CrossCountry voyagers due for a referb?

jagardner1984 · 12 May 2019

What’s the shortest platforms a voyager encounters ?. Surely the solution once the meridians become available is to reconfigure all sets to that size plus a coach or two, with SDO ? The meridians on EMT currently use this often, as I recall. The problem with coupling is surely that a huge amount of useful room is lost to driving cabs, crumple zones etc.

This would reclaim that space. Reduce the proportion of first class accommodation. Significantly increase capacity. Perhaps allow internal modifications to remove toilets, increase capacity, deal with some of the issues mentioned here.

In a logical world with so much under the wires operation, we’d all agree Class 80x Series (or some other bi-mode) was our long distance train of choice for this decade. Similarly one standard Commuter EMU and commuter DMU. DfT would be directly ordering a thousand of them. Economies of scale would push the prices right down. In 20 years we wouldn’t be scratching our heads working out where to put several uneconomical micro fleets of 10/20 trains. Trains would be built with future reconfiguration in mind (ie carriages from East Coast trains units in future being used to lengthen GWRs units, or similar). In a world of environmental concern, simply chopping them up and putting large unrecyclable sections of them in landfill, will I think come under increasing scrutiny. Mechanically sound trains should not be getting scrapped due to poor internal design until lots of other options are exhausted.

But as we know, logic has never been DfT’s strong point.

RailUK Forums

GrimShady · 12 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
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.

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.

Many posts on here stating that's it's the proximity of the retention tank and exhaust causing the contents to heat up. The position of the air intake probably doesn't help matters either similar to the Pendolino issue.

Jozhua · 12 May 2019

Yeah come to think of it the Voyagers really smell like poop don't they, like actually really quite badly smell of poop :lol:

greyman42 · 13 May 2019

Master29 said:
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.

I'm no fan of Voyagers from a passenger experience point of view, but the are very reliable.

oliverpckehoe · 13 May 2019

jagardner1984 said:
What’s the shortest platforms a voyager encounters ?. Surely the solution once the meridians become available is to reconfigure all sets to that size plus a coach or two, with SDO ? The meridians on EMT currently use this often, as I recall. The problem with coupling is surely that a huge amount of useful room is lost to driving cabs, crumple zones etc.

This would reclaim that space. Reduce the proportion of first class accommodation. Significantly increase capacity. Perhaps allow internal modifications to remove toilets, increase capacity, deal with some of the issues mentioned here.

In a logical world with so much under the wires operation, we’d all agree Class 80x Series (or some other bi-mode) was our long distance train of choice for this decade. Similarly one standard Commuter EMU and commuter DMU. DfT would be directly ordering a thousand of them. Economies of scale would push the prices right down. In 20 years we wouldn’t be scratching our heads working out where to put several uneconomical micro fleets of 10/20 trains. Trains would be built with future reconfiguration in mind (ie carriages from East Coast trains units in future being used to lengthen GWRs units, or similar). In a world of environmental concern, simply chopping them up and putting large unrecyclable sections of them in landfill, will I think come under increasing scrutiny. Mechanically sound trains should not be getting scrapped due to poor internal design until lots of other options are exhausted.

But as we know, logic has never been DfT’s strong point.

Voyagers use SDO on some parts of the CrossCountry network. I remember on 8+ car services through Totnes heading northbound using SDO, although I have no idea how they implemented it.

I'm also surprised at the lack of mentions for the Meridians. Being very similar to the 220s they could theoretically be added with very little modification. With the possibility of new trains on EMT services it could be feasible to operate 222s, with 4 and 5 car sets in multiple to form 8-10 cars and maybe even 11-12 cars using 7 car sets. Given the likelihood of new trains for East Midlands Trains (or whatever Abellio call themselves) this is just wishful thinking.

Jozhua · 13 May 2019

Wonder what peoples thoughts are on what a hypothetical refurb might look like?

Personally, I'd probably tear out the whole interior and work on making it more spacious! Probably make the seats thinner and a more basic design that's less likely to catch dust and grime, but still have high headrests, fold down tables, etc. Something similar to most modern airline seats.

