What is so bad about voyagers ?

[IanXC]

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

For the record I don't and haven't ever worked for CrossCountry!

I don't doubt that they diagram them separately, you see many more 220s than 221s at Doncaster as they work the Newcastle-Reading/Southampton services for instance. However my understanding is that there are a number of occasions where a unit terminates on one service group, then forms the next service on another. I think the difference is that with a combined fleet there will be off peak times where its convenient for a 220 to form a SW-Scotland service, and vice versa, which becomes much more difficult if you're operating 2 separate fleets.

 

[HSTEd]

Hopefully they will be replaced by 8 23m vehicle EMUs once Cross Country electrification is completed by the... 2030s?

 

[sprinterguy]

For the record I don't and haven't ever worked for CrossCountry!

Oops, sorry about that, some sort of misunderstanding on my part

I don't doubt that they diagram them separately, you see many more 220s than 221s at Doncaster as they work the Newcastle-Reading/Southampton services for instance. However my understanding is that there are a number of occasions where a unit terminates on one service group, then forms the next service on another. I think the difference is that with a combined fleet there will be off peak times where its convenient for a 220 to form a SW-Scotland service, and vice versa, which becomes much more difficult if you're operating 2 separate fleets.

Yeah, I get your point, and I can see where Bombardier are coming from with the idea of only lengthening the 220s: Other than one train class having a pantograph car and one less diesel engine, Crosscountry will then have (from a passenger capacity perspective) essentially one uniform fleet of five car, non tilting trains with very similar seating capacities. And all Crosscountry Voyager services could make use of the OHLE at some point in their journey, although you would hope that the services that spend longest under the wires in one go, the Glasgow/Edinburgh to South West ones, would be regularly allocated the eVoyagers if this proposal goes ahead.

 

[dk1]

I have no major issues with this train (as seen from my profile pic) apart from the well publicised issues of overcrowding. Yes they have got diesel engines & yes they are noisier than electric but at speed it becomes a gentle purr in the background. You have nice large windows but unfortunatley a few seats are not in line in standard. I prefer the shop style as started & retained by Virgin. My regular trips are Crewe-Scotland & Brum-Devon & i try to pick less busy trains. On doing that i have had some really pleasent journeys. Just looking forward to the bio-mode & the extra capacity that will bring.

 

[Bridge189]

One thing wierd about the voyagers apart from the terrible internal conditions and ride quality is the strange door control set up. I cannot understand why the guards don't just close the doors directly like on most/all other intercity trains instead of the bleep-bleep.bleep thing which must add to dwell times.

 

[Schnellzug]

Is this thread going off topic.

Anything that talks about either Voyagers or Pacers always seems to wander off into lengthy discussions about what they ought to do, and usually seems to find its way round to a discussion/argument about electrification. in fact, come to think about it, most things seem to in the end.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
On the subject of this

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; .

, it does seem that services on the same route (e.g. Manchester-Bournemuth) can be worked by either, but I suppose individual services must be diagrammed for one or the other for seat reservation purposes.

 

[dk1]

One thing wierd about the voyagers apart from the terrible internal conditions and ride quality is the strange door control set up. I cannot understand why the guards don't just close the doors directly like on most/all other intercity trains instead of the bleep-bleep.bleep thing which must add to dwell times.

There would be a good operating reason. Not done for fun or to be different.

Driver gets 1-2 close doors as opposed to usual set up where guard controls it. This was done with 317s when used on Anglia routes with guards back in the 90s.

 

[Bridge189]

There would be a good operating reason. Not done for fun or to be different.

Driver gets 1-2 close doors as opposed to usual set up where guard controls it. This was done with 317s when used on Anglia routes with guards back in the 90s.

Cannot see what these reasons would be bearing in mind all IC trains before and since the voyagers have the guard closing the doors directly.

 

[Yew]

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.

I suppose really we could do with more HST's *cough*IEP*cough* for the long distance stuff with buffets and similar. Then normal voyagers can be doubled up for shorter stuff.

 

[giblets]

Having travelled Newcastle-Leamington the other day (and numerous other trips), i can confirm the seats are uncomfortable, with the front really digging into the thigh (am 6ft), the narrowness of the carriage doesn't help matters (though I appreciate this is due to tilting). Anyone who hates electronic reservations must love them, as it never works, lol.
The air con also seems somewhat asthmatic, so in anything but half a carriage in benign conditions it's really stuffy.

I've seen it raised before, but there is an awful lot of wasted space on the trains, and I appreciate there is disability legislation, but the toilets take up half the length of a carriage! Then there is the half wasted where the canteen used to be (on XC). Surely they could keep disabled type toilets to carriages A & F where there are wheelchair spaces!? As for luggage space, half the baggage racks are filled with stuff that would easily fit the overhead racks.

