What is so bad about voyagers ?

[Zoe]

Zoe some would say you could still terminate the wires at Exeter and run Bi -mode Voyagers and HSTs beyond and then use say cascaded Bi-mode Meridians to replace the HSTs when Midlands main line is wired I suppose or you could simply wire up to Plymouth eventually but that option seems to be a bridge too far with the DFt at the moment.After all the Dfts South West radar effectively ends at Exeter which incidentally is the official limit of the Governments National strategic Transport Networks,ie regarded as essential to the countries economic wellbeing and therefore justifying major investment. Still it could be worse if passengers were met with the announcement on arrival at Exeter "This is Exeter,all change ,all change for connecting services to Plymouth and Penzance".

It would be pointless have a service that would run entirely under the wires from Edinburgh to Exeter though and require it to cart around diesel engines just for the last 50 miles of its journey. If the wires end at Exeter it would be a much better idea to end the Cross Country network at Exeter with passengers changing there for services to Plymouth. This is not likely to be popular though so unless you are going to electrify all the way to Plymouth then you may as well end the wires at Bristol as that's where the core part of the network ends with half of the services from Birmingham terminating there. As far as I know the DfT do not have any plans to electrify to Exeter so I don't think it's the case that they consider Plymouth to be a bridge too far at all. It should be noted that the direct road from Exeter to London (the A30(T)/A303(T)) is not considered to be of strategic national importance and plans to improve all of it to dual carriageway were abandoned a few years back so it's not just Plymouth that is missing out. The reason the strategic transport network ends at Exeter is that's where the M5 ends. Traffic levels to Plymouth do not justify a motorway, the A38(T) is never that busy as quite a bit of traffic leaves the road in the area for Exeter, Cornwall and the Torbay/Newton Abbot area.

 

[fgwrich]

Ok, heres what i dont like about them and why im not a fan of them either - give me a HST or 180 any day!

1) Seats are too hard OPERATOR SPECIFIED
2) Windows don't line up with all seats OPERATOR SPECIFIED
3) Stink of crap
4) Lack of luggage space OPERATOR SPECIFIED
5) Designed to be like a plane on rails DUE TO INTERIOR SPEC BY OPERATOR - and designer, which i believe is down to Priestmangoode - Also designer of the Pendolinos.
6) Claustrophobic. DUE TO INTERIOR SPEC BY OPERATOR


Excess of Disabled toilets - Because of this idea of having a disabled toilet in every coach, each voyager really suffers in seating capacity - So realistically each 4 car Voyager has enough seats for a 3 car, and each 5 car is a enough for a 4 car, and isnt it said previously that a 4 Voyager has the same amount of seats as a 3 car 170?

As for the toilet problem, this is down to the clever designing of Bombardier, where the toilet waste pipe has been placed near to the rather hot exhuast pipe (don't forget that the Voyagers exhuast pipe comes up though the body of the coach), and so the warm toilet smell then ends up being circulated internally by the Air Con. Virgin has apparently sorted this out by regular replacement of various pipe work, but Arriva XC? That would mean XC has to pay out for something...

Ride quality - I had a 220 down to Southampton last thursday, happily with an Engine switched out, which made the journey actually rather pleasant and quiet (well, until we left each station where you could still hear the other 3 engines power up!)...But apart from the stuffy air con, that annoying knocking noise of the Eco Flexx bogies was certainly more noticeable.

And operator specific again, the Catering set up on XC. The shop might not have been the best of ideas, but it came close to the idea of a buffet counter than a rattling trolley banging and scraping its way along the already rather tired interior.

Sorry, but as much as you try to change said voyager, i doubt i'll ever be a fan of it! Now the similar aged, but much better designed, mk3 based Class 180 however...

