CrossCountry voyagers due for a referb?

[tbtc]

I'm not sure what you would do in a 'comprehensive internal refurbishment'. You can't really reconfigure the interior and although they have been in service for 17 years the interior, whilst very familiar, isn't particularly dated.

Agreed.

There seems to be a fashion for demanding that any/every midlife train gets a complete internal refurbishment these days - I'm not sure then the became a realistic expectation (I don't remember BR doing this to all stock)?

Is this is just wishlist stuff from enthusiasts (who'd complain about signs/uniforms being updated every seven/ten years when a franchise changes hands but expect the whole train to be stripped back to the core and refurbished every few years)?

Regardless, the economics nowadays meant that it may just be a lot easier/ faster/ cheaper to order new trains (e.g. looking at the Renatus project on 321s).

I put Voyagers on my list of disliked rolling stock right up next to the Class 158

I'm surprised at that.

Not about the Voyager hate - I see that all the time (although the trains that Bombardier built are very good at the services they run - very reliable - great acceleration - I don't think there are many trains that I'd trust with the rigorous demands of travelling such long distances, being away from their "home" depot most of the time, coping with 125mph running as well - physically good trains just not long enough - but this aspect is not Bombardier's fault).

However, such hatred of the 158s? I'd be happy if all of my journeys were on 158s - good trains - some TOCs have better versions than others, but that's hardly surprising considering how much of the UK they cover (Thurso to London to Penzance).

The worst things to be inflicted on the long distance passenger since 150/2s on Trans Pennine Holyhead-Scarborough trains in the 80s.

Shh - don't bring that up - you'll spoil the narrative that introducing short "suburban" DMUs on such long distance services is something we can blame Privatisation for!

Honestly, can you imagine the grief that we'd give a TOC that introduced such stock on such a service nowadays

As ever, it was acceptable in the '80s (when BR did it)

 

[John R]

Agreed.
There seems to be a fashion for demanding that any/every midlife train gets a complete internal refurbishment these days - I'm not sure then the became a realistic expectation (I don't remember BR doing this to all stock)?

Is this is just wishlist stuff from enthusiasts (who'd complain about signs/uniforms being updated every seven/ten years when a franchise changes hands but expect the whole train to be stripped back to the core and refurbished every few years

Any train that is expected to do 30-35 years of front line service is going to look very shabby and uninviting long before its withdrawal, particularly one that is very heavily used and with so much luggage being carted on and off. That would make it, in my mind, not fit for purpose for one of the main long distance franchises later in its life, and it will reflect poorly against alternatives (car, coach, air). Mid life is the obvious time to carry out a refurb as you get the same value out of the work done - leave it too late, and some of the cost won't be recouped.

The seating on Voyagers is cramped, as is the ambience, luggage space is poor, and of course the toilets smell (and there are more accessible ones than needed, due to Virgin originally considering three classes of travel). Some of this would suggest fewer seats after refurb, but I'd suggest that modern seat design can buy some extra legroom, my perception is that first class could be pared back as it seems to be a disproportionate amount and rarely heavily used, and one fewer accessible toilets would help to. The one thing that you can't do is reshape the bodyshell, so the tilt profile will continue to mean things feel more squeezed.

I'm not a strong advocate of the IEP, (especially the lack of a decent seat cushion), but the interior seems much lighter and airier than a Voyager, and would be something to aim for in any refurb.

Ultimately the party with the strongest vested interest isn't enthusiasts but the ROSCO which owns the asset. If it doesn't offer an attractive package for any future operator against a new stock option then it may see the units prematurely withdrawn, although the hiatus around the XC franchise is probably buying it some time. So it will no doubt have worked up options to offer any future operator of the franchise. The problem for passengers is that with the franchise on hold, the do-nothing option will prevail, both in terms of quality of the existing stock and provision for more capacity with additional stock.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Regardless, the economics nowadays meant that it may just be a lot easier/ faster/ cheaper to order new trains (e.g. looking at the Renatus project on 321s).

Quite possibly so, particularly as Voyagers were the first go at a 125mph InterCity DMU for the UK, and have many faults (not least having older diesel engines which kick out one heck of a lot of particulates). It might just be better to consign them to early scrapping, learn the lessons from them and get some modern bi-modes in.

They do do the job reasonably reliably (give or take things like the reservation system that never worked properly) but they are not ideal for anything, really.

However, such hatred of the 158s? I'd be happy if all of my journeys were on 158s - good trains - some TOCs have better versions than others, but that's hardly surprising considering how much of the UK they cover (Thurso to London to Penzance).

I think the Class 158 is quite possibly the best thing BR built in recent years. A LHCS variant would be near perfect as a passenger coach. Superb ride, spacious (though maybe go for 8 bodyside windows and respace/realign the seating), quiet (as quiet as a DMU is likely to be) etc.

