Voyagers

[WestCoast]

Trouble is that if you have buttons, the buttons tend to be rather fiddly; though Desiros are probably worse, where they have touch sensitive buttons, and you know how touch sensitive buttons are rarely very sensitive, so you usually have to give them a hefty thump.

Pendolinos have fiddly touch-sensitive buttons, but I don't think Voyagers do. Class 185 Desiros certainly have proper buttons.

 

[Blindtraveler]

a problem on a cupple of the voyager sets iv used lately is the buttons are sticking and failing to do anything at all. If alerted to this the TM simply locks the door OOU and allows the rank toilet smell free reign over pacs nostrills!

 

[ChrisCooper]

Another problem with Voyager, Pendolino and Meridien doors is that they have no sensors to tell if someone is blocking the door, so will close regardless. They close quite hard too before realising and opening again. It's quite a problem for people when queing either to get on or off the train. I've seen before where the door has closed between someone's back and rucksack. One good thing is that they do have floor switches too, which are designed for use of the trolley person, but can be used by anyone.
Also, whilst Mk3 doors are far from quiet, the Voyager and Meridien doors are horribly noisy and sound like they are about to fail all the time. Gets quite annoying when sitting near the door and it's opening and closing all the time as people get on. I have known them to open and close randomly too. To be honest, with doors either side of the gangways and sealed external doors I don't know why they need doors between the passenger compartment and the vestibule anyway. It's perfectly acceptable for long distance intercity trains to lack them when they have 1/3 2/3 doors (168s, 170s, 185s, 350s, 450s), with the exception of seperating a first class section.

 

[button_boxer]

Vestibule doors which actually open wiothout you touching them, so if you have 2 hands full of luggage (or if you are carrying a child), the door will open without you needing to put your luggage or child down to press a button.

One of the (many) advantages of Meridians over Voyagers is that they do have floor buttons to let you open the internal doors with your hands full (the little round black ones at the right hand edge of each door, for those who weren't aware of them).

 

[Goatboy]

I have a strong dislike for Voyagers for two main reasons.

Firstly they are too short - Just caught a 5 coach Voyager from Bristol to Plymouth and it was absolutely wedged.

Secondly and more annoyingly - the almost non-existent mobile signal is a complete and utter pain on a long trip. And to think XC cited the prevelance of 3G Dongles as an excuse for not meeting the franchise commitment of installing Wifi? Fat lot of use a 3G Dongle is inside a Voyager.

A properly refurbished HST is superior in every way - FGW HST sets are modern, comfortable, equipped with power sockets, etc.

 

[IanXC]

I have a strong dislike for Voyagers for two main reasons.

Firstly they are too short - Just caught a 5 coach Voyager from Bristol to Plymouth and it was absolutely wedged.

Secondly and more annoyingly - the almost non-existent mobile signal is a complete and utter pain on a long trip. And to think XC cited the prevelance of 3G Dongles as an excuse for not meeting the franchise commitment of installing Wifi? Fat lot of use a 3G Dongle is inside a Voyager.

A properly refurbished HST is superior in every way - FGW HST sets are modern, comfortable, equipped with power sockets, etc.

I don't like to throw a spanner in the works on your Voyager hate, but on the wifi front: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=54783

We all know the story of how we've ended up with the XC fleet we have, if they were of a suitable length theyd be unbeatable for XC. Its not as if HSTs have the reliability or acceleration to beat the Voyagers.

Nice as FGW HSTs sets are I'm not sure I've ever thought of them as "modern", EC/XC HSTs maybe, but not FGW ones!

 

[Robinson]

I have a strong dislike for Voyagers for two main reasons.

Firstly they are too short - Just caught a 5 coach Voyager from Bristol to Plymouth and it was absolutely wedged.

Secondly and more annoyingly - the almost non-existent mobile signal is a complete and utter pain on a long trip. And to think XC cited the prevelance of 3G Dongles as an excuse for not meeting the franchise commitment of installing Wifi? Fat lot of use a 3G Dongle is inside a Voyager.

A properly refurbished HST is superior in every way - FGW HST sets are modern, comfortable, equipped with power sockets, etc.

From my experience I've often had mobile signal problems on XC, but it seems to be much less of an issue on VT.

 

[HSTEd]

An eleven carriage Voyager would probably be comparable to a HST in terms of travel experience with superior reliability and acceleration, I have to wonder about how many of the complaints about them are a result of the sardine can level loadings.

 

[Schnellzug]

it's often alluded to that it wasn't Virgin's fault that they ordered 4- or 5-car Voyagers, since that was entirely decided by the Governement, or alternatively that it was entirely Virgin's decision and the Government had nothing at all to do with it; people seem to state these two viewpoints regularly with complete certainty. But which was it? Whose fault is it, at the end of the day, that the Voyagers weren't long enough?

