Voyagers really do need it. They really have taken a battering internally over the years. The panels in the vestibules are almost universally battered and scuffed, and just plain dirty in many cases. Carpets threadbare and stained. Loose interior fittings rattling like mad when the engines are idling or at full speed. Tray tables chipped and scratched, which must make effectively cleaning them that much more difficult. The impression you get on boarding pretty much any XC Voyager is of a train unloved and neglected. I know they do some miles, but when you see the same things time and time again it's more than just grime picked up en-route.

Click to expand...

They certainly need a bit of TLC, but then they are trains stabled all over the UK (rather than all going back to a main depot every evening) and a fleet that is very tightly ran (compared to some TOCs who have spare resources off-peak, so time to attend to some of the fleet). The gruelling nature of XC's work, and the long distances between depots means some early starts, late finishes and it's a seven-day-a-week operation (compared to a "commuter" TOC). Never a good time to take a few trains out of the fleet to refurbish them.

pt_mad said:

Because 125 is needed, it just limits things so much as regards second generation DMUs which could be taken on. There's basically nothing going off lease which can do 125. If it was 90 or 95 there may be options. However, it's often the case that minimum journey times are written into franchises and politically, very few stakeholders and communities would really want to see slower journey times to get new longer trains introduced

Click to expand...

True - I've daydreamed in the past about how different XC would have been if the original (Virgin) franchise had gone for a more modest fleet of 100mph trains - since they were taking over from paths designed for Class 47s it'd still have been an upgrade - maybe something like an evolved 158 - in which case it'd be a lot easier now to find additional stock (e.g. cascaded 170s).

By ordering such bespoke stock, they painted the franchise into a corner when it came to finding other self powered trains capable of matching the acceleration and top speed of a Voyager (which wasn't an issue for Virgin but is certainly an issue today!).

py_megapixel said:

I also think that if Voyagers were to be operated in longer formations, the quiet zone should be reinstated. I am fed up of having to listen to the awful soundtrack of some childrens' mobile game above the noise of the engine when I am hoping to have a relaxing journey. I have taken to making more changes on some of my regular journeys to avoid Voyagers when they are likely to be crowded - I have no problem with them when they are empty!

Click to expand...

Good point - for all that delicate enthusiasts complain about the noise of underfloor engines, you don't get much chance to hear them on a busy train with all of the electronic equipment being used for phone calls, games etc!

oliverpckehoe said:

Pacers are barely comfortable enough for Paignton-Exmouth, let alone Aberdeen-Penzance.

Click to expand...

...but how many people do this journey?

I mean, you can spend longer on a London Underground service from West Ruislip to Epping than it takes to do an InterCity journey like Euston - New Street but I don't think it'd be reasonable to expect the same level of comfort on the Central Line.

Whilst XC do run some very long services, the passenger turnover can be very large at big cities - they might have been better off going for stock with doors like 185s in hindsight (though that wouldn't have been popular on here!) - the overall journey time is over-egged because most people are doing shorter journeys like Sheffield - Leeds.

tbtc said:

I think there's an element of rose tinted specs there - BR certainly used 86s (etc) on Glasgow/ Edinburgh - Carlisle - Wigan - Birmingham services (with 47s etc taking over for the section towards Bristol etc) - but I certainly don't remember any electric XC services through York.

Same with the Glasgow/ Edinburgh - Carlisle - Manchester - Birmingham services (which were diesel operated IIRC, rather than 86 hauled from Scotland to Preston, then swapped for a 47 to Manchester then another 86 picking it up - however nice that'd have been for enthusiasts).

Click to expand...

The HSTs stayed HST throughout (obviously), but on Mk2 operated services there were definitely frequent loco changes at Preston from an 86 to a 47 to go off via Manchester to wherever. I suspect these got more common when everything started going via Manchester rather than a couple of trains per day.

Simple answer to the Voyager problem: let the Irish have them, they need extra DMUs

tbtc said:

I think there's an element of rose tinted specs there - BR certainly used 86s (etc) on Glasgow/ Edinburgh - Carlisle - Wigan - Birmingham services (with 47s etc taking over for the section towards Bristol etc) - but I certainly don't remember any electric XC services through York.

Same with the Glasgow/ Edinburgh - Carlisle - Manchester - Birmingham services (which were diesel operated IIRC, rather than 86 hauled from Scotland to Preston, then swapped for a 47 to Manchester then another 86 picking it up - however nice that'd have been for enthusiasts).

Click to expand...

