Were Bombardier Voyagers a mistake?

[starrymarkb]

Yes, but I believe the winning bidders for GW and EC have the chance to change this before it is finalised. In the case of GW it may be the interim franchise not the long-term one - I'm tempted to think that if it's the current management they will be looking for ways of getting more seats in.

DfT is also very keen on maximum seating capacities. FGW wanted to redo the 150/1s as 2+2 to match the local units but DfT blocked it because of the loss of seating (~10 per vehicle)

 

[Oxfordblues]

It's easy to forget what the Voyagers replaced. For example, remember the afternoon York-Poole? On arrival at New Street the 47 had to run-round, taking up lots of capacity on the approaches. The average late-arrival at Oxford was about 20 minutes. Then of course when it got to Reading the loco had to run-round again!

 

[Bright Boy]

I travel on voyagers a lot, and although they're not my favourite, I've never considered them particularly uncomfortable or noisy. XC's are, as others have said, in pretty desperate need of a refurb, but other than that I have few issues with the units themselves. Toilet smell doesn't seem to be as big an issue as it was, though from time to time I still notice it at coach ends.

Interestingly, the one time thus far I've travelled on an XC HST, I found that to be a more unpleasant ride - the door to the vestibule was broken, so that it kept sliding partially open and closed as the train turned and there was a lot of rattling going on from the interior fixtures. Though probably I was just unlucky and got the one carriage sorely in need of maintenance at the time.

I have had an East Midlands HST with the vestibule doors not working, either sliding open or intermittently opening electrically on their own without anyone near them, EMT obviously having to make cuts in maintenance, but not XC.

The XC Voyagers I have been on last summer were all noisy, I think they were not using all the motors as well, they were coasting, then accelerating regularly, so when accelerating making more noise.

I much prefer travelling in Pendolino's to Voyagers, they are less smelly/noisy and more comfortable (in reference to another post)

 

[fowler9]

It's easy to forget what the Voyagers replaced. For example, remember the afternoon York-Poole? On arrival at New Street the 47 had to run-round, taking up lots of capacity on the approaches. The average late-arrival at Oxford was about 20 minutes. Then of course when it got to Reading the loco had to run-round again!

There is that of course. I'd rather that though than get squeezed on to a DMU and save some 20 minutes.

 

[Kettledrum]

I find the engine noise is barely noticeable once moving; it's more of a rumble that sounds a bit like track noise.

Neil

Doesn't it depend where in the coach you sit, and how it is being driven for that particular journey?

I've had very different experiences ranging from barely noticeable to uncomfortable vibrations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Doesn't it depend where in the coach you sit, and how it is being driven for that particular journey?

Possibly so. I almost always sit at one end in a priority seat, as legroom is inadequate elsewhere.

Neil

 

[Cheshire Rover]

To be blunt, they stink and they are too small.
That is all.

 

[Bright Boy]

To be blunt, they stink and they are too small.
That is all.

Hear! Hear!

 

[khib70]

To be blunt, they stink and they are too small.
That is all.

No it's not. I've used them regularly, mainly on XC, for journeys of various lengths and have no major issues with them. I've only occasionally noticed the smell, which is rapidly becoming a UK Rail urban legend. The seat placement is a bit annoying, granted. Otherwise they're technically great, accelerate well, and are far better than most DMUS's for engine noise. They're comfortable enough, although I wouldnt want to do Aberdeen-Penzance on one any time soon.

Their crime in the eyes of a sizeable faction on here is not being loco hauled or an HST. I used to do Edinburgh-Plymouth a fair bit in the 70's in flyblown, either freezing or tropical, MK1 open coaches behind an arthiritic Peak. I'd take a Voyager over that experience any day.

Luckily, the railways aren't run for the benefit of enthusiasts or nostalgists!

