XC Voyager Refurbishment

[Wolfie]

Hopefully they replace the seats with the ones they fitted in the pendolino refurbishment, they’ve been transformative in terms of interior space. But “refresh” sounds like that’s unlikely

I hope not. I know that seat comfort is subjective but l find those truly awful.

 

[cactustwirly]

Nope, many phones now come with a USB-C to USB-C cable

Such as?
My pixel is a year old and didn't come with any charging cables

 

[Towers]

The baseline for XC improvements really ought to be for every service to be a double Voyager; internal refurbs would be an added bonus!

 

[GoneSouth]

Nope, many phones now come with a USB-C to USB-C cable

Which can easily be adapted with a tiny dongle for about £3 from Amazon. Don’t think I’m allowed to link it here so won’t but they’re freely available. I use them all the time for my iPad

Such as?
My pixel is a year old and didn't come with any charging cables

All the new iPhones come with c to c cables I think, but with no charger

 

[Trainman40083]

Just remember when you refer to Arriva, that the company have sold out to I Squared.

 

[Energy]

Just remember when you refer to Arriva, that the company have sold out to I Squared.

I'm not sure whether ownership under DB or isquared makes much difference.

 

[class 9]

I'm not sure whether ownership under DB or isquared makes much difference.

Well, just last weekend the XC IT system migrated away from the Arriva system to its own, I wonder what's ahead?

 

[Beemax]

The baseline for XC improvements really ought to be for every service to be a double Voyager; internal refurbs would be an added bonus!

Absolutely. Especially on a Sunday

 

[AndrewJM70]

They are utterly dreadful refurbished or unrefurbished. These 4/5 car units need to replace the 170s and a whole new 800 fleet ordered for the long distance services. 6 car minimum and 12 car for peak services. They need to stop messing around and get on with it.

 

[swt_passenger]

The baseline for XC improvements really ought to be for every service to be a double Voyager; internal refurbs would be an added bonus!

But how many new build Voyagers will you need to achieve that?

 

[Towers]

But how many new build Voyagers will you need to achieve that?

The entire fleet of soon-to-be off lease ones would be a decent start! Sending them anywhere other than XC is a travesty, frankly.

 

[swt_passenger]

The entire fleet of soon-to-be off lease ones would be a decent start! Sending them anywhere other than XC is a travesty, frankly.

I agree, but the numbers are a long way short of enabling doubling up. Wasn’t it 20 221 at WC and 58 220/221 at XC.

 

[Towers]

I agree, but the numbers are a long way short of enabling doubling up. Wasn’t it 20 221 at WC and 58 220/221 at XC.

I’ve no idea I must confess! 20 more would certainly be a help, though!

 

[AJDesiro]

I’ve no idea I must confess! 20 more would certainly be a help, though!

Avanti have 18 221s as it currently stands, and Grand Central have two ex-Avanti units, 221142 and 221143 on a short-term lease. It's entirely possible that the GC 221s leave after the lease expires, XC could be a contender. But as of now the 7 voyagers are a like-for-like replacement for the HSTs, 35 vehicles.

 

[Energy]

I agree, but the numbers are a long way short of enabling doubling up. Wasn’t it 20 221 at WC and 58 220/221 at XC.

20 does more than you'd expect.

With A bit of reforming you'd get 20 6 car trains and 29 4+4 8 car trains. Should be enough as a few diagrams are already double voyagers.

 

[irish_rail]

I hope not. I know that seat comfort is subjective but l find those truly awful.

I agree those pendo seats are shocking. I absolutely hate that hemmed in effect you get from the massive headrest "wings". The voyager seat is actually OK, would just be nice to see it reupholstered.

 

[AirRail]

View attachment 152892

A (somewhat low quality) snapshot taken from a presentation given by CrossCountry to the Rail North Committee earlier today as recorded in this YouTube video - see from 26 minutes in...

