Voyager experience not as bad as expected

[Caleb2010]

I recently travelled from Bangor to Euston on an Avanti voyager! It was horrendous!

I’m in a wheelchair and was allocated coach A - the space to manoeuvre into was tight! Less than the 1200mm Avanti accepts as a length of wheelchair!

It was right up against the heat exchanger (I assume) which was working overtime -the panel being red hot!

A single vent was emitting cold air but it wasn’t going anywhere!

I had booked an accessible or priority seat as well! I had a seat according to the display but it was neither accessible or priority!

On reflection I think that next time I will TFW it to Crewe then LNW to London I find 150/58, 197 & 350’s far mor comfortable than voyagers!

 

[Krokodil]

9x26m I'd agree isn't warranted for XC, but 7 certainly would be.

So long as they're running at the old frequencies, not the post-covid ones.

 

[Retorus]

I recently travelled from Bangor to Euston on an Avanti voyager! It was horrendous!

I’m in a wheelchair and was allocated coach A - the space to manoeuvre into was tight! Less than the 1200mm Avanti accepts as a length of wheelchair!

It was right up against the heat exchanger (I assume) which was working overtime -the panel being red hot!

A single vent was emitting cold air but it wasn’t going anywhere!

I had booked an accessible or priority seat as well! I had a seat according to the display but it was neither accessible or priority!

On reflection I think that next time I will TFW it to Crewe then LNW to London I find 150/58, 197 & 350’s far mor comfortable than voyagers!

I see you're a fan of exclamation marks.

 

[JD2168]

I usually have a decent journey on a Voager, the loo smell is not too bad & usually a quiet & smooth journey. The main thing they could do with is more carriages.

 

[Topological]

I usually have a decent journey on a Voager, the loo smell is not too bad & usually a quiet & smooth journey. The main thing they could do with is more carriages.

Same

Having used the old XC, and then the Virgin years pre voyager, I do see the current timetables as much better. I certainly would not swap back. It is just that it could have been done so much better with longer trains, or trains that could be lengthened relatively straightforwardly.

If XC ever goes IET that will be good (and offer more opportunities to interwork with GWR/LNER)

 

[Trackman]

Does anyone know if the 220s once needed their 4 car length to fit somewhere (they have SDO don't they?)

Might be worth posted a new thread. IIRC, they have SDO but they don't use it instead they locked out the doors, well they did once upon a time.

As soon as I saw this thread had been created I knew you would be along to leave a message about "pooh fumes." This is the eighteenth complaint you have made about them!

I would say 'Wee fumes' if anything when it was an issue.

 

[185143]

To be fair CIE's so-called Intercity services are more like the sort of regional express DMU service Northern would operate. The only "true InterCity" service Ireland has is the Enterprise, and even that is a bit borderline.

Not unusual for either an NIR or CIE DMU to substitute though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Talking of "pooh fumes" the design issue is that there is basically no ventilation at all in the vestibules. There needs to be negative pressure in the toilet (i.e. a powerful extractor so air flows constantly in and never out) and enough grilles in the vestibule to maintain airflow, then there'd not be an issue.

See also Euston's foul stench in the gents.

 

[Krokodil]

Not unusual for either an NIR or CIE DMU to substitute though.

And a Pacer once made it as far as Swindon on an Exeter - London train, covering for a failed HST. The exception does not alter the rule. The UK is fairly unique in using short DMUs on intercity services connecting multiple major conurbations.

You wouldn't claim that 9Fs were express passenger locos on the basis that Canton let Evening Star loose on a couple of named trains.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Talking of "pooh fumes" the design issue is that there is basically no ventilation at all in the vestibules. There needs to be negative pressure in the toilet (i.e. a powerful extractor so air flows constantly in and never out) and enough grilles in the vestibule to maintain airflow, then there'd not be an issue.

See also Euston's foul stench in the gents.

The vestibules are literally absolutely fine these days.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The vestibules are literally absolutely fine these days.

Not in my experience.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I would say 'Wee fumes' if anything when it was an issue.

Yes, in my experience this tends to be a far worse issue on trains. The stench of urine on SWR’s Desiro toilets is nauseating.

 

[swaldman]

As others have said, the biggest problem with Voyagers is that they're too short.
When half full they are perfectly nice long distance trains. But they are usually at least full, and often standing-only. And when they are full they feel more cramped than other trains because of the inward angle of the walls (why is this? Were they intended to be tilt-upgradable like the Mark IVs?!)

They're also rather loud for anybody trying to have a conversation on the platform where one is idling - but it's not so bad on board.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

And when they are full they feel more cramped than other trains because of the inward angle of the walls (why is this? Were they intended to be tilt-upgradable like the Mark IVs?!)

Never mind tilt-upgradable, they are a tilting train.

The Super Voyager (221) is the UK's only tilting diesel train, designed to navigate the curves of the WCML as per the 390 Pendolino. The 220 is built as a pretty much identical train but without the tilting function (and with different bogies) for the Cross Country routes.

CrossCountry disabled the tilt on their 221s as it's of not much use away from the WCML. Avanti's 221s still tilt.