(But even if it wasn't their fault, it still wouldn't let Virgin off the hook for the poor seat design, which is probably the other main deficiency).

 

[Goatboy]

I don't like to throw a spanner in the works on your Voyager hate, but on the wifi front: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=54783

Excellent news, I'm sure it'll be very reasonably priced.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

An eleven carriage Voyager would probably be comparable to a HST in terms of travel experience with superior reliability and acceleration, I have to wonder about how many of the complaints about them are a result of the sardine can level loadings.

A lot of it is due to the crowding actually - I don't mind Voyagers so much when they are lightly loaded. Still no phone signal, though.

 

[tbtc]

An eleven carriage Voyager would probably be comparable to a HST in terms of travel experience with superior reliability and acceleration, I have to wonder about how many of the complaints about them are a result of the sardine can level loadings.

I agree. If people get a seat (due to longer Voyagers) and arrive on time (due to the reliable Voyagers with quick acceleration) then suddenly all of the other "problems" wouldn't get complained about half as much.

Getting a seat and getting there on time are two of the three "biggies" (along with cost of fare). If these aren't a problem then people are significantly less likely to complain about seat covers/ trolley service/ toilets...

 

[Lampshade]

An eleven carriage Voyager would probably be comparable to a HST in terms of travel experience with superior reliability and acceleration, I have to wonder about how many of the complaints about them are a result of the sardine can level loadings.

Voyagers that long would be hopelessly inefficient as it's generally accepted that LHCS/HSTs are more efficient in formations of 7 carriages or more.

 

[HSTEd]

Voyagers that long would be hopelessly inefficient as it's generally accepted that LHCS/HSTs are more efficient in formations of 7 carriages or more.

An eleven coach Voyager would likely be an electrodiesel (one or even two trailers in eleven is not going to make a big difference to performance) which would tend to ameliorate the fuel consumption problems.

It can also make timings a HST can never dream of.

 

[Blindtraveler]

but its stil a voyager! It stil stinks, rattles, has poor phone signal and huge ammounts of wasted space and even if they had 12 coaches each they would be unplesent. Are well, roll on 2030 or so when there going for scrap!

Its true though, if people get a seat they dont find it so bad. Have never heard any complaints about the scotrail MK2 plus 67 Fife circle services until there full!

 

[Schnellzug]

TBQH, poor phone signal would be a plus in my book.



If i had my way, every carriage would be a Quiet carriage.

 

[Blindtraveler]

iv gone off you!
if any rebuild saw the addition of unpowered trailers though, it would make sense for quiet accommodation to be there. I know, if I didnt need to make any or many calls id use it just to avoid 5 hours in the company of a QSK19!
I love the sound of them externally though

 

[asylumxl]

Voyagers that long would be hopelessly inefficient as it's generally accepted that LHCS/HSTs are more efficient in formations of 7 carriages or more.

How do you define more efficient?

A lot of 222s were originally 9 car configuration and I cant see how they were less efficient than an HST or LHCS.

As far as I know they were reconfigured to better match loadings etc. rather than for any engineering reason.

 

[Schnellzug]

perhaps in terms of fuel consumption? i wonder if anyone's done any calculations about the amount of fuel that would be used by 7 x 750 hp engines vis-a-vis 2 x 2250 hp, or any other similar combination. It might be interesting to find out if anyone has.

 

[The Planner]

I would have thought that a double set Voyager would be more efficient than a single set as the rear set isn't fighting against as much resistance as the first set and therefore wouldn't require to use as much power ?? but Im no engineer.

 

[HSTEd]

Voyagers in such large formations end up being enormously overpowered, for instance a train of 9 motors and two pantograph trailers would have 6750hp, this tends to cause problems with engines being less efficient at very low power loadings.

Ofcourse the fact that such a train could use electric power for half of the time, or perhaps even more, would probably counteract this effect when compared to a HST set.

 

[RobShipway]

Voyagers in such large formations end up being enormously overpowered, for instance a train of 9 motors and two pantograph trailers would have 6750hp, this tends to cause problems with engines being less efficient at very low power loadings.

Ofcourse the fact that such a train could use electric power for half of the time, or perhaps even more, would probably counteract this effect when compared to a HST set.

Only if the Voyager was doing a South West to North East XC service. If it was doing Reading - Manchester service it would not make any difference at all other than having more seats available for the passengers.

I have a question, if the XC Voyagers were extended and a path was availbale would XC be able to bring back the Brighton - Edingburgh service?