These images are noted by the CrossCountry spokesperson as being for illustrative purposes and are not final (something that gives me some hope given the somewhat lurid colour combinations!).

For those unable to access the image, the text is as follows:

Rolling stock improvements
Voyagers

• Programme expected to begin late 2024, with 2/3 units being away for refurbishment at any given time
• Timescales based on a 4-week downtime for each unit (but may be shorter)
• Scope includes interior and exterior CCTV, automatic passenger counters, USB plug fitment, new seats, new carpets and interior and exterior livery
• Expected completion date for existing units is Sep 2026 with additional Class 221 (7 x ex-Avanti) being refurbished last.

I wonder if the colour pallete has been chosen from their "accessibility" section of their website...

Essentially its just inverted colours from their current branding / website colouring.

 

[Towers]

Avanti have 18 221s as it currently stands, and Grand Central have two ex-Avanti units, 221142 and 221143 on a short-term lease. It's entirely possible that the GC 221s leave after the lease expires, XC could be a contender. But as of now the 7 voyagers are a like-for-like replacement for the HSTs, 35 vehicles.

What’s the comparable number of seats I wonder, 7 x Voyager vs 7 x MK3? I’d imagine it’s a notable reduction in actual capacity?

 

[GoneSouth]

They are utterly dreadful refurbished or unrefurbished. These 4/5 car units need to replace the 170s and a whole new 800 fleet ordered for the long distance services. 6 car minimum and 12 car for peak services. They need to stop messing around and get on with it.

They’re reliable and comfortable and provide a much much smoother ride than the Hitachis. The only real problem is there just aren’t enough of them.

Given a choice of a relatively well padded seat of a Voyager or an 800 with its upright hard as stone seat and those constant shudders and bumps for 5 hours my money is on the Voyager every time

Having said that I could really do without the interior of my train looking like a child was let loose with the pink crayon, what are they thinking, it’s just horrific

 

[sprinterguy]

20 does more than you'd expect.

With A bit of reforming you'd get 20 6 car trains and 29 4+4 8 car trains. Should be enough as a few diagrams are already double voyagers.

That actually feels to me like it would offer an appropriate level of capacity across Crosscountry's services. Good call.

What’s the comparable number of seats I wonder, 7 x Voyager vs 7 x MK3? I’d imagine it’s a notable reduction in actual capacity?

345 first and 1895 standard class seats across 5 x 7-car HST sets (69/379 per set) against 182 first and 1610 standard class seats (26/230 per ex-Avanti set) across 7 x 5-car ex-Avanti Voyagers.

But 7 additional Voyagers can meaningfully create a lot more 400+ seat formations than the 2 HSTs that XC were utilising in service each day.

They are utterly dreadful refurbished or unrefurbished. These 4/5 car units need to replace the 170s and a whole new 800 fleet ordered for the long distance services. 6 car minimum and 12 car for peak services. They need to stop messing around and get on with it.

A 4 car 220 doesn't offer any more seats than a 3 car 170 (unless the first class driving car was converted to standard) and would be heavier on fuel use.

12 car 80x formations would not fit at quite a number of platforms. I suspect the best we could hope from any purely prospective new fleet order would be 6 car units operating singly, which would already represent a significant capacity increase over 4 or 5 car Voyagers (perhaps 43 first class and 372 standard class seats with 26 metre vehicles - more than double the total number of seats found on a 4-car 220).

 

[aar0]

Given a choice of a relatively well padded seat of a Voyager or an 800 with its upright hard as stone seat and those constant shudders and bumps for 5 hours my money is on the Voyager every time

At 6’ 6” there’s terrible leg room in a voyager, even worse in a 170.

 

[Snow1964]

That actually feels to me like it would offer an appropriate level of capacity across Crosscountry's services. Good call.