 

[driverd]

Reading these forums I (perhaps mistakenly) gained a general sense that the passenger experience on Voyagers left much to be desired. However, I recently travelled on one for the first time and was pleasantly surprised to experience a good ambience, decent seats and no funny smells.

Does anyone else have this sense or have I got lucky on one occasion?

I was just thinking, having travelled on them a lot this last week, exactly the same thing.

Especially given that the trains are just about quiet enough to usually get a seat at present, they actually are a reasonably pleasant place to be. There's a few shortcomings (poor overhead luggage rack space being one obvious one), but on the whole I've enjoyed them - especially compared to the 222s at present which seem to have been left in a state of disrepair.

I further agree on the smell issue. It's a total non-issue and the trains are no worse than any other units for toilet smell. Yes, it smells if you stand next to the toilet, but that's absolutely not some unique "quirk" of a voyager.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I was just thinking, having travelled on them a lot this last week, exactly the same thing.

Especially given that the trains are just about quiet enough to usually get a seat at present, they actually are a reasonably pleasant place to be. There's a few shortcomings (poor overhead luggage rack space being one obvious one), but on the whole I've enjoyed them - especially compared to the 222s at present which seem to have been left in a state of disrepair.

I further agree on the smell issue. It's a total non-issue and the trains are no worse than any other units for toilet smell. Yes, it smells if you stand next to the toilet, but that's absolutely not some unique "quirk" of a voyager.

They're definitely, definitely made out to be far worse than they are, and that's very likely to have been caused by their short formation and the association of travelling on them with being stuck on an overcrowded service.

 

[driverd]

They're definitely, definitely made out to be far worse than they are, and that's very likely to have been caused by their short formation and the association of travelling on them with being stuck on an overcrowded service.

Entirely agree. I guess it's that dread of seeing one roll in and just knowing you're probably going to be standing/sat on the floor.

They certainly have their drawbacks, for example, the over-provision of PRM toilets taking up seat space (mind, on a 4 car voyager I'd only really suggest making one of the three toilets into a space-saver type). Further, let's not forget the on-board shop that became luggage storage/a great big box where the kitchen equipment was left - only to, very ironically, be replaced by a trolley service that generally spends its life acting as a miniature shop at one end of the unit as anything above slightly busy prevents the trolley making its way through the train.

I actually think the modifications detracted from the initial design, personally.

Otherwise, they're a comfortable and reliable unit - so for me, they're perfectly acceptable!

 

[D365]

And when they are full they feel more cramped than other trains because of the inward angle of the walls (why is this? Were they intended to be tilt-upgradable like the Mark IVs?!)

Never mind tilt-upgradable, they are a tilting train.

The Super Voyager (221) is the UK's only tilting diesel train, designed to navigate the curves of the WCML as per the 390 Pendolino. The 220 is built as a pretty much identical train but without the tilting function (and with different bogies) for the Cross Country routes.

Class 220s (and Class 222) were never intended to be fitted with tilt capability after the fact. In effect, they were just 'hamstrung' by sharing the same bodyshell as the Class 221.

 

[swaldman]

Class 220s (and Class 222) were never intended to be fitted with tilt capability after the fact. In effect, they were just 'hamstrung' by sharing the same bodyshell as the Class 221.

Ah, of course, that explains it - the bodyshell was designed for tilt, and so that carried over to the non-tilting versions. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[satisnek]

I'm able to remember when they were new (which is now almost a generation ago) and could see the following issues:

1. They're DMUs with underfloor engines which replaced trains that weren't.
2. They're shorter with fewer but more cramped seats.
3. They were commissioned by an airline operator who thought that it would be cool to get into railway operations.
4. As a result of all the above but particularly 3, they were the embodiment of everything that was crap about UK rail privatisation.

There were, of course, other correctable issues such as poor reliability which no longer apply today.

The first two points are largely geographical. If you're travelling for less than an hour then underfloor engines and cramped seats are less of an issue - it is, after all, what DMUs are good at - but for journeys of a couple or three hundred miles then such things are decidedly inferior. Also, the nature of the routes on which they are used means that passenger loadings are highest in the middle part of the run. Living in the Midlands I've always seen them at their overcrowded worst, but those living on the extremities of the XC network may see them in a completely different light.

As for points 3 and 4, lessons have been learned so some good has come from them!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Class 220s (and Class 222) were never intended to be fitted with tilt capability after the fact. In effect, they were just 'hamstrung' by sharing the same bodyshell as the Class 221.

Exactly, it obviously would have been lots of money spent for little benefit to create a completely different design for the 220.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

I'd say the seat reservation experience is no doubt miserable since the pandemic as on single sets you can only reserve nearly all of Coach C and D + I and J if double sets)l but not Coach F and L.

So even if a 9-car Voyager is diagrammed, you only get 4 coaches to reserve a seat. And CrossCountry wonder why people pay expensive fares.

 

[Caleb2010]

I see you're a fan of exclamation marks.

Love them, not a fan of voyagers !!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly, it obviously would have been lots of money spent for little benefit to create a completely different design for the 220.

