Are the class 220/221 voyagers the worst trains on Britain's rails?

[PaxmanValenta]

1) The 222s were never designed for tilt, hence the use of the lightweight bogies with an inboard frame. The West Coast 221s still tilt, it is just the XC 221s which don't. The body profiles, as well as the couplers, and various other components were used on both classes to keep costs down, and for ease of maintenance.

2) The Problem with comparing the Loco Hauled stock and the Voyagers is that they are designed for completely different things! The Loco hauled stuff was for the old timetable, where there were few trains, wheras the voyagers were designed for the operation princess timetable, which gave more frequent trains, whilst having less carriages which gave a similar number of seats per hour. It has since become a victim of it's own success which has meant that they are often busy.

3) I cannot think of a single train which has been introduced and has worked out of the box absolutely faultlessly, and the voyagers will have been no different.

4) The couplers are compatible with the 57/3s and the Pendolinos. This is a bit of a case of Virgin prioritising the West Coast over the Cross Country network. Block the WCML and it's VHF services and you are in trouble. Block a XC route, and it is less problematic. Of course, the fact that the 57/3s have now been relieved of thunderbird duties doesn't help.

5) Underfloor engines do mean a background throbbing to the journey, but they also mean that the train will take off a damn sight quicker than an HST.

6) I agree with you regarding the sewage, it isn't very good.

7) Seat/Window alignment seems to mainly be an issue that enthusiasts raise. A lot of people will spend their journeys staring at their screens, be it on a mobile, tablet, or laptop. There are not many seats where the view is completely blocked however. If you really wanted though, you could have a number of seats removed so that the alignment is perfect, but you would then have lost a large amount of seating capacity.

8) The other argument that is frequently raised on these forums when it comes to rolling stock is the end to end journey argument. Very few people will make journeys from Aberdeen to Penzance, most people use them for significantly shorter journeys, for which they are fine.

As for the questions at the end, like I mentioned before, the voyagers were both ordered by Virgin, which needed a train like the 221 to operate it's WC services. When it came to the XC order, a huge cost saving could be made by :
a) making it one tender
b) using identical parts where possible

As for the coupling compatibility question, it is a bit of a daft one to be honest. How often does a unit completely fail and need assistance from a loco. That is one of the main benefits to Multiple units - they have a few levels of redundancy built in, so if something fails, there is usually a second one that is still working. Your suggestion about compatible couplings makes me wonder, which coupling? Tightlock (with/without integrated air pipe and electrical connectors), BSI, Scharfenberg, Buffers and Chain? There seems to be no such thing as a standard coupler in the UK at the moment, but we do seem to be heading towards Scharfenberg couplers for Multiple Units (but without standard connections which makes it pretty useless to be honest)

Traditional Buffer and chain couplings with buckeye couplings between carriages would have been better and far more versatile.

 

[Carlisle]

I find Voyagers are ok to travel on, and have done long journeys on them from South West, the 221 Super Voyager used by Virgin West Coast are timed at 125 mph and use their tilt extensively between London and Glasgow and Edinburgh, and to Crewe on Chester etc runs, and some others, the original orders for the 221 and 220 couldn't have known that xc would disable the tilt on the 221.

From memory of travelling on Virgin cross country class 221s much of the time their tilt systems seemed to be defective and not operating for one reason or another, it was only when they created the separate West Coast pool that they became reliable tilting trains operating at the EPS speeds

 

[al.currie93]

As mentioned in another thread - I think that they're very good trains. As said before, I don't think they're most suited to where they're used right now, but they're definitely not the worst trains on the UK rail network by a long way.

 

[TheJRB]

I certainly don't understand all of the hate towards Voyagers. Whilst I do understand that they're not perfect, I think there are a lot more perceived than actual shortcomings.

A big part of the equation which a lot of people seem to miss out on is that a lot of journeys on CrossCountry are short hops between neigbouring towns and cities. In fact if I look at the few times I've travelled on 221s it works out as: Euston to Milton Keynes, Chester to Crewe, Reading to Basingstoke, Burton-on-Trent to Derby and Chesterfield to Sheffield, none of which are exactly far apart.

When we talk about Aberdeen to Penzance, we are often looking beyond the fact that perhaps the majority of journeys will be of the Dundee to Edinburgh, Cheltenham to Bristol or Plymouth to Truro variety. The same thing can be said of the good old EMT Liverpool to Norwich (almost always 4 car 2 x 158 formation west of Nottingham and 2 car east). I bet the number of people who travel from one end all the way to the other is minimal, while the numbers going from say Manchester to Sheffield will be much higher.

