Alstom celebrating 20 years anniversary of Voyager's introduction

[Journeyman]

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

Yes, but that's not what the article was about. It was talking about the building, service life and maintenance of these trains, all of which has been successful. They're not responsible for how they're used.

 

[Taunton]

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.

The infernal racket when standing in a station because the engines have to run at higher than tickover as they used a cheap alternator design - that's a designers/builders issue.

Designing the electrical busbars that can't handle running through Dawlish in winter - that's a designers/builders issue.

Being unable to insert windows and so change the layout to seating when the shop was ended - that's a designers/builders issue.

Quoting such a high price for Project Thor additional pantograph coach because they thought they had the railway by the short-and-curlies, such that it was abandoned - that's a designers/builders issue.

Bombardier using the production plant in Belgium, instead of Derby, which lost them UK political support - that's a designers/builders issue.

 

[The Planner]

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

Between Birmingham and Manchester via Stoke its probably about 1½ - 2 minutes tops.

 

[CW2]

This thread is making me feel seriously old!

 

[hwl]

The infernal racket when standing in a station because the engines have to run at higher than tickover as they used a cheap alternator design - that's a designers/builders issue.

Designing the electrical busbars that can't handle running through Dawlish in winter - that's a designers/builders issue.

Being unable to insert windows and so change the layout to seating when the shop was ended - that's a designers/builders issue.

Quoting such a high price for Project Thor additional pantograph coach because they thought they had the railway by the short-and-curlies, such that it was abandoned - that's a designers/builders issue.

Bombardier using the production plant in Belgium, instead of Derby, which lost them UK political support - that's a designers/builders issue.

Pretty much agree, but the Voyagers have steel bodyshells were designed and built by part of Bombardier (ex La Brugeoise et Nivelles, bought in 1988) and were ordered 3 years before Bombardier had bought Adtranz including Derby.

Derby since privatisation had built Aluminium bodyshells in fairly unique way, but B&N retained the ability to build steel bodyshells.
Bombardier adopted Adtranz electrical systems and TCMS after take over leaving Voyager and Meridians as outliers for UK Bombardier stock.
The 24m bodyshells available from Derby at the time for Project Thor were all Turbostar with fixed door positions so no ideal.
Under a third of the contract value would have been for extra vehicle manufacture and assembly in Belgium. The majority being new electrical equipment (panto, transformer, traction motors, etc.) and retrofitting a train wide traction power bus.

 

[43096]

Pretty much agree, but the Voyagers have steel bodyshells were designed and built by part of Bombardier (ex La Brugeoise et Nivelles, bought in 1988) and were ordered 3 years before Bombardier had bought Adtranz including Derby.

Bombardier adopted Adtranz electrical systems and TCMS after take over leaving Voyager and Meridians as outliers for UK Bombardier stock.

Bombardier didn't have an in-house electrical system/traction package before the ADtranz acquisition, it was always bought in; in the case of the Voyagers from (GEC-)Alst(h)om.

The 24m bodyshells available from Derby at the time for Project Thor were all Turbostar with fixed door positions so no ideal.
Under a third of the contract value would have been for extra vehicle manufacture and assembly in Belgium. The majority being new electrical equipment (panto, transformer, traction motors, etc.) and retrofitting a train wide traction power bus.

Presumably a lot of that value would have gone to Alstom as manufacturers of the original electrical system. Project Thor was intended as a way of putting money into the UK economy post financial crash and it would have been a very poor way of doing so as bodyshell build would have been in Belgium, Alstom's work presumably done in France and any Bombardier electrical input from Sweden, leaving perhaps some assembly for Derby. So for a sky high price there was next to no UK content - no wonder the project was binned.

 

[Spartacus]

I suspect even if Litchuich Lane and Bombardier had been one and the same then the 22xs would still have been built abroad. Aside from the bodyshells, I seem to remember Derby having order books full of Turbostars and Electrostars, and I think it's a bit harsh to expect the builders to forward plan to incorporate possible body changes due to the unexpected removal of the shops.

 

[DB]

I think it's a bit harsh to expect the builders to forward plan to incorporate possible body changes due to the unexpected removal of the shops.

Why? The internal layout of trains is often changed during their lifetime. I assume that there are major structural elements in the way in this case, but that could have been avoided - Mk3s have been modified in many ways, including converting buffets to open coaches by cutting out larger window openings.

 

[Taunton]

I think it's a bit harsh to expect the builders to forward plan to incorporate possible body changes due to the unexpected removal of the shops.

Really? But that's how stock was traditionally built. Look at all the Mk 3 conversions from one type to another, especially of the catering provision.

The whole hoo-hah nowadays about overall modular designs, and you can only have this type from us at present, is surely about flexing things within the standard framework.

 

[Falcon1200]

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

Somewhat unfair ! There is no way the entire Cross Country network, or any significant part of it, could possibly have been electrified in the seven years from privatisation in 1994 to the introduction of the Voyager fleet in 2001. What should perhaps have happened is an earlier development of bi-modes, to take advantage of electrification where it does exist.