12 car 80x formations would not fit at quite a number of platforms. I suspect the best we could hope from any purely prospective new fleet order would be 6 car units operating singly,

About a dozen of the 195m option units for TPE would be good start (roughly 8car 24.4m). (This letter suggests 26 options)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c0fe79704282000d752241/rolling-stock-procurement-letter-to-industry-dft.pdf

I know it would be new type to XC but it would allow many of the existing voyagers to be reformed into 6car units, or at very least avoid the 4car units working singly.

Personally I would think reforming existing into 5car and 3car would be good start with 3car just used as strengthening on core (say Bristol-York etc). So no 4car or 3car voyager units used as single units.

 

[Towers]

About a dozen of the 195m option units for TPE would be good start (roughly 8car 24.4m). (This letter suggests 26 options)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c0fe79704282000d752241/rolling-stock-procurement-letter-to-industry-dft.pdf

I know it would be new type to XC but it would allow many of the existing voyagers to be reformed into 6car units, or at very least avoid the 4car units working singly.

Personally I would think reforming existing into 5car and 3car would be good start with 3car just used as strengthening on core (say Bristol-York etc). So no 4car or 3car voyager units used as single units.

Aren’t there various bits of equipment which make splitting or reducing Voyagers a bit challenging?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Aren’t there various bits of equipment which make splitting or reducing Voyagers a bit challenging?

You can't have 2 because end vehicles don't have air compressors but I think you can do any other length.

But a 3 car Voyager has barely more capacity than a 153.

 

[Snow1964]

You can't have 2 because end vehicles don't have air compressors but I think you can do any other length.

But a 3 car Voyager has barely more capacity than a 153.

My thinking was if you reform into 5car (normal use) and 3car (strengthening) sets, then the 3car could be all standard, no kitchen space so lots of extra seats.

They have automatic couplers so adding and removing sets is relatively easy. Yes a bit of work but likely to happen at stations where booked to stop few minutes anyway.

Anything to get away from generally inadequate 4car units on their own in the busy sections. Even if it means some Scottish or Cornwall stops at extremities of service lose 8 or 9 car formations

 

[Bletchleyite]

My thinking was if you reform into 5car (normal use) and 3car (strengthening) sets, then the 3car could be all standard, no kitchen space so lots of extra seats.

Kitchen space is in the "crumple zone" so can't be used for passenger accommodation. Same for the former (in XC's case) cycle space at the other end.

 

[BanburyBlue]

I agree, but the numbers are a long way short of enabling doubling up. Wasn’t it 20 221 at WC and 58 220/221 at XC.

During the much reduced Covid timetable (services reduced by half) services were (allegedly) changed to double voyagers. Now we are past Covid, and customers numbers up again, accepting still not pre-covid, the double voyagers have disappeared. Some of the pre-covid services are back, but not many. Couple or Reading - Newcastle's per day. So surely doubling up in the short term, unit wise, is doable.

I say allegedly because often dual Voyagers were running, often one set was locked out of use, I'm guessing lack of train crew to staff them.

 

[py_megapixel]

Kitchen space is in the "crumple zone" so can't be used for passenger accommodation. Same for the former (in XC's case) cycle space at the other end.

Wouldn't it then be a good idea to relocate the cycle and large luggage spaces tlo the crumple zones so that the space they currently occupy can be used for seats?

 

[Lewisham2221]

Wouldn't it then be a good idea to relocate the cycle and large luggage spaces tlo the crumple zones so that the space they currently occupy can be used for seats?

I may be wildy wrong, but I seem to remember it was stated at the time as being too difficult/requiring too much structural work, to add windows to the former shop area and convert it to additional saloon space.

Of course, that all seems rather irrelevant given that the area is frequently occupied by passengers, regardless of the lack of windows and seating!

 

[MCR247]

Wouldn't it then be a good idea to relocate the cycle and large luggage spaces tlo the crumple zones so that the space they currently occupy can be used for seats?

Probably quite expensive for an end result of 4 or 5 extra rows of seats without any windows at all