The 220 was actually going to be an unpowered single ended MU hauled by a Class 67 like the Mk5s, but this was later changed to a DEMU. However the vehicles were always going to be the same.

Given how the Mk5 passenger accommodation is pretty awful (other than 1st which is rather good), one does wonder if had this happened they would be loved by enthusiasts.

 

[william.martin]

The main thing they could do with is more carriages.

I disagree as if running as a double they can both be a long express train and a short one which means the trains can call at stations to Shrewsbury and on the North Wales coast.

 

[py_megapixel]

I find Voyagers, when used appropriately, a bit cramped and noisy, but there's not too much a comprehensive interior refit wouldn't fix. (Ideally would include things like new toilet modules).

The problem is they are not really appropriate for what they are used for. They need to be (1) longer and (2) bi-modes. They should also be required to switch off their engines when stopped in Birmingham New Street station!

Given how the Mk5 passenger accommodation is pretty awful (other than 1st which is rather good), one does wonder if had this happened they would be loved by enthusiasts.

I don't have any experience with the Sleeper, but I don't think there's much wrong with the passenger accommodation on TPE's Mk5s. The seats are relatively hard and don't line up with the windows, but that's just a bad operator specification, and I assume Virgin's would have been completely different to that as they'd have tried to design an interior comparable to a Pendolino.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't have any experience with the Sleeper, but I don't think there's much wrong with the passenger accommodation on TPE's Mk5s. The seats are relatively hard and don't line up with the windows, but that's just a bad operator specification, and I assume Virgin's would have been completely different to that as they'd have tried to design an interior comparable to a Pendolino.

They'd have looked like a 5 car Voyager with the Standard end vehicle removed and a 67 substituted for it. The interior would have been identical. That was the actual plan before it was changed to an all-DEMU order.

My point was just that as enthusiasts like LHCS, most enthusiasts seem to dislike Voyagers but would they have liked these despite the only difference from the 221 being lack of tilt and no underfloor engines? Just like enthusiasts love TPE Mk5s not because they have a nice interior (because they don't), but because there's a noisy 68 on the end. They'd pretty much guaranteed not love the same thing if it had diesel engines under it and a cab on both ends.

 

[david1212]

The first time I entered a Voyager my instant impression was that if I did not know otherwise that it was a train for a metre gauge network. Once on the move then the engine noise unlike LCHS but on the positive side better performance and a step improvement in reliability.

Over the years since I consider them adequate for a couple of hours if loaded well below seated capacity but if close to capacity cramped. Beyond seated capacity worse than any other train. I have stood with absolutely no view between the door and the seated area adding to the difficulty of passenger movement at stations and once between Birmingham & Derby I perched on a luggage rack as unusually not full.

I consider given they are for long distance travel so many passengers will have more than a single shoulder bag or small rucksack and there will be families and larger groups rather than predominantly singles and couples that the two biggest issues are

- far too few groups of seats around tables
- too little luggage space. Core to this is the combination of the low internal ceiling because of the roof mounted equipment and the inward tapering sides to fit the loading gauge with tilt resulting in the above seat racks not being able to cope with larger bags or smaller cases that will easily fit on the rack in a MK2 or MK3 coach.

Witnessing two adults with children across two pairs of non-aligned seats juggling luggage, trying to make space for the children and managing food / drinks is not pleasant. I have seen children on the floor drawing. In an ' as built ' layout MK2 or MK3 they would have a table with most if not all of the luggage in a rack or between the seats. Chiltern 168's have a better balance of airline to table seats plus the racks can take larger luggage.

If the 4-car sets had been extended to 5-car as envisaged and/or either more sets or fewer diagrams i.e. more trains running as 8/9/10 car with the reminder covered by other stock there would be fewer capacity issues.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The first time I entered a Voyager my instant impression was that if I did not know otherwise that it was a train for a metre gauge network.

That's true of most UK stock. Our loading gauge is basically narrow-gauge on standard gauge bogies. Most UK stock is about the same size as most Swiss narrow gauge stock, though typically with a higher ride height.

 

[Richard Scott]

They'd have looked like a 5 car Voyager with the Standard end vehicle removed and a 67 substituted for it. The interior would have been identical. That was the actual plan before it was changed to an all-DEMU order.

My point was just that as enthusiasts like LHCS, most enthusiasts seem to dislike Voyagers but would they have liked these despite the only difference from the 221 being lack of tilt and no underfloor engines? Just like enthusiasts love TPE Mk5s not because they have a nice interior (because they don't), but because there's a noisy 68 on the end. They'd pretty much guaranteed not love the same thing if it had diesel engines under it and a cab on both ends.

The noisy 68 is hardly audible in the coaches whereas the engine is on a Voyager. The even bigger issue with DMUs is the vibrations from the engine and annoying transmission whines. I'm afraid it's not an enthusiast thing but pure fact that loco hauled stock is quieter and has a better environment and that is that. I've not been on any unit in any country that is quieter than loco hauled stock.
From an enthusiast perspective I'd argue modern loco hauled stock is a retrograde step as can hardly hear the locos!!