I have photographic evidence of class 86 hauled Edinburgh - South West services on the ECML in the early nineties, but they must have been sporadic and short lived (As you know, at that time Crosscountry services to Edinburgh via the ECML were far more sporadic and pretty much exclusively HST worked) as I never saw such a thing personally.

Changes to diesel haulage at Preston on the "via Manchester" services were far more common though, as noted above.

tbtc said:

Good point - for all that delicate enthusiasts complain about the noise of underfloor engines, you don't get much chance to hear them on a busy train with all of the electronic equipment being used for phone calls, games etc!

Click to expand...

I've begun to wonder if the intrusive noise of the underfloor engined actually encourages noisier behaviour from passengers: I've travelled on a few Voyagers with an engine isolated, and the sound insulation is so effective that it is eerily quiet, and in my experience passengers treat the environment like they would a library: Hushed voices abound.

I appreciate the advantages of distributed traction and the added redundancy of having multiple engines but I do think the railway started to move away from a proper inter-city travelling environment when they started putting diesel engines under the floor of long distance stock.

randyrippley said:

Simple answer to the Voyager problem: let the Irish have them, they need extra DMUs

Click to expand...

Only so long as there's something to replace them with!

adamello said:

would you also want an 80x derivative to be tri-(i know technically still bi)-mode to have a third rail pick up for journeys below basingstoke down to Bournemouth

Click to expand...

I'm not sure anyone would consider it worth the bother, given that the trains can just be self-propelled on diesel power over third rail metals (Though I'm always willing to be surprised by the mysterious ways in which the railway works).

Plus it'd depend on where a hypothetical Crosscountry operator wanted to send them: With about 24 sets you could transfer all North East - South West services to IET operation, replace the HSTs and ensure that no Crosscountry inter-city service operated with less than 5 carriages, without necessitating a wholesale fleet replacement (Though a squadron fleet of 7 and 5-car IETs might achieve the same capacity gains at a reduced leasing/track access cost with fewer total vehicles than a mixed IET/Voyager fleet).

Surely one option for CrossCountry stock-wise, both to increase capacity and provide cover for when or if the Voyagers are refurbished, would be to take on some of LNER's Mk4 stock that's becoming available soon?

It's in good nick (certainly compared to the Voyagers!) and could reach 125mph hauled by a 67.

I'd have thought that the ROSCO would be happy to offer a reasonable deal, given that there appears to be no certain future for a substantial portion of the Mk4s.

That idea would certainly get me back on the train down south!

Would it be able to keep to Voyager timings though?

Re the engines under the floor- I've been on HSTs with one engine out and I've been on Voyagers with one engine out. I know which one I'd prefer! And given that FGW ended up paying me back the whole price of the ticket, while the Voyager arrived on time, I think the operator would have the same preferences as me! This is another advantage of the bi-modes, in that problems with one power system can sometimes be worked around (see GWR's 800s operating on diesel under the wires). As much as I dislike unnecessary diesel running under the wires, I'd rather the train operate as planned than be left standing on a cold wet platform!

Now that we know about the 125mph running in Staffordshire () is there any route currently operated by Voyagers and HSTs which doesn't have some 125 running? They operate effectively as a big X across the country around New Street don't they? South West or South East to North West or North East. The only 'arm' of that which I don't think has any 125 is the South West branch, from Brum down to Penzance. The South East 'arm' has 125 on the GWML west of Reading, the North East 'arm' has all the ECML 125 running, and North West the Staffordshire section.

The Cardiff and Stanstead Airport sections are all Turbostars aren't they?

supervc-10 said:

Would it be able to keep to Voyager timings though?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I doubt it. One of the few good things about a Voyager is its performance!

supervc-10 said:

Now that we know about the 125mph running in Staffordshire () is there any route currently operated by Voyagers and HSTs which doesn't have some 125 running?

Click to expand...

Other than late-evening or early-morning short-routes (e.g. Birmingham to Bristol or so), not that I'm aware of. (Unless of course you're referring to other operators' HSTs too, in which case....)

supervc-10 said:

They operate effectively as a big X across the country around New Street don't they? South West or South East to North West or North East. The only 'arm' of that which I don't think has any 125 is the South West branch, from Brum down to Penzance. The South East 'arm' has 125 on the GWML west of Reading, the North East 'arm' has all the ECML 125 running, and North West the Staffordshire section.

Click to expand...

