How can Voyagers be improved?

[Minilad]

In that case facilities to empty the tanks at terminals would be a great (and relatively low cost) improvement.

It really wouldn't be low cost at all. And would be pretty much impossible I would imagine.

 

[najaB]

In that case facilities to empty the tanks at terminals would be a great (and relatively low cost) improvement.

I don't know if it would be low cost - it would involve the installation of a lot of plumbing and storage tanks/macerators - basically duplicating the setup in the depots. I also suspect that emptying the tanks and refilling the water supply would add significantly to the turnaround time at the terminal.

 

[cjmillsnun]

In that case facilities to empty the tanks at terminals would be a great (and relatively low cost) improvement.

Not really, the cost of install is high, and there is going to be an unpleasant smell around the equipment. especially when it is in use.

 

[Helvellyn]

My suggestions: -

• As others have said, remove the disabled loos in the centre coaches, but also First Class. Fit a smaller loo, with luggage stacks opposite. Adopt a GW style approach and have a glass divider between the luggage rack and saloon.
• New glass bottom luggage racks, slightly better designed to allow more storage. Might require new ceiling panels above to increase the room.
• New window surround panels, with the blinds removed. When you look at these panels they are quite thick, and not just tol hold the blind. Thinner panels, without blinds, would increase shoulder room on window seats.
• More costly - look at redesigning the vestibules to make the cupboards smaller, to increase room. Could also allow tip-up seats, as on the 222's.
• New seating, including looking at better tray tables on airline type seats (e.g. an extender to support laptops like in FGW), plus maybe a holder for tablets (BA are introducing this feature on their shorthaul Airbus fleet).

I think that when the Midland Mainline is electrified it should be looked at whether the 222 Fleet could move to the CrossCountry franchise. Running 220's in pairs on the NE/SW route would allow an increase in capacity, especially if there was a two-hourly Penzance-Glasgow (via the East Coast) alternating with a two-hourly Plymouth-Dundee/Aberdeen service. These would be a single 220 strengthened by a second unit between Bristol and Newcastle to give an 8-car formation over the 'core' NE/SW route.

 

[ainsworth74]

In that case facilities to empty the tanks at terminals would be a great (and relatively low cost) improvement.

I believe we have railway staff which could confirm but I'm led to believe that emptying CET tanks is absolutely not something you wish to do in a station. For instance, can you imagine what would happen if there was leak whilst emptying a tank?

 

[Dent]

I don't know if it would be low cost - it would involve the installation of a lot of plumbing and storage tanks/macerators - basically duplicating the setup in the depots.

I would expect a major terminal station to be connected to mains drainage, so no need for storage tanks. What would it need other than a length of hose to connect the train to a drain?

 

[najaB]

I would expect a major terminal station to be connected to mains drainage, so no need for storage tanks. What would it need other than a length of hose to connect the train to a drain?

I take back what I said earlier - there are mobile CET servicing machines, so the plumbing requirements aren't as big a deal as I thought. However, I still think it would add too much time to turnarounds at terminal stations.

 

[Domh245]

I would expect a major terminal station to be connected to mains drainage, so no need for storage tanks. What would it need other than a length of hose to connect the train to a drain?

You would need pumps and space to store said pumps - ideally in the gap between track pairs, but that might be impossible in some locations, but you might be able to get away with it at a station like paddington. It would not be feasible to have pumps on the platform because a) the smell from them, b) any spillages from them, c) they would take up a lot of space and d) The port from which the tanks are drained are underneath the body, which would render them inaccessible from the platform.

Additionally, whilst a drain connection can handle standard use at a terminus, would it be able to handle a sudden, much larger discharge. The CET pumping equipment does suck quite a lot out of the tanks and you don't really want to be getting a blockage in the system.

Lastly, (but I'm not 100% sure on this, but...) if the CET system uses chemicals for whatever reason, then it may well be the case that these chemicals cannot simply be flushed into the drains, but requires storage in tanks and processing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why do you want to run them in pairs?

Pure pragmatism - they exist, and reforming to a sensible length results in wasted end coaches.

 

[najaB]

Pure pragmatism - they exist, and reforming to a sensible length results in wasted end coaches.

But your proposal was that "there should be sufficient additional new stock built that they can mostly run in pairs" - if you're building new stock then build intermediate carriages so that the end result is the same number of longer sets. No wasted end vehicles.

 

[talltim]

Seats at tables?

Utterly awful. I've got no desire whatsoever to sit opposite a random and jostle for knee space.

You are more likely to win/compromise on a jostle for knees space against another person than a seat back

 

[edwin_m]

You would need pumps and space to store said pumps - ideally in the gap between track pairs, but that might be impossible in some locations, but you might be able to get away with it at a station like paddington. It would not be feasible to have pumps on the platform because a) the smell from them, b) any spillages from them, c) they would take up a lot of space and d) The port from which the tanks are drained are underneath the body, which would render them inaccessible from the platform.

It might be possible to put the CET equipment in a pit underneath the platforms, reaching to the tracks to give access to the outlets on the trains. However this would involve digging out the entire platform and building a new one over the pit, which would be hugely expensive and disruptive, and probably not acceptable at the more historic stations or anywhere that sits on a structure.