As for the number of carriages however, I think this was almost certainly shortsighted by the DfT but I think we've all come to expect little more from that government department.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I had my first ride on a Voyager in ages last Thursday. From Wakefield Westgate to Leeds so only a short hop, the 4-car unit was busy, but not overcrowded. I managed to find an empty table (albeit piled with empty Stella cans!) in the leading car, but only after holding my breath as I passed the toilet. To be honest I didn't really notice the engine noise much, but it might have grated on a longer journey. I did notice quite a few seats with almost NO window view, it doesn't help that the pillars are pretty wide... I'm sure a bit of thought could improve things though.

There are many valid criticisms that could be levelled at Voyagers, some of them (stinky toilets, poor seat/window alignment) can be relatively easily solved at the next overhaul. Others (lack of capacity at peak times) at least have light at the end of the tunnel in the shape of oncoming Meridians released by MML wiring.

 

[Haydn1971]

Just chuckling to myself on the train to work. The thread titles in the attached

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/04/14/0197927eff3a4ed340a2eb4b04f2c598.jpg

In particular the middle one vs the top and bottom one

 

[XCTurbostar]

This debate again..

Firstly like it has already been mentioned, the voyagers were designed for Operation Princess, less coaches but a much more frequent service (to Manchester for example)

The issue I saw when these came into service was that there was little (or no) scope for passenger growth. If there was an add on to the order which lengthened all sets to 6/7 coaches each, it would have made the situation a lot better. This is why the Class 378s for LO started with 3 coaches and are now being lengthened to 5 Coaches! Virgin may not have even forecasted the high passenger growth to be as high as it was/is. I do wonder what Virgin's bid for the New CrossCountry Franchise entailed to resolve this issue was.

Mind you, if the ORR hadn't of cut Virgin's service down to the core in 2002.. It could have been a lot worse.

Thanks,
Ross

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Why were the 220s ordered as 4 car units and not 5 to match the 221s?

 

[cjmillsnun]

Traditional Buffer and chain couplings with buckeye couplings between carriages would have been better and far more versatile.

Not really, no. The couplings used are safer when coupling to type in normal use as no one has to climb down onto the trackbed. Everything can be done from within the cab. For emergencies, another voyager , 57/3 or a pendo cam couple up and move it or the emergency coupling be fitted and it be coupled to any loco.

These aren't enthusiasts trains, but they aren't meant to be. They are designed to move people long distances, cheaply and reliably. It is a task they perform well.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

..... If there was an add on to the order which lengthened all sets to 6/7 coaches each, it would have made the situation a lot better....

....Mind you, if the ORR hadn't of cut Virgin's service down to the core in 2002.. It could have been a lot worse.....

That was the idea, twice as many trains with half the coaches meant a quicker introduction to service, later more coaches would be added, but with the 'Operation Princess' timetable abandoned and the XC network cut back, the order for extra coaches was never made.

 

[47802]

I really hope that when FGW stop using HSTs that XC uses the redundant HSTs to replace all their Voyagers.

But ok some will argue that using 1970s trains is not progressive. So my question is why did they not give up on the tilting idea in the first place and develop a train which has the comfort and space of an HST with compatible couplings?

Any opinions?

At best HST's have only a mid term future and require the expensive 2020 mods, therefore unless significant parts of the XC Network are fully electrified by about 2025 allowing replacement by EMU. which looks more debateable with current delays and cost overruns then XC either need AT300 or 222's and/or West Coast 221's if they become available at some point to replace the existing HST's and increase capacity

As for you idea that 220/221 should be replaced by HST's that really is nonsense the 220/221 wont be going anywhere.

 

[VisualAcid]

They smell and are horribly cramped compared to most 2+2 trains which was awful on a day like yesterday. Was praying for a HST.

 

[yorksrob]

They'd be better off granting a derogation for the HST's under the 2020 regs and transferring some over from EC as they become free, as a stop gap to expand capacity. Then, with electrification, some of the more modern units should become free.

 

[pemma]

Nope, Pacers are... The end haha

Agreed. Sprinters are worse than Voyagers as well.

Voyagers are probably in the same category as 185s and 350s in that they are decent units but they aren't ideal for end to end journeys on some of their longer routes.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why were the 220s ordered as 4 car units and not 5 to match the 221s?

