CrossCountry voyagers due for a referb?

Bletchleyite · 10 May 2019

supervc-10 said:
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.

They're not life expired, but they are of a very poor overall design - toilet issues, internal system reliability issues (particularly reservations), very worn interiors (so you'd at least want to replace the seat frames), very inefficient interior layout, polluting older diesel engines, diesel under the wires etc.

They would be vaguely workable on Liverpool-Notts (but 185s would be better) or on the North Wales Coast (but Mk4s would be better)...beyond that, a modern bi-mode would be far more use and based on recent figures not necessarily cost all that much more to lease.

RailUK Forums

Grumpy · 10 May 2019

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?

Why do you need Bombardier to build new coaches? Does it really matter if they look different? Thus could not CAF run off a few more MK5's and slot them in? I appreciate they would need wiring to be compatible with the existing train systems.

tbtc · 10 May 2019

rdeez said:
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.

Don't get me wrong, as someone who used to use them for his daily commute, I'd love a refurb, but things are so desperate that Arriva took the two "spare" cabs from Virgin so that they could reform five coach Voyagers into (a marginally higher of) four coach ones.

At least with other TOCs, they can find something else to cover for a 75mph DMU or a 100mph EMU, but XC face the problem that their timetables are specifically written for Voyagers so there's nothing else you can simple drop onto those services and keep up with the timings (unless you want to spend large sums upgrading four coach HSTs to modern standards - an eight coach one wouldn't keep pace with current Voyager timings).

Bletchleyite said:
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.

I'd reluctantly agree - maybe one day we'll look back at these "short lived" units as the price worth paying for the lessons that we learnt when building the 80xs?

The bottom line is that, beyond EMR/ XC/ VTWC, there's no real obvious "home" for the 220/221/222s - they'd be wasted on "local" services, given how few seats they have (and the space wasted by crumple zones on services that don't have any 125mph running) - they're probably going to be run into the ground on XC and then replaced by something new.

Mordac · 10 May 2019

tbtc said:
Don't get me wrong, as someone who used to use them for his daily commute, I'd love a refurb, but things are so desperate that Arriva took the two "spare" cabs from Virgin so that they could reform five coach Voyagers into (a marginally higher of) four coach ones.

At least with other TOCs, they can find something else to cover for a 75mph DMU or a 100mph EMU, but XC face the problem that their timetables are specifically written for Voyagers so there's nothing else you can simple drop onto those services and keep up with the timings (unless you want to spend large sums upgrading four coach HSTs to modern standards - an eight coach one wouldn't keep pace with current Voyager timings).

I'd reluctantly agree - maybe one day we'll look back at these "short lived" units as the price worth paying for the lessons that we learnt when building the 80xs?

The bottom line is that, beyond EMR/ XC/ VTWC, there's no real obvious "home" for the 220/221/222s - they'd be wasted on "local" services, given how few seats they have (and the space wasted by crumple zones on services that don't have any 125mph running) - they're probably going to be run into the ground on XC and then replaced by something new.

They could perhaps be reformed into longer units, and then you'd only need to bin some driving coaches.

driver_m · 10 May 2019

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? 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.

Take it from some one who regularly sits at the front of a 221. Two unpowered cars would drastically affect their performance. Lose power in 2 voyager coaches and they can’t tilt either. You can also forget seeing 125mph and almost certainly end up with the other engines derating.

CM · 10 May 2019

Grumpy said:
Why do you need Bombardier to build new coaches? Does it really matter if they look different? Thus could not CAF run off a few more MK5's and slot them in? I appreciate they would need wiring to be compatible with the existing train systems.

Going by that logic you'd be as well saving the money and just stuffing some Mk1s into the units....

trebor79 · 10 May 2019

Virgin really messed up when they bought the Voyagers for XC. If they'd bought 7 or 8 coach units they might have been ok.
I hated them travelling between Durham and Bristol on a regular basis. Cramped, stinky toilet, forget any chance of a seat unless you had one reserved, and almost guaranteed to have to turf someone out of the reservation.
I can remember on one occasion the guard announced at New Street that the train wouldn't depart until some people got off as it was "dangerously overcrowded". I don't think anyone did and a few minutes later he shut the doors and off we went.
That's was when they were first introduced, I can't imagine what it must be like now with the ever greater passenger numbers.
Best journey I ever did was one of the last times I did it, when to my amazement a 47 with a rake of Mk2s rolled into Temple Meads. The loco hauled and HST services were never as badly crowded as the Voyagers.
I'd reform them into longer trains and then buy something else to effect a partial replacement.

cjmillsnun · 10 May 2019

trebor79 said:
Virgin really messed up when they bought the Voyagers for XC. If they'd bought 7 or 8 coach units they might have been ok.
I hated them travelling between Durham and Bristol on a regular basis. Cramped, stinky toilet, forget any chance of a seat unless you had one reserved, and almost guaranteed to have to turf someone out of the reservation.
I can remember on one occasion the guard announced at New Street that the train wouldn't depart until some people got off as it was "dangerously overcrowded". I don't think anyone did and a few minutes later he shut the doors and off we went.
That's was when they were first introduced, I can't imagine what it must be like now with the ever greater passenger numbers.
Best journey I ever did was one of the last times I did it, when to my amazement a 47 with a rake of Mk2s rolled into Temple Meads. The loco hauled and HST services were never as badly crowded as the Voyagers.
I'd reform them into longer trains and then buy something else to effect a partial replacement.