 

[Metroland]

It would be pointless have a service that would run entirely under the wires from Edinburgh to Exeter though and require it to cart around diesel engines just for the last 50 miles of its journey. If the wires end at Exeter it would be a much better idea to end the Cross Country network at Exeter with passengers changing there for services to Plymouth. This is not likely to be popular though so unless you are going to electrify all the way to Plymouth then you may as well end the wires at Bristol as that's where the core part of the network ends with half of the services from Birmingham terminating there. As far as I know the DfT do not have any plans to electrify to Exeter so I don't think it's the case that they consider Plymouth to be a bridge too far at all. It should be noted that the direct road from Exeter to London (the A30(T)/A303(T)) is not considered to be of strategic national importance and plans to improve all of it to dual carriageway were abandoned a few years back so it's not just Plymouth that is missing out. The reason the strategic transport network ends at Exeter is that's where the M5 ends. Traffic levels to Plymouth do not justify a motorway, the A38(T) is never that busy.

The reason I said Exeter is because it's still important as far as cross country is concerned (and first Great Western for that matter). Electrifying to Plymouth is far more complex, though I accept that would be more ideal. You would need to build a railway inland for a start to get around the Dawlish problems, unless you want lots of OHL issues when the sea gets rough. There's also a lot of difficult tunnels on that section. That would have to be a joint FGW/XC scheme.

Exeter makes a good interchange point between FGW and XC for the West Country - more so than Bristol because most of the HSTs don't go 'the great way round' - though I would envisage HSTs working through to Plymouth and Penzance.

 

[Zoe]

The reason I said Exeter is because it's still important as far as cross country is concerned (and first Great Western for that matter).

Why would Exeter be considered important to XC and Plymouth not important though? If it was really like that then what's the point of running any XC services to Plymouth now? The HSTs from London to Plymouth can be very busy now and ending the XC network at Exeter would likely result in severe overcrowding west of there as the train frequency is reduced to 1 tph. Forcing people from Plymouth to change at Exeter will also likely result in some people switching to road.

You would need to build a railway inland for a start to get around the Dawlish problems, unless you want lots of OHL issues when the sea gets rough. There's also a lot of difficult tunnels on that section. That would have to be a joint FGW/XC scheme.

This has been discussed a few times and it doesn't seem to be as much of a problem as people think it is.

 

[Metroland]

Plymouth is quite important, I just can't see XC justifying the costs of a railway rebuild west of Exeter based on their traffic levels, at the very least it would have to be a joint scheme with FGW. I don't agree with your conclusion people would switch to road, many people are forced to change at BNS, and many HSTs would still run further west, including XC ones. The seat load factor west of Exeter on FGW services is considerably lower than the rest of the route.

 

[Zoe]

Plymouth is quite important, I just can't see XC justifying the costs of a railway rebuild west of Exeter based on their traffic levels, at the very least it would have to be a joint scheme with FGW.

Service levels west of Exeter are not significantly different to east of Exeter. The service between Exeter and Newton Abbot is actually higher than between Taunton and Exeter and if Paignton/Exmouth was included in electrification then up to 4 tph would benefit. I don't think it's impossible to electrify via Dawlish, Network Rail proposed it back in 2009 and there was no reference to a new route between Exeter and Newton Abbot.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Exeter makes a good interchange point between FGW and XC for the West Country - more so than Bristol because most of the HSTs don't go 'the great way round' - though I would envisage HSTs working through to Plymouth and Penzance.

A diesel service would most likely still run between Bristol and Plymouth/Penznace to maintain the current service level so the interchange would still be available. I don't think packing everyone onto the current Plymouth/Penzance services at Exeter is going to be a good idea as these trains are already very busy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't agree with your conclusion people would switch to road, many people are forced to change at BNS, and many HSTs would still run further west, including XC ones. The seat load factor west of Exeter on FGW services is considerably lower than the rest of the route.

As you get further away from London it tends to get quieter yes and quite a few people do leave at Taunton and Exeter but the fact that XC run a regular service between Exeter and Plymouth also helps reduce the demand on FGW services. West of Exeter quite a few people leave at Newton Abbot so the total number of people still on the trains at Plymouth is lower than the number still on the train between Exeter and Newton Abbot. I have seen a train full and standing at Newton Abbot before now. Some services from Penzance to London have also been full by the time they even get to Plymouth and a Train Manager once actually advised anyone traveling to stations between Plymouth and Taunton to leave the HST and join the Voyager that was starting from Plymouth, if most XC services terminate at Exeter then this option wouldn't have been available. As discussed elsewhere, journey times west of Newton Abbot already encourage people to go by road and forcing them to change at Exeter (and reducing the train frequency between Exeter and Plymouth to 1 tph which will likely result in overcrowding at least between Exeter and Newton Abbot if not all the way to Plymouth) is only going to extend these journey times. A lower train frequency also discourages people from using rail.