 

[supervc-10]

I like the 158/159s too, growing up in the Salisbury area they were my 'local' train being used by SWT and FGW (as was). Can be a little cramped, but comfy squishy seats make up for that. And, unlike many other trains, when the A/C fails the guard can open the windows!

I wonder how many 'lessons learned' for the Meridians could be retrofitted onto the Voyagers if they had an intensive refurbishment?

 

[Mollman]

Isn't the issue that we don't know what the new XC direct award involves. A refurb costs and is pointless if the franchise will be bring in brand new trains within 5 years. 185s were in a dire state at the end of the last TPE franchise.

 

[supervc-10]

Oh absolutely. The pause on the franchising campaigns is just going to kick that can down the road!

 

[Bletchleyite]

185s were in a dire state at the end of the last TPE franchise.

They didn't look it to me. In far better nick than 350/1s, and the issue with those is just seat foams and covers.

 

[CM]

Transpennine have, brand new Mark 5a coaches with a driving car and a class 68 on the front pushing and pulling, the class 68 could also be changed to a class 88 dual mode OHLE/Diesel loco for CrossCountry services

And it'd be great to see more of this type of stock in the future. EMU/DMUs are fine for short to medium distance work but not 4-5 hour long journeys or more and especially not with a great big thumping diesel engine strapped to the bottom of every coach creating a dismal racket.

 

[Monkeyhead]

I have the occasional need to travel from Leeds to Bristol and I now always go via London, even if it is longer, as I cannot bear to be squashed into a Voyager for that period of time. Sooner something else replaces them or they get a couple refurb, the better

 

[Dan15812]

I have the occasional need to travel from Leeds to Bristol and I now always go via London, even if it is longer, as I cannot bear to be squashed into a Voyager for that period of time. Sooner something else replaces them or they get a couple refurb, the better

Do Hst's operate that route?

 

[MonsooN]

I'm a regular long distance traveller on Voyagers (Plymouth to Newcastle recently ) and I think they are in desperate need of a mid-life refurb. While the trains get you from A to B, they are lacking in comfort and space.

My main issue is the seats. In standard class, there is barely any padding left on the seats and the metal edges of the seats are all bent and the paint is peeling off some of them. There is also very little leg room and, if someone is sitting in the seat next to me, it's really uncomfortable having to twist my knees to sit straight (I'm 6'3" but that's not unusually tall) Any more than a couple of hours on a Voyager and I'm extremely uncomfortable.

Also, the folding table is absolutely no use if I want to use my laptop as it's impossible to open the laptop due to the rake of the seat in front. Granted, laptops were not as common as they are now when the Voyagers were launched 17 years ago but many people who travel now need to use them on the move. The only place I can do that on a Voyager is at a table seat, which are also very scarce so it's not always possible to get one - especially on a long journey.

I'm not too fussed about the colours of the interior as long as I can sit comfortably and be productive during my journey.

If the Voyagers were to get a refurb, I hope that they can create more leg room in standard class and have a couple more tables per coach. I agree with fgwrich that this could probably be done by dropping at least one of the accessible toilets and improving the overhead luggage space. If there was more room overhead for larger items of luggage, there wouldn't be a need for larger racks at the end of each carriage and this could free up space for extra leg room too.

On the plus side, I find the ride on Voyagers to be comfortable enough. They are quite quick accelerating and have lovely, big windows.

 

[Thunderer]

Scrapping would be a better alternative, Voyagers are quite simply, horrid.

If only...

 

[Thunderer]

An 8 car IEP would be an improvement, although I doubt a permanent 8-coach train is viable or sensible as a 4-carriage 220 is already more than enough for extremities like Aberdeen or Penzance/Newquay.

Why not a 6 car IEP? One driving trailer of first class and 4 x 88 seats and 1 x 56 seats of standard = 408 standard seats...a vast improvement on a Voyager. 4 powered central coaches at 940HP giving 3,760HP on diesel for a 6 coach train, which is plenty. A 7 car IEP could offer a composite powered coach, offering more First Class and Standard seating with 4,700HP for power. If the DFT pulled its finger out and electrified the gaps (Birmingham - Wakefield/Doncaster and even Bromsgrove to Bristol) then the IEP could run on Electric power all the way from Glasgow/Edinburgh to Bristol...if only they had "Vision"...

 

[Jozhua]

They do do the job reasonably reliably (give or take things like the reservation system that never worked properly) but they are not ideal for anything, really.

While in an ideal world we could replace stock after 10/15 years there are much older trains that are bouncing around the country still. XC's own HSTs for example!
I actually don't mind the Voyagers, just too overcrowded most of the time...