Also would lower the luggage rack to make it more possible to store larger items in, with small barriers at the bottom perhaps to reduce the risk of said larger items falling out! This would free up a lot of space in the cabin, between the seats and in the luggage racks so they can be used for larger items.

Would reduce the size of the tables (along with slightly thinner seats) to allow for an extra row or two, and increase the legroom an inch or so between the seats so people are less inclined to take up two for their legs! Also work towards getting rid of the windowless seats, or at least reducing their severity.

Obviously the toilet situation isn't ideal either, they could do with a full refit!

Fold down seats in the vestibules would make a massive difference as well I'm sure, especially for people only on for one stop.

Some nice adaptive LED lighting to brighten up the cabin in the day, and create a softer, dimmer light and night, similar to modern planes would be good.

Be interested to hear everyone else's thoughts, especially people who may have experience/knowledge in this kind of stuff!

Bletchleyite · 13 May 2019

I like the sound of most of that. Seat-wise I'd go for the FISA LEAN or Grammer IC3000 (or E3000, if done on the cheap) assuming it could be certified for 125mph. Though presently isn't the only option the Class 800 abomination? That said, that seat (with the newer design of base cushion) would give substantial increased legroom or increased capacity, so not everything is bad.

Not tip-up seats, though, they just get in the way.

Japan0913 · 13 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Though presently isn't the only option the Class 800 abomination?

What kind of measures is decommissioning?　Why do you say that?　
You can only propose a solution to the UK government that has adopted class 800.
It is not good to blame unilaterally in public.

Bletchleyite · 13 May 2019

Japan0913 said:
What is the plan?　Why do you say that?　
You can complain about the country that adopted Class 800.
It is not good to blame unilaterally in public.

The seats in the Class 800 are rubbish. They are, I understand, the only seat presently certified for 125mph use in the UK.

Why do you take offence so much as if we are criticising Japan for these lousy seats, particularly given that (a) they were chosen by the DfT, and (b) they are Spanish made anyway?

Japan0913 · 13 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
The seats in the Class 800 are rubbish. They are, I understand, the only seat presently certified for 125mph use in the UK.

Why do you take offence so much as if we are criticising Japan for these lousy seats, particularly given that (a) they were chosen by the DfT, and (b) they are Spanish made anyway?

Also, are you talking about seating again！
You should complain about the DFT that has hired a Spanish manufacturer's seat.

Why do you say I sinned?　
Are you qualified to criticize Japan?

GrimShady · 13 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
The seats in the Class 800 are rubbish. They are, I understand, the only seat presently certified for 125mph use in the UK.

Why do you take offence so much as if we are criticising Japan for these lousy seats, particularly given that (a) they were chosen by the DfT, and (b) they are Spanish made anyway?

Makes me wonder how we survived also those years since the 70s on seats that weren't certified for 125mph.

DfT are morons.

Bletchleyite · 13 May 2019

Japan0913 said:
Also, are you talking about seating again！
You should complain about the DFT that has hired a Spanish manufacturer's seat.

I don't care how the seats got there, I care that they are not very comfortable. And it's likely they would be used in any Voyager refurb.

Why do you say I sinned?　
Are you qualified to criticize Japan?

You really do take offence very easily. I'm not criticising Japan, I'm criticising the seats fitted to the Class 80x trains. I don't give a monkey's where they are made, just that they are not very good.

I'd suggest being more objective - a slight on a product that happens to be made by a Japanese company (the 80x) is not a slight on the entire country of Japan. Would you also get upset if I pointed out that I used to have a Sony stereo and it was of slightly poor quality compared with what I traditionally expected of that brand?

Japan0913 · 14 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I don't care how the seats got there, I care that they are not very comfortable. And it's likely they would be used in any Voyager refurb.

You really do take offence very easily. I'm not criticising Japan, I'm criticising the seats fitted to the Class 80x trains. I don't give a monkey's where they are made, just that they are not very good.