Virgin wanted larger trains. The DfT said no. Virgin didn’t buy any trains. They are leased.

supervc-10 · 10 May 2019

I thought that was the Pendos? Or was it both?

Either way, it's completely ridiculous.

trebor79 · 10 May 2019

"Procured" then.
Wasn't it all to do with Mr Bransons idea for increased frequency and clock face timetables? Or perhaps that was just the Virgin spin on things.
Why would the DfT have prevented them from having longer trains, given that's what they were replacing? Doesn't make sense.

quantinghome · 10 May 2019

trebor79 said:
Why would the DfT have prevented them from having longer trains, given that's what they were replacing? Doesn't make sense.

After the disaster of Operation Princess the franchise was turned into a management contract. Apparently it was at that stage that DfT (or SRA?) refused a request for additional carriages. I suspect the cost of leasing additional new carriages was significant compared to the accounting cost of the legacy XC fleet in BR days (given their age they must have had a pretty low annual depreciation) and DfT didn't want to throw good money after bad.

trebor79 · 10 May 2019

Ah that makes more sense. The blame still lies with beardy for getting the wretched machines in the first place!

GrimShady · 11 May 2019

As others have said send them to Ireland or the scrap yard.

Wasn't the original plan for Class 67 PCs and unpowered coaches from Bombardier?

Bletchleyite · 11 May 2019

GrimShady said:
As others have said send them to Ireland or the scrap yard.

Wasn't the original plan for Class 67 PCs and unpowered coaches from Bombardier?

For the 220s yes, though the coaches would have been a single ended set of Voyager coaches so little difference other than noise.

Chester1 · 11 May 2019

tbtc said:
Don't get me wrong, as someone who used to use them for his daily commute, I'd love a refurb, but things are so desperate that Arriva took the two "spare" cabs from Virgin so that they could reform five coach Voyagers into (a marginally higher of) four coach ones.

At least with other TOCs, they can find something else to cover for a 75mph DMU or a 100mph EMU, but XC face the problem that their timetables are specifically written for Voyagers so there's nothing else you can simple drop onto those services and keep up with the timings (unless you want to spend large sums upgrading four coach HSTs to modern standards - an eight coach one wouldn't keep pace with current Voyager timings).

I'd reluctantly agree - maybe one day we'll look back at these "short lived" units as the price worth paying for the lessons that we learnt when building the 80xs?

The bottom line is that, beyond EMR/ XC/ VTWC, there's no real obvious "home" for the 220/221/222s - they'd be wasted on "local" services, given how few seats they have (and the space wasted by crumple zones on services that don't have any 125mph running) - they're probably going to be run into the ground on XC and then replaced by something new.

Mordac said:
They could perhaps be reformed into longer units, and then you'd only need to bin some driving coaches.

The Meridians will start going off lease from 2022. While they cannot be paired with Voyagers they can be paired with each other to make sure every service has at least 8 coaches on core sections. I think there is a limit to how many Voyager coaches can be put together, maybe 7 coaches. Someone with technical expertise can explain why!

pt_mad · 11 May 2019

All this makes me wonder whether the rolling stock leasing company should have just been the DFT. TOCs pay private firms to lease trains which would probably have to remain on the route even if the leasing company went bankrupt. The trains are the main asset so why not nationalise their ownership rather than having to pay private firms to rent them? Anyway off topic just a thought that occured when someone mentioned high leasing costs.

TheNekomancer · 11 May 2019

I agree that Voyagers should be longer, during peak times, they can get so cramped. During one trip I made to Newcastle, the train was so packed that it was like a tin of sardines, and people were all pressed right against each other, I was forced to stand in a doorway which kept closing on me, I am not claustrophobic but it was such an uncomfortable experience. I don't know what the logistics would entail though.

43096 · 11 May 2019

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

None for any practical purpose. The 67s have never been fully cleared for 125mph operation in the UK.

route:oxford · 11 May 2019

Chester1 said:
I think there is a limit to how many Voyager coaches can be put together, maybe 7 coaches. Someone with technical expertise can explain why!

How are you calculating that? I've definitely been on a double voyager, and this Video on Youtube shows a triple, 15 coach Voyager:-

GrimShady · 11 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
For the 220s yes, though the coaches would have been a single ended set of Voyager coaches so little difference other than noise.