 

[All Line Rover]

Why is it that all of these threads seem to degenerate into off-topic, hypothetical diagramming debates?

 

[Zoe]

Why is it that all of these threads seem to degenerate into off-topic, hypothetical diagramming debates?

Well one of the complaints people often have about Voyagers is that they are too short and although I wouldn't personally agree with the plan, cutting back the XC network to Exeter would allow more double Voyagers to run.

 

[IanXC]

Now the similar aged, but much better designed, mk3 based Class 180 however...

I think I'm right in saying that the class 180s are based on Alstom's Coradia design rather than the Mark 3

I don't agree with your conclusion people would switch to road, many people are forced to change at BNS, and many HSTs would still run further west, including XC ones.

Now that would be a sight! People changing to HSTs at Barnes...

 

[ryan125hst]

I've never been on a Voyager either, but looking at the thread, the same problems keep being mentioned.

If the Voyagers were modified (by a new TOC at the change of a franchise for example) do you think they would be liked more?

Modifications:
- Internal refurbishment including seats that are more comfortable and ensuring most seats line up with the windows.
- lengthening to 7 or 8 car trains.
- The fitting of a pantograph and transformer.
- Installing a new buffet area (XC Voyagers at least). This could be in one of the new coaches.
- Installing a larger kitchen so a restaurant service can be provided. More 1st class accommodation can also be provided for this.
- Fixing the problems with the toilets.
- Improving the at seat reservation systems.
- Installing soundproofing between the engines and the passenger saloon.

Of course, the cost of all of this would probably be too hire for a TOC to consider this, but if these modifications were to be carried out, do you think people's views of the trains will improve?

 

[Zoe]

- Installing a new buffet area (XC Voyagers at least). This could be in one of the new coaches.
- Installing a larger kitchen so a restaurant service can be provided. More 1st class accommodation can also be provided for this.

Considering not many people use XC for long distance journeys, are these really needed? I seem to remember that's the justification XC used to remove the shop.

 

[fgwrich]

I think I'm right in saying that the class 180s are based on Alstom's Coradia design rather than the Mark 3



Now that would be a sight! People changing to HSTs at Barnes...

They are based around the Alstom Coradia UK - itself seems to have originated from Metro Cammel, but the design and interior of the Adelantes seem to be very Mk3 design based - just compare these pictures from FGW to that of a Mk3.

 

[Yew]

Considering not many people use XC for long distance journeys, are these really needed? I seem to remember that's the justification XC used to remove the shop.

Maybe just a few of them could be converted, and used on that XC service from scotland to the west country?

 

[IanXC]

Maybe just a few of them could be converted, and used on that XC service from scotland to the west country?

Sounds like a diagramming nightmare!

I suspect if they were longer there would be room, and passengers would be more likely to leave their seat to visit such a shop/buffet as they would be more likely to find a seat afterwards!

 

[Zoe]

Maybe just a few of them could be converted, and used on that XC service from scotland to the west country?

How many people travel on XC all the way from Scotland to the Westcountry? If it's only a handful of people then there would be very little benefit when the trains would still primarily be used for regional journeys.

 

[ainsworth74]

and used on that XC service from scotland to the west country?

By 'that XC service' do you mean the hourly services between Edinburgh and Plymouth

The problem that XC have is that they are trying to provide a long distance service for journeys like Edinburgh/Newcastle to Birmingham/Bristol/Plymouth (which need real catering and luggage space) as well as providing local services like York to Sheffield or Sheffield to Birmingham (which is pretty much all about seating capacity and with a trolley being sufficient). These competing markets are very hard to cater for on one train. What the XC network needs is more local services across the length of the network which would then allow XC to focus their services on true long distance services. But for various reasons that is unlikely to happen.