I'd suggest being more objective - a slight on a product that happens to be made by a Japanese company (the 80x) is not a slight on the entire country of Japan. Would you also get upset if I pointed out that I used to have a Sony stereo and it was of slightly poor quality compared with what I traditionally expected of that brand?

You are persistent.
It is no longer a minor criticism.
As you said, if it is treated as rubbish again and again,
Anger is crawling more and more.

Japan0913 · 14 May 2019

In the appropriate place (manufacturer, DfT, operator)
Corporate claims processing is important.
If you protest correctly, it will improve. Otherwise, it will be difficult to sell next.

Jozhua · 14 May 2019

Is there a reason seats have to be rated for certain speeds?

Seems kind of irrelevant to be honest. Especially considering all of the rubbish seating on older units *ahem* Bus seats on pacers *ahem*

GrimShady · 14 May 2019

Jozhua said:
Is there a reason seats have to be rated for certain speeds?

Seems kind of irrelevant to be honest. Especially considering all of the rubbish seating on older units *ahem* Bus seats on pacers *ahem*

I can't think of one high speed collision in UK where seating was criticized. Why is it all of a sudden seats like IC70 aren't safe anymore?

Jozhua · 14 May 2019

GrimShady said:
I can't think of one high speed collision in UK where seating was criticized. Why is it all of a sudden seats like IC70 aren't safe anymore?

Personally, I think it's more sensible to avoid collisions in the first place...

Obviously seats should have to be to a certain standard of strength, fire resistance and safety but I don't really see how speed makes much of a difference. Bad seats involved in a 75mph crash/fire/derailment or 125mph crash would probably have a similar effect on survivability, especially when it comes to fire!

Jonny · 14 May 2019

GrimShady said:
I can't think of one high speed collision in UK where seating was criticized. Why is it all of a sudden seats like IC70 aren't safe anymore?

I heard somewhere it was things like protruding ends and table edges, etc... That's assuming that the seats stay anchored to the floor. I also understand that armrests (where provided) can be helpful in a roll situation. Also there is the problem of the passenger behind being launched into the one in front, then after that there is the risk of serious neck injuries from the head being thrown forward and then back.

Bletchleyite · 14 May 2019

Japan0913 said:
You are persistent.
It is no longer a minor criticism.

No, it's indeed not a minor criticism. It is a very poor design of seat by Fainsa, and a very poor choice of seat by DfT. It completely ruins what is otherwise a fairly decent unit.

As you said, if it is treated as rubbish again and again

Then maybe someone might listen and do something about it? (It seems they have, with the new moquette-covered replacement cushions which are significantly less uncomfortable, not that that's much of an accolade. They are definitely a different design, given that I used an original 800 near enough on day one so I am comparing brand new with brand new).

Anger is crawling more and more.

I think you need to reconsider what you get angry about; I still don't understand why you consider it a slight against Japan that I criticise the product for a seat that is made in Spain and was specified by someone in London, neither of which, when I last checked, were in or anywhere near Japan.

Indeed this subthread isn't even about Class 800s (other than as the aside that they may well make reasonable replacements for Voyagers) - it's more about whether that seat is suitable for fitment to Voyagers or not.

RLBH · 14 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
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.

And in four-coach sets. In fact, the idea was for a mix of LHCS and four-coach DMUs - I can't remember which was planned for which services. I imagine that the DMUs were intended to work the shuttle services (Bristol & Reading to Manchester & Newcastle) whilst the LHCS would work the long distance stuff and would presumably have had tilt.

In other words, we were getting Voyagers whether we liked it or not, the only question was whether we'd get overcrowded DMUs or horribly overcrowded LHCS for the WCML services. All things considered, I suspect that the 221s were the better choice of the two alternatives.

Edit: apparently the DMUs were to be tilting, and the LHCS non-tilting. Definitely all four-car sets in the original plans though. No idea how that would have worked in terms of allocations!