Lets not forget the smelly toilets mainly caused by the exhaust system. I thought the original plan for was for two single cab 67 derivatives at either end of the train. I seem to remember a drawing of such at train in RAIL around the late 90s in GNER livery.

trebor79 · 11 May 2019

pt_mad said:
All this makes me wonder whether the rolling stock leasing company should have just been the DFT. TOCs pay private firms to lease trains which would probably have to remain on the route even if the leasing company went bankrupt. The trains are the main asset so why not nationalise their ownership rather than having to pay private firms to rent them? Anyway off topic just a thought that occured when someone mentioned high leasing costs.

Ah, but then the cost of building them would be counted in public debt. Hence the involvement of ROSCOs and SPVs like Agility Trains.

Bletchleyite · 11 May 2019

GrimShady said:
Lets not forget the smelly toilets mainly caused by the exhaust system.

How's it caused by the exhaust system? I thought it was caused by the aircon intake being by the bog vent? A bit like Mk3 brake stink was caused by said intake being too close to the wheels.

I thought the original plan for was for two single cab 67 derivatives at either end of the train. I seem to remember a drawing of such at train in RAIL around the late 90s in GNER livery.

No, it was a 67 on one end (single-cab) and a DTSO on the other end. Very similar in concept to the TPE Mk5s.

londonmidland · 11 May 2019

I’ve noticed a lot of people complain about the noise from the underfloor engines but the question is, is it really *that* loud?

I appreciate the rattling and vibrations from it but personally I find 185s and 158s to be just as noisy, if not noisier.

I’ve noticed Meridians don’t suffer with as much noise or vibration from the engines, despite them being identical to Voyagers.

Perhaps it’s better padding/soundproofing which could be applied to the Voyagers if/when they next get refurbished?

trebor79 · 11 May 2019

158s are pretty noisy. 185s less so, especially when running in eco mode and you happen to be sat in the coach with the shut down engine!
Voyagers are noisy, I remember being disappointed at how noisy they were when first introduced, about the same as a 158 to my ears. I'd expected a significant improvement.

It s not terrifically loud, but I hate listening to engines droning away for hours on a long journey. Definitely a retrograde step comapred with the relative peace an quiet of an HST or hauled stock.

Bletchleyite · 11 May 2019

I don't find Voyagers noisy myself, it's more of a background rumble which could easily be track noise on a less well-insulated unit. 800s and for that matter 230s are quieter, though. 15x are very noisy - much as I love 158s I declined to return from Exeter via Salisbury the other week because my ears were rattling.

Bevan Price · 11 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
They're not life expired, but they are of a very poor overall design - toilet issues, internal system reliability issues (particularly reservations), very worn interiors (so you'd at least want to replace the seat frames), very inefficient interior layout, polluting older diesel engines, diesel under the wires etc.

They would be vaguely workable on Liverpool-Notts (but 185s would be better) or on the North Wales Coast (but Mk4s would be better)...beyond that, a modern bi-mode would be far more use and based on recent figures not necessarily cost all that much more to lease.

Sorry, but I think 4 coach Voyagers would be a bad idea on either North Wales or Liverpool/Nottingham - they just do not have enough standard class seating, and their door layouts are less than ideal to give short dwell times at busy stations.
Typical standard class seats (from a NR document dated 2011 that used to be on line)
Class 158 (2 coach) : 138
156 (2 coach): 150
185 (3 coach): 154
220, 221 (4 coach) : 160
221 (5 coach) : 220

and, for comparison:
170/5 (2 coach with no 1st class): 122
175 (2 coach): 118
175 (3 coach): 186

Bletchleyite · 11 May 2019

I was making the assumption that 8-car sets would be used on Liv-Notts, giving a capacity similar to a 6-car 185 formation. Single sets of either do not suit.

Bevan Price · 11 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I was making the assumption that 8-car sets would be used on Liv-Notts, giving a capacity similar to a 6-car 185 formation. Single sets of either do not suit.

You would need to lengthen platforms at Liverpool South Parkway, Widnes, Warrington Central, and possibly Oxford Road before you could use 8 car Voyagers -- and what would be the fuel bill?
5 coach Voyagers might just work if they got rid of 1st class, which might make space for another 30 to 40 standard class seats, giving a capacity of 250-260 standard class.

Jozhua · 11 May 2019

supervc-10 said:
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!

Last time I travelled on an XC HST from Exeter, it broke down just outside Birmingham! The rear engine had already broken down at Exeter and the train was running on one so the journey was a bit slower but at least we were making some progress...

Anyway, I think they diverted us to another station, which we stopped at for a while before it attempted to pull out, only achieving about 1mph and moving a couple hundred meters up the line bfore stopping. After another 30 minutes of banging it with a spanner we had to reverse and they ran one of the Manchester trains via this station to pick us all up and get us into Birmingham. The joys of XC never cease to amaze me :lol:

Master29 · 11 May 2019

Although internally very worn now but no surprise given the mileage of these near 20 year old trains I seem to get the impression mechanically they do a very good job given their mileage. Please correct me if I`m wrong as bashing Voyagers does seem the norm just about everywhere.

CrossCountry voyagers due for a referb?

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member