Unaffordable.
Even some of the Pendolinos were ordered as 8-car sets originally. They were all upped to 9-car during delivery and then (all but 22) to 11-car.
The VT case for extending all the Voyagers to six cars was turned down, and DfT relet the XC franchise instead (won by Arriva, undoubtedly at a lower cost).
The e-Voyager project to do the same but including a pantograph car was also rejected because of the high cost (and because Bombardier had filled the workload gap).
The XC Voyager leases expire next year, along with the current XC franchise.
DfT seems in no hurry to re-specify XC for additional stock for its direct award to 2019.
The VT Voyager leases expire in 2017 along with the current ICWC franchise.

 

[yorksrob]

Agreed. Sprinters are worse than Voyagers as well.

Voyagers are probably in the same category as 185s and 350s in that they are decent units but they aren't ideal for end to end journeys on some of their longer routes.

Not sure about that. Think I'd rather spend four hours on a well maintained 156.

 

[chris89]

Always am amused at the hate of the 220/221s.

Yes they are not perfect but then really what train really is? Even the most loved LHCS and HSTs that so many are deeply in love with have many flaws.

I regularly use VT ones between Wolverhampton and Edinburgh (although more becoming Pendos, at least one way) and find them fine for that sort of journey. what is about 3hrs 45ish long.

The engine isn't really a bother to me on the Virgin ones, as i don't really notice it. (But slightly more noticeable on XC ones and same for the toilet smell)

Windows Yea, it is annoying when dont get a seat lined up with a window, but i use the seating plan and go forward and backward on the VT booking site, until i get the seats i want in both directions. So that is a non issue, Would you rather have a train that can carry less people. So all can have a window each?

Crampness/ claustrophobic interiors. I've never felt that myself. Although some seats do feel a bit to cramped but a majority are perfectly fine.

Seat Trays. I can use my normal sized laptop on one of those. But i rarely take it with me and just use my tablet/ mp3 player and stick a magazine, drink etc on the train instead.

I like 221s a lot and find them pleasant to travel on, far better then the VTXC HSTs or VTWC HSTs i can remember traveling on when i was much younger.

Yes they do need a refresh inside of them, as that would be nice and hopefully they will do some point soon.

As many others have said the amount who travel the full 8+ Hrs from Plymouth to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee/ Aberdeen would be incredibly small.

 

[RichW1]

Someone mentioned Eastern Europe runs 3 car IC's; we are not in Eastern Europe circumstances, I meant developed countries!!
Voyagers are a pain, all very well saying they expected more frequency but if I want to get on a train at 9am then I want to get on at 9am not 9:20. It is a stupid argument.
As for toilet smells, this is a MAJOR issue not a minor one. It is the 21st century and no-one should have to deal with this on any journey length. It is not beyond man to come up with a better design.
As for length, it is ridiculous that anything in a country of 65million people mostly condensed to the southern half of the country is running 5 car anything between cities.
I was asked when I travelled - many times during many different days; like Pendolino's they are full to bursting. I am sure there are quieter ones but I only ever came across a quiet one once.
As for journey times well it's not the train's fault but 125mph is totally useless for today's journeys - yesterday's speeds. Even on conventional lines on the main routes in Portugal (yes Portugal) as well as Italy and Germany 137-143mph is achieved with 155mph on the way on some sections around 2020 in both Portugal and Austria for example.
Underfloor engines as discussed many times are not right for IC journeys. An old fashioned loco at either end with no chamfered body sides giving more space would be a far superior experience. With train lengths and speeds on our core routes, we went backwards under privatisation in this respect. Even if only by a few minutes I don't care, minutes are minutes and we are in 2015. If someone had told me in 1976, no Intercity will be any faster (and journey times a little slower on some routes) by 2015, I would be shocked.

Bring on HS2; then these trains may make sense with a little alteration. Length not so important once you take some capacity away from them. I suspect Cross Country will use high-speed trains on some of the route once HS2 happens, so avoiding problems on the core route altogether.

 

[sprinterguy]

Someone mentioned Eastern Europe runs 3 car IC's; we are not in Eastern Europe circumstances, I meant developed countries!!

The Danes have successfully operated a large number of three and four carriage Intercity MUs for a number of years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IC3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IC4

This quote, admittedly from Wikipedia, seems pertinent to our own Crosscountry operation:

The short distances between stations on inter-city routes in Denmark makes acceleration more important than high top speed

DB also operate some, admittedly less successful, 4-car long distance DMUs on conventional routes, in the form of the ICE TD (Class 605):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_TD

 

[Domh245]

Traditional Buffer and chain couplings with buckeye couplings between carriages would have been better and far more versatile.

In addition to the facts that cjmillsnun pointed out, you also have to remember that you would then need to have additional cables for the air line and the electrical cables, which is something else that could break. Clearly there is a reason that passenger stock moved away from buffer and chain and towards automatic couplings, partly comfort, partly convenience!