MarlowDonkey · 14 May 2019

jagardner1984 said:
What’s the shortest platforms a voyager encounters ?.

Was the length set so they could fit in the west facing bays at Reading? That's less relevant now as the Reading rebuild increased capacity on the through platforms, so they can reverse there.

JonathanH · 14 May 2019

MarlowDonkey said:
Was the length set so they could fit in the west facing bays at Reading? That's less relevant now as the Reading rebuild increased capacity on the through platforms, so they can reverse there.

They still use platform 3 at Reading for a large part of the day as platform 7 and 8 and the high numbered platforms where they might otherwise reverse are needed for other services.

I think the point is not that the length of Voyagers was not designed around a number of different bay / constrained platforms but their length does make using those platforms possible.

Other places where the short length seems to help (all on the same Newcastle to Reading / Southampton axis) include
* Newcastle bays
* Doncaster platform 3B (saving the one time need to use platform 4 or 8 southbound),
* Birmingham New Street (ability to use East end of a platform at the same time something is at the West end).

fgwrich · 14 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
No, it's indeed not a minor criticism. It is a very poor design of seat by Fainsa, and a very poor choice of seat by DfT. It completely ruins what is otherwise a fairly decent unit.

Then maybe someone might listen and do something about it? (It seems they have, with the new moquette-covered replacement cushions which are significantly less uncomfortable, not that that's much of an accolade. They are definitely a different design, given that I used an original 800 near enough on day one so I am comparing brand new with brand new).

I think you need to reconsider what you get angry about; I still don't understand why you consider it a slight against Japan that I criticise the product for a seat that is made in Spain and was specified by someone in London, neither of which, when I last checked, were in or anywhere near Japan.

Indeed this subthread isn't even about Class 800s (other than as the aside that they may well make reasonable replacements for Voyagers) - it's more about whether that seat is suitable for fitment to Voyagers or not.

I wouldn't bother trying to carry on explaining @Bletchleyite to our learned Japanese friend as the last time criticised the 800 Fleet design, I was told off for apparently committing a Hate Crime. It seems we mustn't pass any criticism on any of Hitachi's product's as they are oh so wonderful, despite being to the contrary. :rolleyes:

While they do have some slightly better features over a Voyager, they are still 125MPH DMUs and still share many of the common flaws that the Voyager does.

Incidentally, and linking it back to the Voyager fleet itself, and the purpose of this thread, Has anyone else noticed a number of sickly Voyagers of late? I passed one of the 221s the other day which reversed in Reading - the leading (into Reading) car shut itself down upon arrival, followed by the 3rd car. Upon leaving, it started up, hunted, shut itself down, then begrudgingly started itself up again while leaving.

I've also started to notice a number of units with lighting faults again (interior lights either off or partly off).

Deafdoggie · 14 May 2019

fgwrich said:
I've also started to notice a number of units with lighting faults again (interior lights either off or partly off).

I can't remember the last time I was on a voyager where all internal lights worked! That is both XC and VT. To be honest, I, and probably the average passenger, can not really tell any internal difference once inside a voyager. They are all quite dated now.

ashkeba · 14 May 2019

Jozhua said:
Wonder what peoples thoughts are on what a hypothetical refurb might look like?

Personally, I'd probably tear out the whole interior and work on making it more spacious! [...]

@Jozhua for train czar!

The Voyagers are smelly, dingy and luggage don't fit. Gimmicks like reservation screens and at-seat radio doesn't work. Rip it out and refit with bright modern stuff.

And while we're at it, the XC Turbostars need their interiors fixing up too. Too many rips and rattles. Or probably replacing with a newer longer DMU to reduce overcrowding both ends of Birmingham-Stansted.