Is there any news on the panto for them? If I get a choice on Leam-Brum, I will always take chiltern.

 

[cointreau_rove]

As a user of mainly FGW to London I enjoyed the HST sets till they were refurbished and the platic uncomfortable seats went in with less leg room etc. I was used to the discomfort due to the times I travelled with VXC and now Arria XC

I travelled regularly Bristol to Nottingham and Manchester (in VXC days) and never enjoyed the experience as I did when the older sets were running. It was always a pleasure to get off at Derby for the final run in to Nottingham.

All the points made above are very much my experience. Noisy, smelly, cramped, uncomfortable. Club Class (nee First Class) was wasteful and ridiculously expensive even if, on a morning run, you were treated to a 3 inch long microwaved bacon roll. The lunch box was insulting.

My work at the time meant I was traveleing 3 days a week on alternate weeks so apart from the rare times I went to manchester from London (often travelling real 1st Class pre-pendolino) with the cooked breakfast, I would say my Voyager experience probably caused me the now seemingly permanent back and neck pain I developed.

Things got worse when for a couple of months I was subjected to Manchester to Southampton XC routing. I managed to prove there was a benefit to my flying between the 2 - which apart from saving me hours, was in the main, cheaper by FlyBe service.

So no I hate using Voyagers and the so called extra speed of acceleration is utterly pointless in the main - especially Temple Meads to Birmingham where even at weekends there is delays getting onto a platform at New street so swiftly getting to Birmingham's outskirts is great but actually arriving well.... Timetabling aside that journey can be done quicker so a Voyager capable of 125mph on that stretch!!!! Do me a favour.

There is a lot of similarity in the seat comfort between teh Voyager and the Bombadier Q400 (new generation DHC Dash 8 in reality). The Q400 has platic uncomfortable seats too! Mind you I was not on the plane for long!

I think the Voyagers will be around a lot longer than I will so its in the car now rather than the Voyager stink buckets. Whatever the cause someone should have sorted the "bogs" out. Might be bice if they ever sorted out the locking mechanism.... the number of times people forget to do that (in the old days) and are on the throne when the door opened!!!

We are stuck with the Voyagers unless we can find a developing country to take them over......

There was a point made off topic about electrification of the XC routes and a point was made regarding dependency on external suppliers for electricity to ppower the line.... just a small but very impotant point... where do you think diesel comes from (don't say the North sea - that Oil in Fine Crude not Heavy Oil from which diesel is produced). We shall move more t renewable electricity supply by the time the electrification process is reay although I still disagree that Nuclear is now considered renewable and green (different argument altogether).

C

 

[Zoe]

Club Class (nee First Class) was wasteful and ridiculously expensive

Even the Club Class name didn't last until the end of the franchise, I'm not quite sure why Virgin changed it back to First Class.

 

[IanXC]

Even the Club Class name didn't last until the end of the franchise, I'm not quite sure why Virgin changed it back to First Class.

How was Club Class viewed for ORCATS purposes? I can imagine you'd change it for revenue reasons!

If that is the reason how long before Chiltern rename their Business Zone?

 

[LE Greys]

Strangely enough, I think the seats are OK, at least compared with the Siemens 'planks', although they hardly hold a candle to IC-70s let alone MkIs. Part of the problem might be that what Voyagers replaced, the HSTs and 47-hauled sets, were very hard to improve on. MML seem to have sorted out a lot of the problems with the Meridians, at the expense of removing the option of tilting (although XC have done that anyway). That's actually the thing that annoys me the most, the fact that because the 220s can't tilt, the 221s now can't either. Why didn't they order only 221s? Cost-saving probably. We could have seen real journey time improvements with tilt in other places, the ECML and parts of Great Western, if there had been the option to install tilt at the next track-renewal.

No provision made for speeding up or capacity growth, missed opportunities really annoy me.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

I don't like these trains, as others have said here, they are not long enough 3,4,5 coaches for long distance trains are not enough, really they should be at least 7 or 8 std class and 1 or 2 first class carriages, also, like the pendalinos, many of the seats are A airline style rather than 4 around a table which I prefer and B, they don't all align with Windows. Give me MK 1, MK 2, MK3, HST older style carriages any time.

By the way on the subject of XC, does one get any complimentary food and or drink, alcohol with XC first class?

 

[Rich McLean]

Once GW Electrification is complete, the displaced HST's should be cascaded to XC as a stop gap measure to increase capacity, and the voyagers which become available cascaded to ATW, to work the South Wales - Manchester services, and also other busier long distance routes without wires, but not ones that require 7 or 8 coaches.