 

[Lrd]

I have a question, if the XC Voyagers were extended and a path was availbale would XC be able to bring back the Brighton - Edingburgh service?

Do they have the stock to run the service though?

 

[RobShipway]

Do they have the stock to run the service though?

Unfortunately, probably not now......:cry:

 

[tbtc]

How do you define more efficient?

A lot of 222s were originally 9 car configuration and I cant see how they were less efficient than an HST or LHCS.

As far as I know they were reconfigured to better match loadings etc. rather than for any engineering reason.

Yup, they were ordered as four coach (to replace the three coach 170s) and nine coach (to run a new Leeds - London service). There was no question of a nine coach unit not being feasible to run.

If Voyagers were nine coaches long then people wouldn't be forced to stand next to the toilets on long journeys, so wouldn't notice the smell

 

[HSTEd]

Now, ignoring the problem of the body shells, people would tend to agree that Class 222s are improved with regards to interior space and so on, so any new carriages would preferably incorporate the interiors of those into the design.

The question becomes whether it would be feasible to build a Class 222 carriage that was compatible with Class 220/1 trains.

 

[tbtc]

Now, ignoring the problem of the body shells, people would tend to agree that Class 222s are improved with regards to interior space and so on, so any new carriages would preferably incorporate the interiors of those into the design.

The question becomes whether it would be feasible to build a Class 222 carriage that was compatible with Class 220/1 trains.

Plus also additional Voyager coaches wouldn't need a "universal" toilet, so would have more seats than a "normal" Voyager coach.

(or room for a shop etc)

 

[YorkshireBear]

Adding to the arguement an eleven or ten coach voyager would not only have more seats but room for a shop so many of our problems would be solved. Also if they had more trains the toilets could kept in better order so less smell. So basically a larger fleet with longer trains and the voyagers become suddenly a lot more acceptable. And in an even more ideal world, we would have known from start XC voyagers dont need to tilt so we could use a larger bodyshell so more pleasent interior environment.

In my opinion the train isnt the problem the order was.

 

[Lrd]

Adding to the arguement an eleven or ten coach voyager would not only have more seats but room for a shop so many of our problems would be solved. Also if they had more trains the toilets could kept in better order so less smell. So basically a larger fleet with longer trains and the voyagers become suddenly a lot more acceptable. And in an even more ideal world, we would have known from start XC voyagers dont need to tilt so we could use a larger bodyshell so more pleasent interior environment.

In my opinion the train isnt the problem the order was.

How can the toilets have less smell if there are more trains? That makes no sense to me at all.

The 220's have never been able to tilt, only the 221's (Super Voyagers) can tilt (Virgin's can, XC can't) and XC don't have many 221's anyway.

 

[YorkshireBear]

How can the toilets have less smell if there are more trains? That makes no sense to me at all.

Apparently virgins voyagers are better because they get something dont to the toilets a lot more often than the XC ones. So more trains means they can have it done more often... (i think)

 

[HSTEd]

Currently only Virgin Class 221s can tilt, Class 221s in the possesion of XC are effectively equivalent to Class 220s at this point, therefore I propose the following:

- Cascade all 57 XC 221s and 220s to secondary routes, both with XC and with other operators such as EMT and TPE to enable the replacement of Express Sprinters and Turbostars, particularily those on crowded runs such as Liverpoo-Norwich.
- Order 57 Cl220/1 compatible non-tilting pantograph trailers to convert the aforementioned units to electrodiesel operation.
- Order 21 Cl221 compatible tilting pantograph trailers to convert the remaining VT units to electrodiesel operation
- Order 62 new 11 carriage electrodiesel class 222s to replace the aforementioned XC units and its HSTs and give them a uniform (excluding Turbostar) fleet.
- Order 208 new pantograph trailer and intermediate motor vehicles to make all existing Class 222 sets up to 11 carriages, cascading 220/1s will permit EMT to release the shorter existing sets to replace HSTs.

All that results in the order of 947 new vehicles of various types, almost entirely for Class 222 trains, with some 57 newly designed non tilting, and 21 tilting, Class 220/1 compatible pantograph trailers added in.

If we assume the displaced Voyagers go to XC, EMT and TPE we could be looking at total elimination of 18 HSTs from the first two and Turbostars from the latter as the 22xs have sufficiently low RA to go where the 185s cannot.

It would require the government to buy the 22x design family from Bombardier (and they arent likely to get any more orders so it wouldnt be insanely expensive) and develop pantograph trailers compatible with both 222 and 220/1 tilting and non tilting trains itself and then contract out production to any builder (preferably willing to build a plant in Britain).

It would likely result in the cascade of large numbers of turbostars and sprinters as well, helping pacer replacement.