I do wonder whether it would be acceptable to settle for the 67+Mk4 combo for something like the Manchester to Bristol or Manchester to Southampton/Bournemouth services. The longest sections those have at high speeds are Wolv-Staff and Didcot-Reading. In fact, for the latter, 1 of the 2tph that go to Reading is pathed on (and usually runs on) the 90mph relief lines, so if they reversed the pattern (I'm sure a pathing expert will be along shortly to tell me this isn't doable!) then it wouldn't be an issue. It might lead to slightly increased journey times, but if they cut some of the slack and excessive pathing/calling allowances out of the timetable then they could maintain current times (at the cost of additional performance risk).

supervc-10 said:

The Cardiff and Stanstead Airport sections are all Turbostars aren't they?

Click to expand...

Yes, they're not true XC services really - they're poshed up former RR, ex-CT services.

Interesting comment by the rail minister in the Transport Select Committee yesterday that the forthcoming direct award would address the capacity problems on XC. I’m guessing some more cascaded HSTs, at least in the short term. (Ie 2020-2022).

At least as a temporary fix your plan could work, before any new bi-modes could be sourced. The 2TPH south of Manchester are a bit of a joke being only single unit Voyagers, given how much traffic there is between Manchester and Birmingham. I feel that they could quite happily be 8-car Voyagers. A 67+Mk.4s with more seating, even if only on the Bristol run, could make a huge difference.

Surely the big issue preventing any refurbishment of the crosscountry voyager fleet is the current state of the franchise. As the franchise has been given two short term direct awards is stopping any improvements to the fleet. One would assume that when franchise is put out to tender any bids would include a full fleet refurbishment and / or new (or at least replacement) stock. Unfortunately no one knows when this will be, one thing we do know is that it will be many years away

For what it is worth I don’t mind the voyagers. They are very fast and reliable. I don’t find the seats that bad (on the rare occasion I get a seat on a voyager). I also think it is good they have large toilets for those who need them, I am sure parents with young children find them very useful as well as those with accessibility problems. The obvious problem with them is that 2.5 standard class coaches is not acceptable on intercity services between some of our biggest cities. The current condition of the voyager fleet is testiment to how over used the fleet is.

sprinterguy said:

I have photographic evidence of class 86 hauled Edinburgh - South West services on the ECML in the early nineties, but they must have been sporadic and short lived (As you know, at that time Crosscountry services to Edinburgh via the ECML were far more sporadic and pretty much exclusively HST worked) as I never saw such a thing personally

Click to expand...

Fair enough - as someone from eastern Scotland who has lived most of his life in Yorkshire, I've been up and down the ECML a few times and have no memory of electric traction on any "Cross Country" services - but if it happened then it happened.

supervc-10 said:

At least as a temporary fix your plan could work, before any new bi-modes could be sourced. The 2TPH south of Manchester are a bit of a joke being only single unit Voyagers, given how much traffic there is between Manchester and Birmingham. I feel that they could quite happily be 8-car Voyagers. A 67+Mk.4s with more seating, even if only on the Bristol run, could make a huge difference.

Click to expand...

It's ridiculous that two of the biggest urban areas in the UK are so badly connected - e.g. we have five or six services per hour from Manchester to Leeds (soon to be upgraded to include Mk5s and 5x26m 802s), I've lost count of the number of services from Edinburgh to Glasgow each hour, but when it comes to Manchester to Birmingham the two cities are expected to cope with Voyagers (which have about the same number of seats as a three coach 158) until HS2 arrives in another decade or so!

I guess the difference is that Edinburgh to Glasgow is wholly Scottish and Manchester to Leeds is wholly "northern" but Manchester to Birmingham falls between two separate regions so doesn't have the political clout to make as much noise.

But it's yet another example where the tiny number of people travelling from Manchester to Southampton/ Exeter each hour is more important than the number of people travelling from Manchester to Birmingham - we could stick some eight coach 110mph EMUs on most Manchester - Birmingham services, use the spare Voyagers to double up other services and keep a couple of token direct services a day from Manchester to Southampton/ Exeter but nobody seems interested - as with many other areas, the small number of long distance passengers take priority over the large number of people doing shorter journeys on a regular basis. Frustrating!

XC victim said:

Surely the big issue preventing any refurbishment of the crosscountry voyager fleet is the current state of the franchise. As the franchise has been given two short term direct awards is stopping any improvements to the fleet

Click to expand...

This is the problem - and one which has affected Northern/ EMT/ Wales & Borders etc over the years.

Compare franchises unable to invest in badly needed new stock (Virgin West Coast, South Eastern etc) with those able to do so (the plans for Merseyrail and ScotRail - infrastructure problems in the central belt notwithstanding). It's what politicians would call a "postcode lottery"...