However, this is very unlikely, due to the panto car idea

 

[ainsworth74]

However, this is very unlikely, due to the panto car idea

Also because it would require fiddling with the XC timetable. At present the HSTs are on specific diagrams that are timed to meet their performance characteristics so if you add more HSTs you need to create more diagrams for them to run. Though this could I suppose be negated perhaps by shortening the HSTs down to 4/5 cars but I'm not sure on that point. Also don't forget that unless XC negotiate a different lease agreement for these extra HSTs than there existing ones it will be more expensive for them to lease due to some vagaries of the way the leases are arranged (something to do with maintenance costs I seem to recall).

Certainly it would be nice to see more HSTs on XC but it wouldn't be a simple swap.

 

[HSTEd]

Also because it would require fiddling with the XC timetable. At present the HSTs are on specific diagrams that are timed to meet their performance characteristics so if you add more HSTs you need to create more diagrams for them to run. Though this could I suppose be negated perhaps by shortening the HSTs down to 4/5 cars but I'm not sure on that point. Also don't forget that unless XC negotiate a different lease agreement for these extra HSTs than there existing ones it will be more expensive for them to lease due to some vagaries of the way the leases are arranged (something to do with maintenance costs I seem to recall).

Certainly it would be nice to see more HSTs on XC but it wouldn't be a simple swap.

Could implement that Class 255 thing (the Virgin "Challenger" concept) with some of the released sets once the DDA rebuild is done on them.
I do believe they would able to keep to Voyager timings.
Would be able to put them on many of the diagrams (all those that only need single sets with no multiple working) releasing some Voyagers to either replace XC's turbostars or to be doubled up more often. (Probably a combination of both).

 

[ainsworth74]

Could implement that Class 255 thing (the Virgin "Challenger" concept) with some of the released sets once the DDA rebuild is done on them.
I do believe they would able to keep to Voyager timings.

Well that was my thinking also but is there any official confirmation that such a configuration could keep to a Voyager timing or is just enthusiast speculation?

 

[sprinterguy]

Well that was my thinking also but is there any official confirmation that such a configuration could keep to a Voyager timing or is just enthusiast speculation?

The reason that Virgin Crosscountry shortened its' HST sets down to 2+5 formation in the last year or so of their operation was so that they could match the clockface Voyager timings dictated by the timetable: In my experience, they rarely failed to acheive these timings, even when Virgin were running them into the ground right at the end.

 

[giblets]

Even a 2+4 HST will have more seating than a 4 car Voyager, though clearly 2+5 would be superior.

 

[CC 72100]

Also because it would require fiddling with the XC timetable. At present the HSTs are on specific diagrams that are timed to meet their performance characteristics so if you add more HSTs you need to create more diagrams for them to run.

Certainly it would be nice to see more HSTs on XC but it wouldn't be a simple swap.

This is what we continually hear, but how big are the differences? Compare HST v Voyager timings on Bristol TM to Exeter (75 miles, mainly 100/110 line speed) and the Voyager is only 2 minutes quicker? I can't speak for the rest of the network, but the difference is hardly that big. All this is hypothetical as it stands, but if the possibility did arise one day for more HST diagrams on XC, this would suggest it is do-able.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Even a 2+4 HST will have more seating than a 4 car Voyager, though clearly 2+5 would be superior.

Espcially when the leading standard class coach on a voyager has 44 seats. I mean, that's a few more than half a Mark 3. So much watsed space! :roll:

 

[HSTEd]

Well a 5 carriage rebuilt Mark 3 rake would possibly include:
TSOL: 64 (including wheelchair area and accessible toilet)
TSO: 76 (including non-accessible toilet)
TSO: 76 (including non-accessible toilet)
TSOL: 64 (including wheelchair area and accessible toilet)
TFB: 34 (including buffet counter and catering base)
Total of 280 second class and 34 first class seats

A 4 carriage 220 has 174 second class and 26 first class.

I based the numbers on seating plans for XC Class 170s for the standard class seating and an observation of a Mark IV restaurant car if the side corridor could be removed (as it would be at the end of the rake).

The Guard's office (if one was to be included) would take away 2 seats or something (as it does on Cl444/450s) but could just have a designated crew seat somewhere in the rake.

With that many more seats I don't think there would be any problem diagramming them to fit into the regular XC timetable if a 2+5 HST can indeed keep Voyager timings.

 

[tbtc]

I've not said anything on this thread until now because it's mainly going over old ground. For example, on a recent thread about EMT 158s there were a lot of compliments about the refurb (that crammed more seats in) yet I didn't notice any compliant about the fact that all of the seats don't line up with the windows - funny how this criticism generally only applies to Voyagers (considering that almost all modern stock has badly lined up seats).

Same deal with the toilets - I've been on various types of train with smelly toilets (and XC had the "best" toilets in a Daily Telegraph survey a while ago), but again this is generally only a criticism of XC Voyagers.