 

[fgwrich]

I've never been on a Voyager either, but looking at the thread, the same problems keep being mentioned.

If the Voyagers were modified (by a new TOC at the change of a franchise for example) do you think they would be liked more?

Modifications:
- Internal refurbishment including seats that are more comfortable and ensuring most seats line up with the windows.
- lengthening to 7 or 8 car trains.
- The fitting of a pantograph and transformer.
- Installing a new buffet area (XC Voyagers at least). This could be in one of the new coaches.
- Installing a larger kitchen so a restaurant service can be provided. More 1st class accommodation can also be provided for this.
- Fixing the problems with the toilets.
- Improving the at seat reservation systems.
- Installing soundproofing between the engines and the passenger saloon.

Of course, the cost of all of this would probably be too hire for a TOC to consider this, but if these modifications were to be carried out, do you think people's views of the trains will improve?

Well, upgraded catering can be done - Just look at the kitchen areas on the 222 fleet. But, there's very little you can do about the excess of disabled toilets without cutting holes into the side of each unit - which itself could possibly be done, but it would involve a hefty rebuild.

 

[jopsuk]

If new cars were inserted, they wouldn't have to have disabled loos.

 

[Bridge189]

They are actually fitted with an automated PA system which repeats the info on the interior displays similar to SWT, however fortunately Virgin decided not to use it when they introduced them and have not trained the staff in how to. Arriva have continued this policy, but sadly there are a very few train managers who have worked out how it works themselves.

Yes and this annoys other TMs who don't know how to switch it back off again and management don't like it being used at all.

In all honesty your not going to ever get 222 styled kitchens on XCs voyagers as there would not be the demand or business case for that kind of service unlike the "London" mainline operators. A buffet counter like the 222s over VTs poorly designed shop would be welcomed however.

 

[sprinterguy]

Excess of Disabled toilets - Because of this idea of having a disabled toilet in every coach, each voyager really suffers in seating capacity - So realistically each 4 car Voyager has enough seats for a 3 car, and each 5 car is a enough for a 4 car, and isnt it said previously that a 4 Voyager has the same amount of seats as a 3 car 170?

It is indeed the case that a four carriage 220 has the same total number of seats as a three carriage 170; a 170 has more, in fact, in standard class. It is not just the size of the disabled toilets that limits the seating capacity of the Voyagers: The passenger doors are located quite a long way in from the vehicle ends, unlike a comparable 23 metre vehicle like a mark 3. On a Voyager they are at least a metre from the carriage ends and probably far enough in that you essentially end up with the same length of carriage between the inner edge of each passenger door as you would find on a twenty metre long mark 2. And then the large disabled toilet is added in on top of that.

 

[bailey65]

When shorter trains were ordered more sets should have been ordered too so there were enough to double up for more capacity.
Ideally they should have ordered longer sets in the first place but somebody in a bloody office that doesn't have any idea what goes on down on the shop floor so to speak wouldn't know that.

 

[sprinterguy]

Sounds like a diagramming nightmare!

I suspect if they were longer there would be room, and passengers would be more likely to leave their seat to visit such a shop/buffet as they would be more likely to find a seat afterwards!

I've been told (and contrary to my previous belief! ) that Crosscountry separately diagram 220s and 221s, rather than just chucking out one or the other indiscriminately; seeing as you work for the company I'm sure that you know more about it than me: In that case, if all Crosscountry's 221s were to be lengthened to seven carriages by the addition of two pantograph cars, or one panto car and a trailer, then all of these sets could be fitted with a more substantial buffet counter, and be formed:
DMF - MRFB - PTS - MS -(P)TS -MS - DMS

The 220s would be lengthened by the addition of one additional pantograph trailer to give five carriage trains. As the 221s have five engines throughout the train rather than the four of the 220s, then it seems logical that the 221s would be better able to cope with two additional trailers rather than just one. Fitting just one additional carriage to the 220s would also still allow them to work in multiple, as ten carriage trains can be accomodated at many of the stations served by Crosscountry but I feel twelve carriages would be problematic.