If a TOC isn't compelled to make long term improvements (and, to be fair, a TOC surviving from short term extension to short term extension won't be bothered about making investments that'll take a decade to pay off) then we will be stuck with stagnating franchises.

If privatisation worked properly then we'd have a brand new franchise every (say) seven years or so, we'd have two or three TOC awards each year, each with promises of improvements. We could have a planned timetable spread around the country, so that the "Intercity" TOC in an area introduced their new fleet or increased their frequencies and then the "Provincial" TOC in that area did the same three years later, so there were continual improvements.

Instead, we've had a large chunk of the railway map kept stagnating because the political environment is too uncertain to make new awards or the Government are too busy or nobody wants to have to take the tough long term commitments.

It feels like the privatisation model might work if we actually tried to do it properly - instead we've had a lot of TOCs stuck in a holding pattern since the 2004-2007 period (which seems to have been the last time that a lot of big franchises were properly done).

Do the Voyagers need a refurbishment - yes.

However, any refurbishment wouldn't solve the issues. As has been stated above, my issues with Voyagers are the overcrowding and the cramped seats. I'm 6'4", not tall for this day and age, and unless you get a table seat or a priority seat they are very uncomfortable (painfully so). And no refurbishment is going to reduce the number of seats on board.

BanburyBlue said:

Do the Voyagers need a refurbishment - yes.

However, any refurbishment wouldn't solve the issues. As has been stated above, my issues with Voyagers are the overcrowding and the cramped seats. I'm 6'4", not tall for this day and age, and unless you get a table seat or a priority seat they are very uncomfortable (painfully so). And no refurbishment is going to reduce the number of seats on board.

Click to expand...

It could reduce the thickness of the seats. Swapping the existing seats for ironing boards or Class 800 style seats would increase legroom by about 2". (No, I don't want the latter!)

As for legroom, this is affected more by relative upper/lower leg length than it is by actual height. If you have a proportionally long upper leg you'll have the most issues. But if the seat is raked back (e.g. Class 158) a long lower leg is an issue too, hence why very upright seats e.g. ironing boards are best for legroom even if not thin-backed.

ForTheLoveOf said:

Surely one option for CrossCountry stock-wise, both to increase capacity and provide cover for when or if the Voyagers are refurbished, would be to take on some of LNER's Mk4 stock that's becoming available soon?

It's in good nick (certainly compared to the Voyagers!) and could reach 125mph hauled by a 67.

Click to expand...

How about MK4 coaches with a HST power car at each end? Would solve the need to wait for PRM modified MK3s.

pt_mad said:

How about MK4 coaches with a HST power car at each end? Would solve the need to wait for PRM modified MK3s.

Click to expand...

Are they electrically compatible? And what's the running costs like compared to a 67 plus DVT?

ForTheLoveOf said:

Are they electrically compatible? And what's the running costs like compared to a 67 plus DVT?

Click to expand...

Anything is possible with the right about of money.

ForTheLoveOf said:

Are they electrically compatible? And what's the running costs like compared to a 67 plus DVT?

Click to expand...

Good question.

Do we know how many coaches 67s can pull and reach 125? Is it possible two locos would be needed per set?

Colin M said:

Personally, I'd rather sit on a Pacer but unfortunatley Pacers don't run in Scotland, Voyagers however do.

Click to expand...

oliverpckehoe said:

Pacers are barely comfortable enough for Paignton-Exmouth, let alone Aberdeen-Penzance.

Click to expand...

What the Voyagers need is a cheapo refresh similar to the ongoing Northern refresh. Rip out the current seats and install ironing boards, get shut of one of the bogs and replace it with a cycle rack then where the current cycles racks are install extra seats, reform all Voyagers into seven car formation with any excess reformed into five car, scrub some of the North East - Leeds - Bournemouths (just retain the first and last three of the day) and encourage everyone to change at New Street.

If it was a toss up between a Pacer and a Voyager - I'd opt for the Pacer simply because of the lage windows which give the unit the sense of openess than the claustraphobicness of the Voyager.

NorthernSpirit said:

What the Voyagers need is a cheapo refresh similar to the ongoing Northern refresh. Rip out the current seats and install ironing boards, get shut of one of the bogs and replace it with a cycle rack then where the current cycles racks are install extra seats

Click to expand...

