Ex Virgin Trains Voyagers, where could they go next?

[Bletchleyite]

The full voyager fleet could do with an internal refurb. They're very space inefficient inside

I'm not sure that would free up *much*, but if money was available to convert 2 of the 3 accessible bogs to normal ones (have the wheelchair space in 1st only with free upgrades to wheelchair user and companion, as per the 80x) then you could at least put a decent luggage rack opposite each one.

 

[The Ham]

Would they be any good for Waterloo - Exeter to replace 159's?

Only if they were reformed into 10 coach units (i.e. 2 end coaches with 8 central coaches), so as to provide comparable capacity as a 9 coach train formed of 3x159's.

Doing so would then free up 159's for longer trains on other services. Either by allowing the 159's to be swapped with 2 coach 158's to then allow more 10 coach units, or just simply to increase the length of trains which are 3 and 6 coaches long.

You'd Max out at 7 units, which would be quite a small fleet of units.

 

[Meerkat]

Replacing the Waterloo Exeter trains with more diesels isn’t going to go down well.
The route needs bi-mode versions of something like 444

 

[greatvoyager]

Voyagers are better in some respects being run as short sets in double formation rather than longer trains in fixed formation as it offers more flexibility in case if failures.

 

[greatvoyager]

Does tilt make much difference to top speed? I read that the tilt function on 221s can only be used up to 115mph.

 

[221129]

Does tilt make much difference to top speed? I read that the tilt function on 221s can only be used up to 115mph.

The tilt function is to enable 125mph running on the WCML....

 

[221129]

Indeed, given that there's been a money spent on improving the Mark 3 coaches I'd envisage that they'll be around for at least 5 years.

Even with the introduction of the Virgin trains 221's there's still going to be a need for them, as without then that's only an increase of 10 units (as the other 10 would be doing the duties of the HST's) which isn't really very much.

You would re write the diagrams though to allow better fleet utilisation.

 

[greatvoyager]

XC could use the extra units in a similar way to IETs where most are in double formation.

 

[The Ham]

Replacing the Waterloo Exeter trains with more diesels isn’t going to go down well.
The route needs bi-mode versions of something like 444

I'm wondering if it'll end up replacing the 158, 159, 442 and 444 fleets with a 5 coach bimodal trains, my guess would be ~100 of them (~500 coaches). As that would give them a go anywhere unit which could be used across the whole network. Including allowing longer/more frequent services to Weymouth.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is nothing wrong with 444s.

 

[NoMorePacers]

There is nothing wrong with 444s.

In FirstGroup’s mind there might be...

 

[tbtc]

I'm wondering if it'll end up replacing the 158, 159, 442 and 444 fleets with a 5 coach bimodal trains, my guess would be ~100 of them (~500 coaches). As that would give them a go anywhere unit which could be used across the whole network. Including allowing longer/more frequent services to Weymouth.

There is nothing wrong with 444s.

In FirstGroup’s mind there might be...

It'd make sense to have one big fleet of longer distance units (in the way that the 701s are to replace four classes of train on SWR) - I was going to suggest that only some of them would be bi-mode but then maybe having bi-mode on all units would allow the increased Weymouth service (given the power issues) - not a bad idea.

There'll be people having kittens on here at the idea of the 444s going (since they used to be the Forum's traditional template for all new stock - e.g. "TPE should introduce a diesel version of the 444" - the concept of a "344" has probably been talked about more on here than some actual stock that did get built!) - there will inevitably be people suggesting them for convoluted Nottingham - Glasgow services - but if First can get one big fleet of 5x23m stock at a better rate than the 158/159/442/444s - a "go anywhere" fleet - in the way that they have ordered one big fleet of "local" trains (and have over a hundred 450s for medium distance services) then I wouldn't be surprised.

Sounds a lot more sensible than that company who are going to have three brand new fleets of five coach trains on the TransPennine franchise (along with retaining the 185s)... oh, wait, that was First too

 

[The Ham]

There is nothing wrong with 444s.

Indeed not, however they will be 24 years old when the next franchise is due to start, so probably 26 to 28 years old by the time any new fleet would be fully delivered (especially one with 500 coaches in it)

 

[JonathanH]

XC could use the extra units in a similar way to IETs where most are in double formation.

Or double the 4-car units they have and use the 5-car units on their own.