In this way, maintaining the current diagrams for XC 220s and 221s would mean that the majority of the South West services (from both Glasgow/Edinburgh and Manchester) would be served by the longer 221s with improved catering facilities, whilst the South Coast services, Manchester to Bournemouth and Newcastle to Reading, would be principally formed of 220s: This is not much different from Crosscountrys' pre-Voyager arrangement, when HSTs dominated the North East to South West flows and the class 47 hauled mark 2 sets, with lower capacity and generally a slightly more basic catering and first class accomodation, worked the majority of the South Coast services.

The shorter 220s could also appear on off-peak South West services (principally the shorter Manchester to Bristol trains), or could work doubled up at busy times, where in both cases enhanced catering and first class provision are less of an issue and in the latter case the onus is on the provision of maximum standard class capacity. Again, this is not unlike Crosscountrys' current diagrams as far as I see them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, upgraded catering can be done - Just look at the kitchen areas on the 222 fleet. But, there's very little you can do about the excess of disabled toilets without cutting holes into the side of each unit - which itself could possibly be done, but it would involve a hefty rebuild.

I agree that removal of any disabled toilets wouldn't assist in increasing seating capacity, as inserting additional windows into the bodyside would be prohibitively expensive. However, by removing disabled toilets from certain carriages on the Voyagers it would be possible to insert a smaller "cupboard style" toilet in combination with luggage racks on both sides of the vestibule, one between the smaller toilet and the passenger saloon to increase luggage capacity.

In my proposal for seven carriage 221s that I have outlined above, there would be three disabled toilets: One in each of the driving vehicles and one in the central MS vehicle. The current disabled toilet in the existing MS vehicle behind the DMS would be removed and replaced by a large luggage area akin to that which has been created by the removal of the shop on XCs' units, given that my proposal intends to put a buffet area back in. Both of the new trailer/pantograph cars would each be fitted with the smaller "cupboard" type toilets and luggage racks in the vestibules, giving a total of five toilets (three disabled) throughout a seven carriage train.

 

[All Line Rover]

This won't happen. The e-voyager project only plans to add an additional carriage (with a pantograph) to the 4-car 220's. The 221's - all of which bar one are 5-car - will not be altered.

 

[sprinterguy]

This won't happen. The e-voyager project only plans to add an additional carriage (with a pantograph) to the 4-car 220's. The 221's - all of which bar one are 5-car - will not be altered.

Yeah that's true, I'm thinking far too ambitiously. I should have stated that in reality it is only the thirty four class 220s that are destined to gain a single additional carriage.

However, it is what should happen

 

[ryan125hst]

I've been told (and contrary to my previous belief! ) that Crosscountry separately diagram 220s and 221s, rather than just chucking out one or the other indiscriminately; seeing as you work for the company I'm sure that you know more about it than me: In that case, if all Crosscountry's 221s were to be lengthened to seven carriages by the addition of two pantograph cars, or one panto car and a trailer, then all of these sets could be fitted with a more substantial buffet counter, and be formed:
DMF - MRFB - PTS - MS -(P)TS -MS - DMS

The 220s would be lengthened by the addition of one additional pantograph trailer to give five carriage trains. As the 221s have five engines throughout the train rather than the four of the 220s, then it seems logical that the 221s would be better able to cope with two additional trailers rather than just one. Fitting just one additional carriage to the 220s would also still allow them to work in multiple, as ten carriage trains can be accomodated at many of the stations served by Crosscountry but I feel twelve carriages would be problematic.

In this way, maintaining the current diagrams for XC 220s and 221s would mean that the majority of the South West services (from both Glasgow/Edinburgh and Manchester) would be served by the longer 221s with improved catering facilities, whilst the South Coast services, Manchester to Bournemouth and Newcastle to Reading, would be principally formed of 220s: This is not much different from Crosscountrys' pre-Voyager arrangement, when HSTs dominated the North East to South West flows and the class 47 hauled mark 2 sets, with lower capacity and generally a slightly more basic catering and first class accomodation, worked the majority of the South Coast services.