 

[DB]

Somewhat unfair ! There is no way the entire Cross Country network, or any significant part of it, could possibly have been electrified in the seven years from privatisation in 1994 to the introduction of the Voyager fleet in 2001. What should perhaps have happened is an earlier development of bi-modes, to take advantage of electrification where it does exist.

There was no real need to replace most of the fleet at that time - it was just Virgin wanting to make their mark. What would have been more sensible would have been to retain them and get on with electrification, then look at replacement.

 

[Falcon1200]

There was no real need to replace most of the fleet at that time - it was just Virgin wanting to make their mark.

I would not agree with that either; Not long before the Voyagers came, myself, wife and two children travelled on a hot summer Sunday (silly, I know) on the through train from Glasgow Central to Oxford; The train was 6 coaches vice 7 due to stock shortage, so at Central only passengers with seat reservations were allowed on. And the air con in our coach had failed so it became like an oven; Staff handed out water but my small son was so hot that he stripped down to his underpants ! (I was hot too but thought it best not to do the same....). So, something had to be done, whether the Voyagers were the optimum solution is another thing of course.

 

[DB]

I would not agree with that either; Not long before the Voyagers came, myself, wife and two children travelled on a hot summer Sunday (silly, I know) on the through train from Glasgow Central to Oxford; The train was 6 coaches vice 7 due to stock shortage, so at Central only passengers with seat reservations were allowed on. And the air con in our coach had failed so it became like an oven; Staff handed out water but my small son was so hot that he stripped down to his underpants ! (I was hot too but thought it best not to do the same....). So, something had to be done, whether the Voyagers were the optimum solution is another thing of course.

That's simply down to maintenance - the usual case of stock being run down prior to replacement (which as I recall did happen in this case, and with the Virgin WCML fleet).

 

[Mat17]

The Voyagers would have been fine if they had been 8 carriages long.

They're a lot better now they are running in pairs.

 

[MCR247]

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.

As I said above the poor use of space (which is separate from the over provision of universal toilets) is a fault of the builders. Otherwise they wouldn’t have sorted it out for the 222s

 

[Journeyman]

There was no real need to replace most of the fleet at that time - it was just Virgin wanting to make their mark. What would have been more sensible would have been to retain them and get on with electrification, then look at replacement.

Nah, the Mark 2s were knackered and awash with faults, especially the motor alternators and associated electrical equipment, which was always their Achilles heel.

 

[DB]

Nah, the Mark 2s were knackered and awash with faults, especially the motor alternators and associated electrical equipment, which was always their Achilles heel.

None of which is insurmountable with maintenance.

I seem to recall that the ex-Virgin west coast 90s / Mk3s which went to the GEML gave loads of trouble to start with because of the state they'd got into. Once that was sorted, they became a very reliable fleet.

 

[hexagon789]

As I said above the poor use of space (which is separate from the over provision of universal toilets) is a fault of the builders.

They were specified that way, the builders simply built them to spec and in-line with the rules

Otherwise they wouldn’t have sorted it out for the 222s

Again, they were specified to incorporate improvements over the Voyagers. By that point they had the benefit of hindsight with the Voyagers having been in traffic for a period and the lack of need to accommodate tilt equipment (the not tilt 220s share the same cramped internal dimensions as the 221s) thus freeing up space to give more spacious dimensions of the passenger accommodation. Plus the fact that Midland Mainline didn't intend a three-class system per se meant there was no need for the additional disabled toilets of the 220/221s.

Worth nothing also that the 4-car 222s still ran out of capacity, they may have had more seats than the 3-car 170s but they were specified with too much First Class seating and thus had fewer Standard Class seats than the 3-car TurboStars.

Again fault of the spec, not fault of the builders

 

[MCR247]

They were specified that way, the builders simply built them to spec and in-line with the rules



Again, they were specified to incorporate improvements over the Voyagers. By that point they had the benefit of hindsight with the Voyagers having been in traffic for a period and the lack of need to accommodate tilt equipment (the not tilt 220s share the same cramped internal dimensions as the 221s) thus freeing up space to give more spacious dimensions of the passenger accommodation. Plus the fact that Midland Mainline didn't intend a three-class system per se meant there was no need for the additional disabled toilets of the 220/221s.

Worth nothing also that the 4-car 222s still ran out of capacity, they may have had more seats than the 3-car 170s but they were specified with too much First Class seating and thus had fewer Standard Class seats than the 3-car TurboStars.

Again fault of the spec, not fault of the builders

I disagree. You’re telling me Virgin/Dft put out a tender and said “crucial trains have no more than 62 seats per carriage”? Or did Bombardier chose to meet the spec by designing the train like that?

 

[Journeyman]

I disagree. You’re telling me Virgin/Dft put out a tender and said “crucial trains have no more than 62 seats per carriage”? Or did Bombardier chose to meet the spec by designing the train like that?