1. There are no windows there.
2. That area is the crumple zone!

If it was a toss up between a Pacer and a Voyager - I'd opt for the Pacer simply because of the lage windows which give the unit the sense of openess than the claustraphobicness of the Voyager.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure there is any train of any kind in the UK that has larger windows than the Voyager? (I do like the Pacer "wall of glass" with low-backed seats, but the windows themselves are smaller and very high up!)

tbtc said:

They certainly need a bit of TLC, but then they are trains stabled all over the UK (rather than all going back to a main depot every evening) and a fleet that is very tightly ran (compared to some TOCs who have spare resources off-peak, so time to attend to some of the fleet). The gruelling nature of XC's work, and the long distances between depots means some early starts, late finishes and it's a seven-day-a-week operation (compared to a "commuter" TOC). Never a good time to take a few trains out of the fleet to refurbish them.

Click to expand...

Undeniably they are intensively used and XC faces challenges that most other TOCs don't have given the nature of their network, but that's all the more reason to give them a refresh. There aren't many TOCs with much spare stock floating around, so they're far from alone there, but I'm sure they could manage to refresh a few coaches at a time and still manage to cover most of the diagrams - albeit with some short formations on admittedly already busy services.

The feeling I get is not that it isn't possible, but rather that XC have no desire or motivation to do it.

On the subject of overcrowding on Voyagers, would it not be feasable to get Bombardier to build new, unpowered vehicles to insert into existing sets? Given the Class 220s have approx 3000bhp(x4 750bhp Cummins QSK) and the 221s 3750bhp(x5 750bhp Cummins QSK) then surely adding an extra 2 cars per unit wouldn't impede greatly on acceleration and/or top speed.

Was there a reason why the XC franchise competition pre 2007 didn't specify an order of extra stock to increase capacity for future years? Other than the five HSTs of course.

pt_mad said:

Was there a reason why the XC franchise competition pre 2007 didn't specify an order of extra stock to increase capacity for future years? Other than the five HSTs of course.

Click to expand...

Let’s not forget that the network had substantially been reduced since Virgin took over in 1997. Destinations like Brighton, Swansea and Liverpool were removed to make it more profitable. I think its likely that the DfT thought that the increase in service frequency and the reduction in service locations would counter the amount of trains. The voyagers were also only 4-5 years old at the time of tendering!

NorthernSpirit said:

What the Voyagers need is a cheapo refresh similar to the ongoing Northern refresh. Rip out the current seats and install ironing boards, get shut of one of the bogs and replace it with a cycle rack then where the current cycles racks are install extra seats, reform all Voyagers into seven car formation with any excess reformed into five car, scrub some of the North East - Leeds - Bournemouths (just retain the first and last three of the day) and encourage everyone to change at New Street.

Click to expand...

Reforming the Voyagers as 7 car trains (Realistically a mix of 6 and 7 cars, if you were to keep 220 and 221 vehicles within their respective classes) would require some additional stock to fill the gap, as there'd only be half as many trains: The class 222 fleet or an order of IETs for NE - SW services would be just shy of meeting that requirement.

I'm not aware that there are any North East - Bournemouth services via Leeds to begin with: There's an hourly Newcastle - Reading service, with some extensions to Southampton, which I'd hate to see removed as it provides the fastest service between Birmingham, Derby, Sheffield and the North East (because it runs via Doncaster, not Leeds), and is generally the quieter of the two North East XC services each hour.

Bletchleyite said:

1. There are no windows there.
2. That area is the crumple zone!

Click to expand...

The cycle racks are at one end of coach D, it's not a crumple zone but you're correct that it is a windowless area.

sprinterguy said:

The cycle racks are at one end of coach D, it's not a crumple zone but you're correct that it is a windowless area.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, I was thinking of the original layout where they are at the Standard class cab end. What is in there now?

Colin M said:

On the subject of overcrowding on Voyagers, would it not be feasable to get Bombardier to build new, unpowered vehicles to insert into existing sets?

Click to expand...

I suspect the jigs will have been dismantled.

It would be better for them to retire to local services or quite simply, scrap!
Or just sort the problem at Stansted and stick them on the Birmingham-Stanstead / Nottingham-Cardiff services.

whhistle said:

I suspect the jigs will have been dismantled.

It would be better for them to retire to local services or quite simply, scrap!
Or just sort the problem at Stansted and stick them on the Birmingham-Stanstead / Nottingham-Cardiff services.

Click to expand...

They aren't suitable for local services. I think it needs to be accepted that they were a worthy "first go" at an InterCity DMU and that they are probably, like some other similar first-generation designs, just destined for early scrapping.

They're nowhere near life expired. There's no reason why a partial replacement and doubling up the remainder wouldn't work, along with the refresh discussed in this thread! Totally agree that they're not suitable for local services. I don't think they'd see the long-term use like HSTs have or anything like that, but they'll be in use for a good 15 years more, at least.