 

[fowler9]

No it's not. I've used them regularly, mainly on XC, for journeys of various lengths and have no major issues with them. I've only occasionally noticed the smell, which is rapidly becoming a UK Rail urban legend. The seat placement is a bit annoying, granted. Otherwise they're technically great, accelerate well, and are far better than most DMUS's for engine noise. They're comfortable enough, although I wouldnt want to do Aberdeen-Penzance on one any time soon.

Their crime in the eyes of a sizeable faction on here is not being loco hauled or an HST. I used to do Edinburgh-Plymouth a fair bit in the 70's in flyblown, either freezing or tropical, MK1 open coaches behind an arthiritic Peak. I'd take a Voyager over that experience any day.

Luckily, the railways aren't run for the benefit of enthusiasts or nostalgists!

No they are run for the benefit of shareholders. There is nothing wrong with being nostalgic and I really can't remember being either freezing or sweating on the Mk 2's I remember. It is only different opinions. Yours isn't wrong either, if you like them then good but you said yourself you wouldn't want to go Aberdeen to Penzance on one.

 

[Harbon 1]

Their crime in the eyes of a sizeable faction on here is not being loco hauled or an HST. I used to do Edinburgh-Plymouth a fair bit in the 70's in flyblown, either freezing or tropical, MK1 open coaches behind an arthiritic Peak. I'd take a Voyager over that experience any day.

Luckily, the railways aren't run for the benefit of enthusiasts or nostalgists!

I don't think it's the fact it isn't loco hauled or a HST, I think it's more they're a downgrade of comfort and experience from when the railways were a public service which they aren't being run as any more.

I've been on Mk1s where it has been freezing cold and I've been on them where I've had to get up because my backside was on fire, but at least theres some ventilation and the seats are all large and comfortable!

 

[yorksrob]

No they are run for the benefit of shareholders. There is nothing wrong with being nostalgic and I really can't remember being either freezing or sweating on the Mk 2's I remember. It is only different opinions. Yours isn't wrong either, if you like them then good but you said yourself you wouldn't want to go Aberdeen to Penzance on one.

The Mk2's were supremely comfortable.

The only problems I encountered on them tended to be overcrowding (plus ca change) lighting not working occasionally and the odd coach locked out of use for whatever reason.

 

[Aldaniti]

I wasn't overly keen on Mk2's but give me a Mk1 or 3 over anything on the railway today. Voyagers are not necessarily bad trains, but are completely unsuitable for the routes worked.

 

[Wolfie]

The Mk2's were supremely comfortable.

The only problems I encountered on them tended to be overcrowding (plus ca change) lighting not working occasionally and the odd coach locked out of use for whatever reason.

Hum, incredibly subjective. The early ones had no aircon, the latter ones unreliable aircon. The seats I didn't find at all comfortable... my take which is different to yours. The problem with this site at times is that some posters mistake their personal preferences, likes and dislikes to be facts.

The reality is that if the Mk2s, which were of debatable crashwothiness compared with modern stock, had been retained in service they would have been refitted with airline seats, likely out of alignment with the windows, and thus would have had many of the same features which so many on here moan about in the Voyagers without the merit of the performamnce.

Doubtless an earlier generation, had this media been available, would have been howling about how poor the Mk2/diesel combo was compared with a kettle and pre-BR coach stock....

 

[yorksrob]

Hum, incredibly subjective. The early ones had no aircon, the latter ones unreliable aircon. The seats I didn't find at all comfortable... my take which is different to yours. The problem with this site at times is that some posters mistake their personal preferences, likes and dislikes to be facts.

The reality is that if the Mk2s, which were of debatable crashwothiness compared with modern stock, had been retained in service they would have been refitted with airline seats, likely out of alignment with the windows, and thus would have had many of the same features which so many on here moan about in the Voyagers without the merit of the performamnce.

Doubtless an earlier generation, had this media been available, would have been howling about how poor the Mk2/diesel combo was compared with a kettle and pre-BR coach stock....