Voyagers are a pain, all very well saying they expected more frequency but if I want to get on a train at 9am then I want to get on at 9am not 9:20. It is a stupid argument.

The problem here isn't with the train, but is a problem with the operators. The operation princess timetable was a victim of it's own success, and when it came to the point that the Voyagers needed lengthening, it turned out that the cost was prohibitive. If they had an option on the contract for more cars, it would have been fine, but I'm sure that pre-Op. Princess, they had no idea just how busy it would become.

As for toilet smells, this is a MAJOR issue not a minor one. It is the 21st century and no-one should have to deal with this on any journey length. It is not beyond man to come up with a better design.

It is an issue, but where else do you suggest putting the sewage tanks? The underside of a voyager is a pretty tightly packed place, engine, generators, motors + control kit, fuel tank, sewage tank, water tank etc. The fact is, it doesn't seem to be as much of an issue as you make out. A lot of people on here have said that they don't actually notice this smell.

As for length, it is ridiculous that anything in a country of 65million people mostly condensed to the southern half of the country is running 5 car anything between cities.

I hope you haven't heard about the number of 5 car 800s and 801s then! 5 Car IC units are useful for a number of reasons - not every route during the off peak will need a longer train to carry it's passengers, if they can all fit on a 5 car train, put them on a 5 car train - it will be cheaper, and more economical for the TOC. They are also useful for portion working, as proposed on the GW, which will mean that more destinations have an improved service. But again, the problem is it's own success.

As for journey times well it's not the train's fault but 125mph is totally useless for today's journeys - yesterday's speeds. Even on conventional lines on the main routes in Portugal (yes Portugal) as well as Italy and Germany 137-143mph is achieved with 155mph on the way on some sections around 2020 in both Portugal and Austria for example.
Underfloor engines as discussed many times are not right for IC journeys. An old fashioned loco at either end with no chamfered body sides giving more space would be a far superior experience. With train lengths and speeds on our core routes, we went backwards under privatisation in this respect. Even if only by a few minutes I don't care, minutes are minutes and we are in 2015. If someone had told me in 1976, no Intercity will be any faster (and journey times a little slower on some routes) by 2015, I would be shocked.

If you had a 100mph loco sandwiched rake of cars, I'm sure that the people who write the timetables for the network would love it! a 100mph path on the GWML or ECML would take up 2 or 3 125mph paths on those lines, and the fact that you've got 2 locos pushing/pulling this long rake of carriages would mean that it'd have nowhere near the acceleration of the voyagers.

As for the high speed lines in europe, I must point out that the WCML was going to have 140mph operation, but this was shelved because railtrack decided to do this with an untested (on the mainline) moving block system. There does come a point though where having 140mph doesn't really decrease your journey times by much.

As for your last sentence, I think you've got your blinkers on a bit here. Have a look at a timetable for the WCML from the 1976 and compare it to the timetable today. Then come back and tell me that no intercity train has gotten faster.

 

[Bald Rick]

As for your last sentence, I think you've got your blinkers on a bit here. Have a look at a timetable for the WCML from the 1976 and compare it to the timetable today. Then come back and tell me that no intercity train has gotten faster.

Or the ECML, or the MML, or, for that matter, Cross Country services.

Check the frequency as well. Pretty much doubled on long distance services everywhere, at least.

And compared to Europe... France...

Bordeaux - Nantes, 3 trains per day
Toulouse - Marseille, 6 trains per day
Strasbourg - Lille, 1 train per day
Bordeaux - Toulouse, 1 train per 2 hours.

All top 10 cities in France, with direct main lines between them, around 200 miles or less.

 

[TheNewNo2]

Voyagers aren't my favourite train, but they're far from my least favourite. I used to make fairly regular (every 6 weeks or so) trips between Nottingham and Bristol, and so I'd fairly regularly use Voyagers. At least until I learnt which services were HST sets, but that was so I could lean out of the window and take photos rather than a dislike of Voyagers.

XC's Voyagers are better than XC's Turbostars. The Turbostars are much noisier, often with annoying rattling bits, and the floor space for a window seat is pathetic due to the heating vents.

XC's Voyagers are better than VT's Pendolinos. While Pendolinos are quite fun for tilting, they're generally dark and have tiny windows.

XC's Voyagers are better than anything East Coast have in operation. The East Coast seats make my backside go numb - no such problems on Voyagers.

XC's Voyagers are better than Thameslink/Southern 377/387s, because 377 seats lack reasonable cushions.

Voyagers are not the best train out there, but once they stop you being able to lean out of the HST windows I'd much rather travel on a Voyager (or Meridian) than any other long-distance stock.