The simple truth is that if Voyagers were long enough then all these other criticisms wouldn't be mentioned (e.g. if you have to stand for over 100 miles outside the toilet because your XC service is crammed then no wonder you'll mention the smell!).

The only other general point I'd make is that I'd have liked Virgin to go for 100mph trains for XC due to fact that there's very little 125mph running required on XC. If they had 100mph stock (for arguments sake, lets say longer 175s) then you'd have no "crumple zone" taking up space, it'd be a lot easier to source other units... 125mph was vanity.

the leading standard class coach on a voyager has 44 seats. I mean, that's a few more than half a Mark 3. So much watsed space! :roll:

Not all wasted space, some of it has to be taken up by a "crumple zone", since passengers in the front coach are potentially travelling at over 100mph. Plus the cab etc (which you don't need in a Mk 3. Not all "wasted"...

Well a 5 carriage rebuilt Mark 3 rake would possibly include:
TSOL: 64 (including wheelchair area and accessible toilet)
TSO: 76 (including non-accessible toilet)
TSO: 76 (including non-accessible toilet)
TSOL: 64 (including wheelchair area and accessible toilet)
TFB: 34 (including buffet counter and catering base)
Total of 280 second class and 34 first class seats

A 4 carriage 220 has 174 second class and 26 first class.

So a five coach Mk 3 rake (including two power cars, so roughly 140 metres) has more seats than a four coach Voyager (roughly 90 metres)?

That's not very surprising.

 

[142094]

The three main problems I have are the seats, the windows and the smell. Even if the trains were longer, I doubt XC would be willing to replace the seats or realign them with the windows, and the smell doesn't just affect the vestibule, but normally goes some way into the carriage as well.

 

[All Line Rover]

Seats are extremely subjective, and are not the fault of the train itself. I find the seats on Class 175s to be exceedingly comfortable, but others strongly disagree. TOC's can't please everybody with aspects like these, although they should still try to please as many as possible (unlike FGW).

Also, as others have pointed out, the issue of window alignment is not unique to the Voyagers. In fact, this issue could be eliminated if the seat layout was redesigned (like Coach D on Virgin Voyagers). Instead, XC in particular has taken a decision to maximise capacity and revenue instead of passenger comfort, in part (I suspect) because of strong pressure from the DfT.

 

[142094]

Of course, although when you get a lot of people complaining about the same things, then something isn't adding up and it can't just be down to personal preferences or isolated incidents. The three problems combined will mean that I'll try and avoid a Voyager at any cost, unless there is no feasible way of getting a different service.

I can't remember travelling on any other service which has had a problem with its toilets, except ones at the end of service which have been frequently used throughout the day.

 

[All Line Rover]

Of course, although when you get a lot of people complaining about the same things, then something isn't adding up and it can't just be down to personal preferences or isolated incidents. The three problems combined will mean that I'll try and avoid a Voyager at any cost, unless there is no feasible way of getting a different service.

I can't remember travelling on any other service which has had a problem with its toilets, except ones at the end of service which have been frequently used throughout the day.

London Midland 350s can have problems with the disabled toilet. Considering the toilet is not separated from the rest of the coach, it really causes a nauseating feeling when it's playing up. Much worse than I've ever experienced on a Voyager!

Perhaps another reason why some people complain about the toilets on Voyagers is that there is one in every coach except Coach D, making it difficult to avoid them. (Caused by Virgin's idea of three travel classes that, in my opinion unfortunately, never came to fruition). If Voyagers were lengthened, I'm sure the additional coach won't contain a toilet, and this might help to alleviate the toilet complaints.

 

[LE Greys]

London Midland 350s can have problems with the disabled toilet. Considering the toilet is not separated from the rest of the coach, it really causes a nauseating feeling when it's playing up. Much worse than I've ever experienced on a Voyager!

Perhaps another reason why some people complain about the toilets on Voyagers is that there is one in every coach except Coach D, making it difficult to avoid them. (Caused by Virgin's idea of three travel classes that, in my opinion unfortunately, never came to fruition). If Voyagers were lengthened, I'm sure the additional coach won't contain a toilet, and this might help to alleviate the toilet complaints.

There's one or two in every coach except the buffet on HSTs and 225s, yet they seem to manage fine.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I travelled Wednesday May 30th Preston-Crewe and then Crewe -MKC. Both were in Virgin Voyagers 1ST CLASS. I was not dissappointed. However, there was more noise than I expected. The other problem is not the Voyager fault. It so upset me that I travelled all that way on diesel power under the wires. Fortunately on my return Journey Thursday May 31st it was the 10.16 MKC-Preston and was Pendolino ELECTRIC all the way. Backto the OP question, they are not a bad train, but they could be better. My first class seat was not as comfortable as I expected.