The point about the airline seats is probably true, although it's noteable that they did retain facing/table seating throughout until the bitter end. This is a big plus for me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Incidentally, XC's HST's show how a very pleasent, uncramped interior can be achieved, even with brand new seating in an airline layout !

 

[starrymarkb]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Incidentally, XC's HST's show how a very pleasent, uncramped interior can be achieved, even with brand new seating in an airline layout !

IMO the XC sets have horrible seats and little legroom.

Give me an FGW set with it's more generous legroom even if the seats are a little too tall.

Though I'd really prefer an ICE with its 36" pitch, recline and adjustable headrest.

 

[yorksrob]

IMO the XC sets have horrible seats and little legroom.

Give me an FGW set with it's more generous legroom even if the seats are a little too tall.

Though I'd really prefer an ICE with its 36" pitch, recline and adjustable headrest.

I find the FGW Hat's rather too oppressively claustrophobic for my taste, and they really have far too few table seats. Give me a 159 any day!

 

[Aldaniti]

I find the FGW Hat's rather too oppressively claustrophobic for my taste, they really have far too few table seats. Give me a 159 any day!

I agree. I don't get to travel on 159's much but a few years ago when I did, was pleasantly surprised at how comfortable the standard class seating was. Much better than a Voyager.

 

[corfield]

I recall XC of the late 80s and 90s - awful experience that encouraged me to get a car and drive those journeys (south coast / south west to northwest). Filthy seats, filthy trains with doors, windows broken - as for the loos and "catering". I oersonally couldnt wait for the BR era Mk2 / Class 47s to go, utter junk.

Punctuality was something only other people did under BR, as for frequency your entire day became based around the one or at best two journey options. Now it's a plethora of choice and flexibility. Almost like a passenger focus rather than what's easiest for the system...

They are too short however, clearly in the "core" bits. But given Virgin were prevented from lengthening/running the Class 67 "Challengers" which would have obviated that the it seems irrelevent to the class of trains themselves. Due to XC's seeming inability to make a profit it's hard to justify massive lengthening investment if there isnt the revenue to support existing fleet and infrastructure.

Some of the narrowness comes from the tilt for WCML which is of little value for the fleet, but I'm all for commonality and I've never had any luggage issues (unlike recently on Mk4s).

Noisewise I simply don't notice - even when trying to notice! My wife doesnt even see the difference to a Pendo or a Class 165 or a sainted 444.

They do stink however - appallingly so in the vestibule areas and noticeable in the carriage - this is a significant failing and it's disapointing it has not been fixed in some way.

Still, overall miles better than what they replaced, its a shame detail design (smell) and lack of numbers havent been sorted.

 

[fowler9]

I completely think it is down to personal taste but when people say some have forgotten how dirty trains were in the 80's and 90's I really can't remember that, and they didn't smell like open sewers that had been warmed up. They also I think had at least two toilets per coach, not two per train or what have you, which seems mad when some people claim that there are still as many or nearly as many seats per train. Just to clarify I am talking about more modern rolling stock in general and not just Voyagers, although I think the lack of a working toilet roughly holds true.

 

[Aldaniti]

They also I think had at least two toilets per coach, not two per train or what have you, which seems mad when some people claim that there are still as many or nearly as many seats per train.

A good point, and a situation which often irritates when you have to queue or go and hunt for one which is not locked out of use. And with Voyagers, where the toilets all have automatic revolving doors, I have to say that I often feel quite anxious that the door might open without warning. A good old-fashioned door and lock is far better. And for the benefit of whichever loon at Virgin decided to do it, I really don't want some woman speaking to me over a loudspeaker whilst I am trying to go.

 

[yorksrob]

I recall XC of the late 80s and 90s - awful experience that encouraged me to get a car and drive those journeys (south coast / south west to northwest). Filthy seats, filthy trains with doors, windows broken - as for the loos and "catering". I oersonally couldnt wait for the BR era Mk2 / Class 47s to go, utter junk.