Really the best option for XC is to take some cascaded HSTs and give them their refurb treatment and then refit the interiors of the Voyagers and run them in a doubled up formation. That would be the most bang for the buck for the time being! The thing is, the trains running the longest routes in the country should really be the most comfortable but unfortunately they are not. A 7 carriage HST is about ideal though, gives everyone enough room to stretch their legs a bit as well.

 

[Richard Scott]

Big problem with voyagers is they were virtually outdated before they were built. By that I mean 4/5 fuel hungry diesel engines, no provision for over head collection. Real retrograde step when in loco hauled days an 86 would take over on the electrified sections. Now have the stupid situation of them running for a couple of hours or more on electrified track (York to Edinburgh/Glasgow for example). They have too few coaches and are too noisy, even my mother comments on how bad they are when using them so must be bad. Whilst we have stock shortages who is going to really want them if they were cascaded due to their fuel consumption (I was told by someone who worked for XC that a Voyager used as much fuel as a 7 coach HST)? They're likely to eek their days out on XC and may end up prematurely scrapped due to lack of ability to run off 25kV overheads?

 

[rdeez]

There seems to be a fashion for demanding that any/every midlife train gets a complete internal refurbishment these days - I'm not sure then the became a realistic expectation (I don't remember BR doing this to all stock)?

To be fair, XC's Voyagers really do need it. They really have taken a battering internally over the years. The panels in the vestibules are almost universally battered and scuffed, and just plain dirty in many cases. Carpets threadbare and stained. Loose interior fittings rattling like mad when the engines are idling or at full speed. Tray tables chipped and scratched, which must make effectively cleaning them that much more difficult. The impression you get on boarding pretty much any XC Voyager is of a train unloved and neglected. I know they do some miles, but when you see the same things time and time again it's more than just grime picked up en-route.

 

[Mordac]

To be fair, XC's Voyagers really do need it. They really have taken a battering internally over the years. The panels in the vestibules are almost universally battered and scuffed, and just plain dirty in many cases. Carpets threadbare and stained. Loose interior fittings rattling like mad when the engines are idling or at full speed. Tray tables chipped and scratched, which must make effectively cleaning them that much more difficult. The impression you get on boarding pretty much any XC Voyager is of a train unloved and neglected. I know they do some miles, but when you see the same things time and time again it's more than just grime picked up en-route.

Especially because Virgin's 221s seem to be in much better internal condition.

 

[pt_mad]

How does the width and dimensions of a MK4 coach compare with those of a Voyager?

Inside a MK4, you get the same impression of a narrowing coach towards the ceiling, due to being built possibly for tilt later, and yet a MK4 still feels so much more spacious. As does a class 158/9 imo.

In theory, would a Voyager be wide enough to fit Grammar Great Western/TFW style seats side by side with a wide enough aisle?

I don't really understand why the seats are so badly rated by so many posters when I believe the Pendolinos have the same seats? Perhaps it's just the luggage rack which makes things feel so claustrophobic.

Whatever the situation with the franchise, a deep clean, replacement of loose interior facias, a fix to the toilet smell and recovering any totally worn seat covers ought to be done as an ongoing concern really.
The franchising system can't work as well for customers if things are neglected at the end or during short extensions. Things which ought to be ongoing maintenance need to be agreed to continue regardless of whether 3 years or 6 months is left, for things to work best for the passenger.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My main issue is the seats. In standard class, there is barely any padding left on the seats and the metal edges of the seats are all bent and the paint is peeling off some of them. There is also very little leg room and, if someone is sitting in the seat next to me, it's really uncomfortable having to twist my knees to sit straight (I'm 6'3" but that's not unusually tall)

Grab yourself a priority seat, then. I find them quite easy to get (in so far as any seat on XC is), you could also reserve one using the seat selector. The chance of being unseated is very low if you choose the window, as most people requiring easy accessibility want the aisle seat, and often don't want the priority row at all because the seat in front is too far away to hold onto to sit down. I always sit in priority seats (I'm tall and have had DVT once, don't want it again thank you) and can't recall the last time there was any need to give it up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While in an ideal world we could replace stock after 10/15 years there are much older trains that are bouncing around the country still. XC's own HSTs for example!

HSTs may be old, but as they've all been re-engined they have more modern engines than Voyagers do, and kick out far less filth. It's not like the Valenta days when it looked like a steam locomotive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why not a 6 car IEP? One driving trailer of first class and 4 x 88 seats and 1 x 56 seats of standard = 408 standard seats...a vast improvement on a Voyager. 4 powered central coaches at 940HP giving 3,760HP on diesel for a 6 coach train, which is plenty. A 7 car IEP could offer a composite powered coach, offering more First Class and Standard seating with 4,700HP for power. If the DFT pulled its finger out and electrified the gaps (Birmingham - Wakefield/Doncaster and even Bromsgrove to Bristol) then the IEP could run on Electric power all the way from Glasgow/Edinburgh to Bristol...if only they had "Vision"...