Beemax · 14 May 2019

I don’t think you can just suggest that seat safety doesn’t matter. Thankfully, we haven’t had many high impact frontal crashes in recent years – we’ve moved on from the ‘toast-rack’ structures of the slam door trains that caused so many deaths in the Clapham disaster, and the structural integrity of modern high-speed trains is very good. But the kinetic energy of a 125 mph passenger has to go somewhere. Trains don’t have seat belts (it would probably be impractical to require them, and they are not as necessary as in a car since the vehicle mass of a railway coach is greater and the crash deceleration likely to be lower) so the design of the seat becomes more and more critical. Build it like a block of concrete and it causes grief to the passenger slamming into it from the rear. Build it too flimsily and the passenger in the rear will probably crush the passenger in the front. Motor coach seats, before the compulsory use of seat belts, were designed to ensure a ‘survival space’ between one row of passengers and the next, and this is probably sound practice for trains as well. Then you need to ensure that nothing nasty is lurking beneath the surface of the seat back that could cause injury in a high speed impact. All of this will probably make it more difficult to build a comfortable seat, and some manufacturers seem to be more successful at meeting this challenge than others. But it’s clear from the posts in this and other threads that seat comfort is a very subjective concept.

pt_mad · 14 May 2019

Beemax said:
I don’t think you can just suggest that seat safety doesn’t matter. Thankfully, we haven’t had many high impact frontal crashes in recent years – we’ve moved on from the ‘toast-rack’ structures of the slam door trains that caused so many deaths in the Clapham disaster, and the structural integrity of modern high-speed trains is very good. But the kinetic energy of a 125 mph passenger has to go somewhere. Trains don’t have seat belts (it would probably be impractical to require them, and they are not as necessary as in a car since the vehicle mass of a railway coach is greater and the crash deceleration likely to be lower) so the design of the seat becomes more and more critical. Build it like a block of concrete and it causes grief to the passenger slamming into it from the rear. Build it too flimsily and the passenger in the rear will probably crush the passenger in the front. Motor coach seats, before the compulsory use of seat belts, were designed to ensure a ‘survival space’ between one row of passengers and the next, and this is probably sound practice for trains as well. Then you need to ensure that nothing nasty is lurking beneath the surface of the seat back that could cause injury in a high speed impact. All of this will probably make it more difficult to build a comfortable seat, and some manufacturers seem to be more successful at meeting this challenge than others. But it’s clear from the posts in this and other threads that seat comfort is a very subjective concept.

Surely the safest thing in theory would be for all seats to be airline configuration and face backwards so that a passenger would not bang their head on the seat in front were the unthinkable to happen?

supervc-10 · 14 May 2019

Isn't that the reason why Voyagers and Pendos predominantly have backwards facing seats in the leading car?

But the issue with that idea is that trains travel both directions!

Bletchleyite · 14 May 2019

Yes, it is indeed the reason for that.

hexagon789 · 14 May 2019

Jozhua said:
Wonder what peoples thoughts are on what a hypothetical refurb might look like?

Personally, I'd probably tear out the whole interior and work on making it more spacious! Probably make the seats thinner and a more basic design that's less likely to catch dust and grime, but still have high headrests, fold down tables, etc. Something similar to most modern airline seats.

Also would lower the luggage rack to make it more possible to store larger items in, with small barriers at the bottom perhaps to reduce the risk of said larger items falling out! This would free up a lot of space in the cabin, between the seats and in the luggage racks so they can be used for larger items.

Would reduce the size of the tables (along with slightly thinner seats) to allow for an extra row or two, and increase the legroom an inch or so between the seats so people are less inclined to take up two for their legs! Also work towards getting rid of the windowless seats, or at least reducing their severity.

Obviously the toilet situation isn't ideal either, they could do with a full refit!

Fold down seats in the vestibules would make a massive difference as well I'm sure, especially for people only on for one stop.

Some nice adaptive LED lighting to brighten up the cabin in the day, and create a softer, dimmer light and night, similar to modern planes would be good.

Be interested to hear everyone else's thoughts, especially people who may have experience/knowledge in this kind of stuff!

Ideally take out all but one accessible toilet and replace with standard toilets. Then completely reconfigure the seating layout in all but the First Class vehicle.

CrossCountry voyagers due for a referb?

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member