 

[greatvoyager]

Or double the 4-car units they have and use the 5-car units on their own.

That's definitely another valid option they can look into.

 

[GrimShady]

CF Booths in Rotherham would be a nice place to start.

 

[greatvoyager]

Scrapping them is a waste really.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Scrapping them is a waste really.

It's not. By the time they get replaced they'll be well over 20 years old. They have old, particulate-generating engines. They have impractical interiors. They rattle. The bogs stink. The windows steam up. Etc.

They were a decent "first go" at an InterCity DMU, but really they'd be better melted down and turned into 80x (or cans of Coke for people to drink on board 80x).

 

[swt_passenger]

SWR already have “one big fleet of Desiros” 733 vehicles in total, not quite the same as the future 750 strong 701s. Below the sole bar the traction systems of 450 and 444 are identical, the idea that the 444s are somehow caught up in the same debate as 158/9 and 442 is completely unproven, yes the 442s might need early replacement, but I think you have to look at the DC Desiros as one large fleet.

 

[greatvoyager]

It's not. By the time they get replaced they'll be well over 20 years old. They have old, particulate-generating engines. They have impractical interiors. They rattle. The bogs stink. The windows steam up. Etc.

They were a decent "first go" at an InterCity DMU, but really they'd be better melted down and turned into 80x (or cans of Coke for people to drink on board 80x).

I find 80x units uncomfortable, so i disagree with that. Also 22x units have bigger windows, have become more reliable than other trains introduced at the same time such as 180s, and the HST is 40 years old and still in service. There is still plenty of life in them yet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I find 80x units uncomfortable

Not wishing to start a seat debate, but that's the seats and possibly the lighting. Both of those things are just about the easiest thing on a train to change beyond painting or vinylling the outside - indeed in the bigger-spending times just after privatisation pretty much every refurb was certain to come with new seats. Swapping the seats is what, an afternoon per coach with a spanner?

 

[greatvoyager]

How about XC take the remaining 221s, every voyager is put through refurbishment, installing new seats, removing a universal access toilet and replacing it with a standard toilet and / or tip up seats, and also add an additional car with a pantograph to ease the issues with capacity and fuel consumption.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How about XC take the remaining 221s, every voyager is put through refurbishment, installing new seats, removing a universal access toilet and replacing it with a standard toilet and / or tip up seats, and also add an additional car with a pantograph to ease the issues with capacity and fuel consumption.

That was considered but I thought it was found non-viable?

 

[Meerkat]

stick an electric loco on the front
Or have a powerful EMU towing it that drops off when the wires stop.

 

[greatvoyager]

That was considered but I thought it was found non-viable?

I still believe they should do it.

 

[greatvoyager]

stick an electric loco on the front
Or have a powerful EMU towing it that drops off when the wires stop.

That's an interesting idea, but would dragging a voyager enable top speed to be reached?

 

[greatvoyager]

Seeing as they are able to keep time with an engine off, can't there be a way of reducing the fuel consumption by leaving am engine redundant?

 

[Speed43125]

May I suggest that what would be better is if XC gave VTWC all their voyagers, then procured IETs, or Meridians etc to compliment their HSTs.
This way Virgin could double up all their Voyager services, and possibly convert sets by taking the centre cars out of existing sets, storing the end cars, and lengthening their core Voyager fleet. This way all the 'new' stock would be titliting and no crew training ( for them) required.

 

[221129]

May I suggest that what would be better is if XC gave VTWC all their voyagers, then procured IETs, or Meridians etc to compliment their HSTs.
This way Virgin could double up all their Voyager services, and possibly convert sets by taking the centre cars out of existing sets, storing the end cars, and lengthening their core Voyager fleet. This way all the 'new' stock would be titliting and no crew training ( for them) required.

But the new West Coast franchise has no wish to keep their Voyagers, that's why they are up for grabs!

 

[221129]

May I suggest that what would be better is if XC gave VTWC all their voyagers, then procured IETs, or Meridians etc to compliment their HSTs.
This way Virgin could double up all their Voyager services, and possibly convert sets by taking the centre cars out of existing sets, storing the end cars, and lengthening their core Voyager fleet. This way all the 'new' stock would be titliting and no crew training ( for them) required.

Also ignoring the fact that none of the XC Voyager fleet tilt.