6 won't be adequate. Like with TPE there will be significant suppressed demand from people who are avoiding XC because of the overcrowding - I myself actively avoid both XC and TPE for that reason (however much the tarted-up Class 185s might have the nicest interior on the network). When it comes back, you'll just get overcrowding again, just as I fear TPE will if they don't take up the options to up all their new fleet to 6 or 7 coaches. So if you're building new, just go long straight away, then there's plenty of capacity for further growth.

 

[pt_mad]

Because 125 is needed, it just limits things so much as regards second generation DMUs which could be taken on. There's basically nothing going off lease which can do 125. If it was 90 or 95 there may be options. However, it's often the case that minimum journey times are written into franchises and politically, very few stakeholders and communities would really want to see slower journey times to get new longer trains introduced.

Someone suggested loco hauled 68s but again you need 125. Are these approved to pull coaches at 125mph? 67s are supposed to be afaik but again you're likely to need PRM approved coaches and there isn't a fleet ready and waiting.

The only other prospects are more HSTs, which need the accessibility modifications which is going to take time and money, or class 180s which afaik are not available?

222s would obviously be perfect but it's reasonable to assume that it will be at least several years until any will be available.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because 125 is needed, it just limits things so much as regards second generation DMUs which could be taken on. There's basically nothing going off lease which can do 125. If it was 90 or 95 there may be options. However, it's often the case that minimum journey times are written into franchises and politically, very few stakeholders and communities would really want to see slower journey times to get new longer trains introduced.

There are things they could do. One option would be to take 8-car 110mph EMUs for Manchester to Birmingham International for one train an hour, and have the other one portion-worked to both southern destinations with two 4-car sets.

 

[pt_mad]

There are things they could do. One option would be to take 8-car 110mph EMUs for Manchester to Birmingham International for one train an hour, and have the other one portion-worked to both southern destinations with two 4-car sets.

Aye, and refitted 350/2s would be good for that. But of we're talking in the context of an extension of a short few years, say between 3 and 5, how likely is separating routes likely to be? An extension might be under just the same service pattern as now, as extensions have been on West Coast for a good number of years.

 

[oliverpckehoe]

Aye, and refitted 350/2s would be good for that.

If Amtrak could get the flat-ended Metroliner up to 125, a newer Siemens fleet that already does 110 could easily be modified.

Failing that, a 125 mph loco hauled set (maybe a 67?) could improve comfort. Ik it's diesel but the units have to get to Penzance somehow.

 

[Jozhua]

Because 125 is needed, it just limits things so much as regards second generation DMUs which could be taken on. There's basically nothing going off lease which can do 125. If it was 90 or 95 there may be options. However, it's often the case that minimum journey times are written into franchises and politically, very few stakeholders and communities would really want to see slower journey times to get new longer trains introduced.

802's are perfect for the job. 110mph on diesel and 125 on electric. I have a feeling with the 940bhp available on the 802's 125mph probably isn't unrealistic. Maybe with a new gearbox and a engine under each car, which would probably involve minimal re-engineering we could have a 125mph on diesel power capable class 803!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Amtrak could get the flat-ended Metroliner up to 125, a newer Siemens fleet that already does 110 could easily be modified.

The Desiro Verve (a 125mph EMU) doesn't have a substantially more raked snout, though crashworthiness could be an issue, particularly driver safety.

 

[oliverpckehoe]

110mph on diesel and 125 on electric. I have a feeling with the 940bhp available on the 802's 125mph probably isn't unrealistic.

They can already *technically* exceed 110 on diesel. Rode 802020 up to 117 during GWML diverts.

 

[oliverpckehoe]

The Desiro Verve (a 125mph EMU) doesn't have a substantially more raked snout, though crashworthiness could be an issue, particularly driver safety.

I guess it would be a push given that this country didn't allow 125mph DVTs to carry passengers, despite excellent theoretical crashworthiness (although Great Heck does suggest otherwise)

 

[pt_mad]

If Amtrak could get the flat-ended Metroliner up to 125, a newer Siemens fleet that already does 110 could easily be modified.

Failing that, a 125 mph loco hauled set (maybe a 67?) could improve comfort. Ik it's diesel but the units have to get to Penzance somehow.

350/2s wouldn't need to be upgraded to work XC diagrams between Birmingham and Manchester as its max 110mph for an XC 221 on the WCML as they can't tilt. The main problem would be that obviously the routes would have to be split off at Birmingham. Something I can't imagine will be during during any extension.