Punctuality was something only other people did under BR, as for frequency your entire day became based around the one or at best two journey options. Now it's a plethora of choice and flexibility.

I only ever had the buffet car out of use once out of several occasions of using XC mk 2's, Although for the sake of balance, the last few longish journeys I've made with XC, the trolley has put in an appearance.

There are indeed a plethora of journey opportunities on the system nowadays, which is handy as I often find it cheaper (and if there's no HST available, more comfortable) to go via London to visit places such as Cornwall.

 

[FenMan]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the design criteria that even the rattles had to rattle. The flimsy panelling on the XC Voyagers adjacent to the overhead luggage racks is normally the culprit.

A decent interior refurb - including new seats designed for use by humans and elimination of the lingering pong - would make a big difference.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the design criteria that even the rattles had to rattle. The flimsy panelling on the XC Voyagers adjacent to the overhead luggage racks is normally the culprit.

A decent interior refurb - including new seats designed for use by humans and elimination of the lingering pong - would make a big difference.

And externally where the resistor banks are changed so that sea spray can't get in

 

[yorksrob]

A good point, and a situation which often irritates when you have to queue or go and hunt for one which is not locked out of use. And with Voyagers, where the toilets all have automatic revolving doors, I have to say that I often feel quite anxious that the door might open without warning. A good old-fashioned door and lock is far better. And for the benefit of whichever loon at Virgin decided to do it, I really don't want some woman speaking to me over a loudspeaker whilst I am trying to go.

Indeed. The simpler, the better for me, as far as loo's are concerned. EMT HST's are the current best for this IMO.

 

[starrymarkb]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the design criteria that even the rattles had to rattle. The flimsy panelling on the XC Voyagers adjacent to the overhead luggage racks is normally the culprit.

A decent interior refurb - including new seats designed for use by humans and elimination of the lingering pong - would make a big difference.

That'll be the legendary Bombardier build quality!

 

[cjmillsnun]

That'll be the legendary Bombardier build quality!

And yet the 222s are rock solid.

 

[route:oxford]

I only ever had the buffet car out of use once out of several occasions of using XC mk 2's

I was a regular passenger on the Edinburgh-Oxford route. As well as a daily traveller on the Oxford-Reading route.

The Edinburgh route became a standing joke with myself and other expat colleagues. With the dreadful performance of the 47s & Mk2s you were near enough guaranteed some form of refund in rail travel vouchers for the journey. At one point I managed 6 consecutive return trips out of a single purchase due to refunds.

The morning services to Reading were fairly reliable as they were early in the day. But by the time of the evening return, it wasn't worthwhile even considering planning on going for a timetabled service.

 

[yorksrob]

I was a regular passenger on the Edinburgh-Oxford route. As well as a daily traveller on the Oxford-Reading route.

The Edinburgh route became a standing joke with myself and other expat colleagues. With the dreadful performance of the 47s & Mk2s you were near enough guaranteed some form of refund in rail travel vouchers for the journey. At one point I managed 6 consecutive return trips out of a single purchase due to refunds.

The morning services to Reading were fairly reliable as they were early in the day. But by the time of the evening return, it wasn't worthwhile even considering planning on going for a timetabled service.

I used to travel quite a lot between Leeds and Reading quite a lot in about 2001 and it doesn't surprise me that you had lots of issues with late trains and failures and things not working, because I had them myself. I'm just saying that in my experience, neither the design of the passenger accommodation, nor the catering were the causes of the problems on the route.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I used to travel quite a lot between Leeds and Reading quite a lot in about 2001 and it doesn't surprise me that you had lots of issues with late trains and failures and things not working, because I had them myself. I'm just saying that in my experience, neither the design of the passenger accommodation, nor the catering were the causes of the problems on the route.

I know exactly what the cause would've been. Lack of maintenance.