 

[CC 72100]

XC's Voyagers are better than XC's Turbostars. The Turbostars are much noisier, often with annoying rattling bits, and the floor space for a window seat is pathetic due to the heating vents.
.

And voyagers don't rattle?!

(The best voyager journey I had, somebody had stuck some newspaper inbetween the gaps in the plastic above my seat making for no rattles. Bliss!)

 

[The Ham]

The problems with Voyagers all fall into one of two camps - they are too short and/or they are too intensively used (i.e. less of a toilet smell if the tanks could be emptied more frequently).

Depending on what XC does during the next franchise (i.e. new EMU's) we could find that the hate for the 22x's stops being so great.

As I've pointed out elsewhere the introduction of about 15 sets of 221's (either by replacement on XC routes by EMU or from ICWC when the no longer require them) would enable every service which currently is run by 220's to be replaced by 221's with most of the services run by 221's could be replaced by pairs of 220's.

That would provide ever service which sees an improvement with between 25% and 60% more seats than at present.

Add a few more 221's (I think about 10 more) than those 15 and the HST's could be replaced by pairs of 221's and possibly even a few services could be run by pairs of 221's.

Although that would require about 25 sets of 221's it should be remembered that the XC services between Manchester and the Southcoast (which takes about 5 hours each way and should be able to be converted to EMU near the start of the next XC franchise) would free up at least 10 sets. With a little more electrification and Southampton/Reading to Newcastle can be run be EMU's and that is at least another 10 sets freed up. It is also likely that at least some ICWC sets will be freed up (if the last, failed, bid process was anything to go by), which could fairly easily provide a further 10 sets.

Finally, not all services would need to be run paired up over the full length of the route (i.e. a single unit running between Penzance and St Austell with a pair running beyond that would save the need for a second unit for 2 hours on that route) and any service run with pairs of units do not need pairs of spare sets, meaning that the total number of sets could be less than 25 and still achieve the required improvements where they are needed.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's perhaps worth mentioning that class 185s manage to stay odour free even right outside a toilet that's been locked out due to a full tank. Sure, they're a few years newer but the same could be said about 170s. Both operate on similar length services (not quite as long as Aberdeen to Penzance, but Newcastle to Liverpool or Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport compare with a large chunk of XC services. Hopefully when the 220/1 fleet is next overhauled the toilet issue will get the attention it needs!

 

[hibtastic]

I like the Voyagers. Nice big windows, very fast and love the noise to be honest. I wish XC would maintain and tidy theirs more often. VTWC's are in better condition.

The only thing that annoys me about them are the vestibule doors that will close on you whether you like it or not.

 

[yorksrob]

The seats could (and probably will be at some stage) improved.

The XC HST's are pretty good, so maybe a version to fit in the Voyagers could be designed.

 

[fowler9]

They stink and often aren't long enough. Far from the worst trains on the network though. 142's for starters.

 

[sprinterguy]

The problems with Voyagers all fall into one of two camps - they are too short and/or they are too intensively used (i.e. less of a toilet smell if the tanks could be emptied more frequently).

It did irk some when, on a recent peak hour trip from Manchester, all three toilets on a 4-car Voyager were out of use, despite the trains' often criticised over-provision of disabled toilets that eat unnecessarily into seating space!

As I've pointed out elsewhere the introduction of about 15 sets of 221's (either by replacement on XC routes by EMU or from ICWC when the no longer require them) would enable every service which currently is run by 220's to be replaced by 221's with most of the services run by 221's could be replaced by pairs of 220's.

That would provide ever service which sees an improvement with between 25% and 60% more seats than at present.

That would seem ideal. I still hold with the opinion that the Crosscountry long distance network would be perfectly served, capacity wise, with a mix of 5 and 7-car units, so single 221s and pairs of 220s (Remembering the reduced seating capacity caused by having 4 driving cars in a formation) would be appropriate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not sure about that. Think I'd rather spend four hours on a well maintained 156.

I quite agree with that.

 

[TheNewNo2]

Not relevant, but this topic has set me working on the distance I've travelled on each class of train (counting eg a trip with a paired 150/153 as a trip on a 150 and a 153 but on a pair of 150s as a single trip on a 150). I have apparently travelled 2076.17 miles on 220s, 2315.82 miles on 221s, 2143.25 miles on 222s, plus an additional hated 2139.57 miles on 170s.

CC 72100, while I accept Voyagers aren't the quiestest of trains, I never found them noisy. However most journeys on an XC 170 involved an annoying rattle from the overhead racks.