 

[simon7929]

Cure the toilet smell, re gear them and stick them on shorter routes where above 100 mph is not required. They could be used as sprinter replacements which in turn could replace pacers. Leave the long haul routes for displaced HSTs like they used to be before these things came on the scene. The main problem is that these were the wrong design of train for the services that they were intended to be used on. Might sound like a step back but HSTs were perfect for NE/SW work.

 

[jimm]

It might be possible to put the CET equipment in a pit underneath the platforms, reaching to the tracks to give access to the outlets on the trains. However this would involve digging out the entire platform and building a new one over the pit, which would be hugely expensive and disruptive, and probably not acceptable at the more historic stations or anywhere that sits on a structure.

And wouldn't actually address the fundamental problem that the issue on Voyagers - and Pendolinos - is with the design and layout of the toilet system on board the trains, which neither the TOCs nor the leasing companies seem to want to tackle head-on - presumably on cost grounds. And after 15 years of this, I won't be holding my breath waiting for them to do anything, though I will still be holding my nose on far too many journeys on XC and Virgin.

 

[najaB]

And wouldn't actually address the fundamental problem that the issue on Voyagers - and Pendolinos - is with the design and layout of the toilet system on board the trains...

There are two issues being discussed: the pervasive smell which you correctly say needs a design change, and the issue were - particularly on XC services - one or more toilets will be out of use because the tanks are full. The idea of servicing the trains at stations would deal with the latter issue.

 

[route:oxford]

You are more likely to win/compromise on a jostle for knees space against another person than a seat back

This is exactly why there should be either none or very few tables. People shouldn't be expected to fight a stranger for knee space.

(I always wear steel-toe cap leather brogues with my suit so likely to win in a fight)

 

[The Ham]

The Toilet CET Tanks can only be emptied overnight at Depots so if they are running around all day there is no opportunity to perform this task.

If there were more units then there could be more slack in the use of units meaning that there could be more time to allow some units to go to a depot to have their tanks.

Take for instance a service which runs a long distance but over the core is run by a pair of units. One unit runs the first 2/3 of the distance and then can go to a depot to have its tanks emptied ready to run the return journey. Whist the second unit runs the second 2/3 of the distance which too has chance to have the tanks emptied more frequently than if one unit is running the whole length.

Not only that, but there would be more toilets, meaning that there would be less waste per toilet. This then means that there is less of a problem.

 

[edwin_m]

This is exactly why there should be either none or very few tables. People shouldn't be expected to fight a stranger for knee space.

(I always wear steel-toe cap leather brogues with my suit so likely to win in a fight)

At the moment, on Voyagers and most other trains a table seat is the only one with enough space to work on a laptop - although it's difficult if the person opposite is trying to do the same. If the seat pitch was increased and a larger and flat table fitted in each seat back then us laptoppers could use face-to-back seats and the tables could be used by families and other groups of 3 or more for whom they are best suited.

 

[cjmillsnun]

The Voyagers could be improved by converting them as much as possible into Meridians.

However it would be very costly, at least change the seats for the type in the meridian and a full interior refurb. Perhaps to be done as part of the next franchise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is exactly why there should be either none or very few tables. People shouldn't be expected to fight a stranger for knee space.

(I always wear steel-toe cap leather brogues with my suit so likely to win in a fight)

Personally I'd rather sit at a table. I find airline seats claustrophobic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is exactly why there should be either none or very few tables.

I would say there should be half and half, which from observation would tend to provide enough of each type of seating for the demand for each type. I think fGW HSTs have too much airline seating, but Class 185s too many tables. A sensible balance, if only the spacing were better, is the original Class 158 layout which always seemed to allow people to choose which they preferred (as well as being 100% window aligned), or the LM Class 350/3 layout which has a similarly proportioned mix.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Voyagers could be improved by converting them as much as possible into Meridians.

However it would be very costly, at least change the seats for the type in the meridian

I'm not a fan of those, as them being one piece makes them more claustrophobic in airline layout, as you can't see between them. For high-backed airline seating I prefer the type used by fGW. I think First intended fitting them in the Pendolinos had they got West Coast, and to me it's a shame they weren't given that opportunity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But your proposal was that "there should be sufficient additional new stock built that they can mostly run in pairs" - if you're building new stock then build intermediate carriages so that the end result is the same number of longer sets. No wasted end vehicles.

A not unfair point, though that depends on how easy/cheap building intermediate vehicles is compared with double-staffing trains with catering staff (I see no reason you should need two guards, they can move from unit to unit at stations just like they do on the South East commuter services with guards and no gangways).

 

[Pigeon]

You are more likely to win/compromise on a jostle for knees space against another person than a seat back

This is exactly why there should be either none or very few tables. People shouldn't be expected to fight a stranger for knee space.

Since we are talking about improvements and changing interior layouts completely, both of these options are the wrong answer. The correct answer is to space the seats further apart so the problem doesn't arise in either circumstance.

More generally, seating designers need to stop basing their designs around diagrams like the attached, because nobody sits like that in real life and if you try to sit like that for very long it rapidly becomes most uncomfortable.

 

[tsr]

(I see no reason you should need two guards, they can move from unit to unit at stations just like they do on the South East commuter services with guards and no gangways).

Rules on this one seem to vary somewhat by TOC. Eg. Southern allow one guard to work two coupled non-gangway units, but the guard MUST remain in the rear unit to assist passengers in an incident which the driver cannot reach (for whatever reason).

There have been a few people who have tried to go against this rule at their own peril. The benefits are usually only regarding revenue and as such are not a priority versus the safety requirements.