The shorter 220s could also appear on off-peak South West services (principally the shorter Manchester to Bristol trains), or could work doubled up at busy times, where in both cases enhanced catering and first class provision are less of an issue and in the latter case the onus is on the provision of maximum standard class capacity. Again, this is not unlike Crosscountrys' current diagrams as far as I see them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree that removal of any disabled toilets wouldn't assist in increasing seating capacity, as inserting additional windows into the bodyside would be prohibitively expensive. However, by removing disabled toilets from certain carriages on the Voyagers it would be possible to insert a smaller "cupboard style" toilet in combination with luggage racks on both sides of the vestibule, one between the smaller toilet and the passenger saloon to increase luggage capacity.

In my proposal for seven carriage 221s that I have outlined above, there would be three disabled toilets: One in each of the driving vehicles and one in the central MS vehicle. The current disabled toilet in the existing MS vehicle behind the DMS would be removed and replaced by a large luggage area akin to that which has been created by the removal of the shop on XCs' units, given that my proposal intends to put a buffet area back in. Both of the new trailer/pantograph cars would each be fitted with the smaller "cupboard" type toilets and luggage racks in the vestibules, giving a total of five toilets (three disabled) throughout a seven carriage train.

That idea would certainly address several of the issues with the Voyagers. Would you refurbish the interior to give passengers more comfortable seats that align with the windows?

 

[fhs man 2]

Is this thread going off topic.

 

[sprinterguy]

That idea would certainly address several of the issues with the Voyagers. Would you refurbish the interior to give passengers more comfortable seats that align with the windows?

In any eventuality, let alone my own fantasy proposal, I would like to see the Voyagers refurbished with the same type of Primarius seats fitted to XCs' HSTs.

Both the Adelantes and Meridians prove that you can have a better seat to window alignment without sacrificing the total number of seats per carriage, although perhaps with the Voyagers' different window arrangement and saloon length it would be difficult to realise a similar arrangement without reducing the seating capacity to a level akin to that found in the Voyagers when they were first introduced: A small reduction in seating per carriage would be easier to stomach though if the trains were extended to give a larger total number of seats per unit.

 

[calc7]

In any eventuality, let alone my own fantasy proposal, I would like to see the Voyagers refurbished with the same type of Primarius seats fitted to XCs' HSTs.

Both the Adelantes and Meridians prove that you can have a better seat to window alignment without sacrificing the total number of seats per carriage, although perhaps with the Voyagers' different window arrangement and saloon length it would be difficult to realise a similar arrangement without reducing the seating capacity to a level akin to that found in the Voyagers when they were first introduced: A small reduction in seating per carriage would be easier to stomach though if the trains were extended to give a larger total number of seats per unit.

Financially, however, that makes little sense. Why spend millions on new coaches just to be able to house the same number of people? I'd salute anybody who gets the business case for that passed. And the fact that the trains are already rammed lends weight to the belief that the general public really don't care for the romance and interior of LHCS/HST.

 

[sprinterguy]

Financially, however, that makes little sense. Why spend millions on new coaches just to be able to house the same number of people? I'd salute anybody who gets the business case for that passed. And the fact that the trains are already rammed lends weight to the belief that the general public really don't care for the romance and interior of LHCS/HST.

There would still be a greater number of seats in a five carriage 220, with seating capacities in each carriage similar to that found in those units when they were delivered, than in a four carriage 220 with the current layout, not "the same number". I concede though that it would be a smaller total than could be fitted into a lengthened 220 using the existing "cram in as many seats as possible" arrangement.

My post didn't allude to anything as intangible as "the romance...of LHCS/HST". It only expressed a wish for a more comfortable place to sit on board Crosscountry's trains (hopefully with the better chance of a view), which would certainly start to change my opinion, if only a little (), of travelling on Voyagers.

It is sadly true though that a business case that considered the standards of comfort onboard trains would not be as strong as one that sought to simply maximise the revenue brought in by each service by hemming in as many seats as possible.

 

[Zoe]

And the fact that the trains are already rammed lends weight to the belief that the general public really don't care for the romance and interior of LHCS/HST.

The general public will want to get somewhere the quickest and most reliable way and this will often be the train. Since the introduction of the Voyagers trains are more frequent and more reliable and acceleration is much better than loco hauled stock.