Well, someone signed off on it. Bombardier built what was agreed.

 

[MCR247]

Well, someone signed off on it. Bombardier built what was agreed.

Yes, on the basis that the design was the best that Bombardier could to meet the spec. That doesn’t mean the design is perfect and can’t be criticised which is what you seem to be suggesting?

DfT (and First Group etc) signed off on IETs, is it their fault they signed off an a design liable to crack?

 

[Journeyman]

Yes, on the basis that the design was the best that Bombardier could to meet the spec. That doesn’t mean the design is perfect and can’t be criticised which is what you seem to be suggesting?

I'm not suggesting it was perfect at all. I'm just saying Virgin, DfT and Bombardier agreed what would be supplied, and it was.

DfT (and First Group etc) signed off on IETs, is it their fault they signed off an a design liable to crack?

No, of course not.

 

[MCR247]

I'm not suggesting it was perfect at all. I'm just saying Virgin, DfT and Bombardier agreed what would be supplied, and it was.

No, of course not.

As the ones that both designed and built them, the poor utilisation of space is down to Bombardier. I don’t see how it could be down to anyone else to be frank

 

[Journeyman]

As the ones that both designed and built them, the poor utilisation of space is down to Bombardier. I don’t see how it could be down to anyone else to be frank

Virgin agreed to buy them. They could have requested changes, but clearly didn't.

 

[MCR247]

Virgin agreed to buy them. They could have requested changes, but clearly didn't.

If Bombardier say ‘that’s the available space for passenger accommodation on the unit that we’ve designed to meet your spec’ what changes can they make without changing the original spec?

 

[Falcon1200]

That's simply down to maintenance - the usual case of stock being run down prior to replacement (which as I recall did happen in this case, and with the Virgin WCML fleet).

Perhaps, but running the service with 35 year old locos and 25 year old coaches can't have been easy.

 

[Ceat0908]

I don’t mind voyagers especially the avanti ones. However, in the last month or so, I have been on 4 double voyagers which have had tilt faults from the start of the journey/ the faults occurred throughout the journey. On 3 occasions we lost 8-10 minutes as a result, the other one we were 55 minutes late, we ground to a halt and was told it was an issue with the tilting system.


Also had my first 390 with a tilt fault last week, which was my first in 5 years of regular use.

They have certainly been a lot more reliable in recent years, especially the engines. And those 4 trips with tilt faults have been the first in many years and all within the last few months. Although speaking to a driver recently, she said they throw up TMS level 3 alarms frequently and then disappear without the driver getting to see what the fault is.

I do wonder, not sure if anyone can answer, if a tilt fault arises when the trains on the move, does it need to be stopped or does the driver just drive at non EPS speed limits?

 

[D365]

If Bombardier say ‘that’s the available space for passenger accommodation on the unit that we’ve designed to meet your spec’ what changes can they make without changing the original spec?

Exactly this. I feel that a fair number of contributors have little understanding of the commercial negotiations that take place alongside each and every rolling stock build.

This is not something that can be answered unless details of the original commercial agreements are somehow released.

 

[hexagon789]

I disagree. You’re telling me Virgin/Dft put out a tender and said “crucial trains have no more than 62 seats per carriage”? Or did Bombardier chose to meet the spec by designing the train like that?

The spec required -

Originally 3 classes, the rules determined an accessible toilet for each class, hence too many accessible toilets

Originally the rules on passengers travelling in leading vehicles at 125mph required large crumple zones (before this passengers were not allowed in leading vehicles at over 100mph)

Luggage space, the desire to have a "shop" instead of purely a trolley service and the 'tilt profile' did the rest.

To me they were built to spec as per the rules on accessibility and crashworthiness and requirements of the TOC (shop, 3 classes planned etc)

I don't see how the builder did anything to deliberately reduce accommodation based on the criteria they had to follow.

And I don't think the DfT/Virgin specifically said they wanted only 62 seats max in a vehicle, simply the design that met the requirements produced a train with such constraints that it was inevitable such short comings would occur.

In essence the spec produced what Virgin got and it signed off on. What else were they going to do? Refuse the whole fleet?

Given the tight constraints the only options I see are taking out luggage racks or undertaking a lengthy rebuild to remove the extra disabled toilets, which of course would involve additional cost and delay introduction to service. And who's going to pay that additional cost in time and money?

 

[O L Leigh]

This got cut from this thread and moved to another, even though it's more pertinent here.

Now whether the Voyager was the right design will always be up for debate, but it’s what they came up with. Seating space is certainly restricted but a balance had to be struck with luggage space which, if you compare XC’s Cl170s, has got the balance too far tilted the other way, especially on the Stansted run. Lengthening them might have been a good idea, but once you get beyond 5 cars you run out of the ability to double them up. In fact, this is where the 4 cars really shine because quite a few locations have platforms only long enough for 9 cars.