Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Actual leather, or composite, sticky, horrible "e-leather"?
Has anything been done to Standard in that one?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
CrossCountry Voyagers: Due a refurbishment?
- Thread starter 387star
- Start date
- Status
Actual leather, or composite, sticky, horrible "e-leather"?
Has anything been done to Standard in that one?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,275
Absolutely nothing.
Minilad
Established Member
You could have gone to the 1719 Nottingham service which starts from Birmingham which means you would have got a seat without too much difficulty
Plastic isn't great, but I don't get how real cow is an improvement, particularly given the smell when its in bright sunlight.
A nice soft moquette is always best. But those Voyager First seats are awful because they are very worn, have quite an itchy moquette and many have a view only of a plastic deadlight. I also don't like the fact the back doesn't move when they are reclined - very little of that appears to have changed.
Last edited:
Minilad
Established Member
With what. And who's going to pay. And are you going to scrap perfectly serviceable trains?
mbreckers
Member
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 365
This. Im pretty sure VTWC wish they had more voyagers available for the Glasgow - Carlisle shuttle service just now
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
They could always loco-haul Pendolinos. But I agree it does justify their existence every time something like this happens.
They aren't bad units in and of themselves. The only thing that is genuinely bad (and that's a relative term) is the seating layout, and to some the actual seats. Change that and they could be very nice (if lower-capacity).
Goldfish62
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 13,213
I would say they're not fit for purpose. Quite apart from being too short, which could be overcome, they are wretched things to travel in. "Those most evil of diesels" was a lovely quote by Ian Walmsley in Modern Railways.
Sparks807Evo
Member
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 465
I've made quite a lot of trips on the Voyagers now and don't mind them really - good performance and actually find them relatively comfortable. They need a refurb still - redoing the seats, panel repainting etc. The toilet issue I haven't noticed as much recently which is good. Whilst I prefer 168s/170s and the Chiltern Mk3s, I wouldn't call them evil - was rather hoping the E Voyager project would've gone ahead or the Mini Pendolino idea. Would've had less issues with overcrowding then.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I really don't agree. The 221s ride well, and the interior is near enough identical to the Pendolino with the exception that the windows are a sensible size (indeed really quite big by normal UK standards and excellent for the view over Shap). They are indeed too short for most services (though not always - for instance the Sunday evening 1640-something Euston to Edinburgh via Brum appears to be perfect for them - most seats taken but never any standing).
The seat reservations system is rubbish (they could avoid that by using paper ones instead) and the luggage racks a bit small, but these really aren't disastrous issues.
Last edited:
The contract life of the IEP is 27.5 years, and the Voyagers are 15 years already and only just looking for a mid-life overhaul. The Meridians will barely be half-life in 2020.
I cannot find any remotely current business case for MML electrification online - perhaps you could link it? I did find Atkins got £135k to update a business case for it along with this gem - when all around are denying responsibility for the CP5 omnishambles, here are Atkins supporting main line wiring costing "significantly less than the £500k to £600k per stkm estimated in the RSSB study." Not even ORR will now admit to knowing what electrification should be costing.
Back on the ground, isn't the going rate currently around £3m per stkm and counting? I wouldn't trust Atkins to tell me the colour of an orange, but I look forward to seeing them bend the numbers to try and make a financial case from any electrification scheme, especially after their work for RSSB in 2009 failed to find a financial case on MML. Perhaps they think the cost has fallen since then due to economies of scale...
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse... strategy/consultation responses/a/atkins.pdf
Minilad
Established Member
But that doesn't answer my question
Goldfish62
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 13,213
It was a personal opinion, not an answer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Not a patch on the 180s.
Ash Bridge
Established Member
How do the 180's compare to the 220/1's in terms of reliability?
Iskra
Established Member
The 220's are considered some of the most reliable trains out there. The 180's are considered some of the least reliable (excluding newly introduced fleets).
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The 180 is a big case of "very nice design, shame about the build quality" throughout, really. It should have been the best IC unit, it was in the end pretty awful.
A 180 body shell and interior married to the underfloor equipment of a 220 or 222 would have been a phenomenal train in my opinion.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
With 22x build quality and larger luggage racks, yes. The 180 luggage racks are tiny, and the interior build quality appalling.
Oh, and 22x bogies. The ride quality of the 180 is atrocious - the only UK train that actually makes me feel ill at times.
sprinterguy
Veteran Member
Personally I find the 180s to ride far smoother than 22x units, especially compared to the 220s: I wouldn't appreciate Bombardiers' lightweight bogies being fitted to the 180s. From what I see as a passenger I think that the interior build quality is fine, although I am also aware that at least some of the units are often riddled with faults (internal doors, lighting, etc).
I will admit that the 180s do suffer from having inconveniently small overhead luggage racks, same as the Voyagers.
It's often reported that there are faults with it (but these are more often mechanical!) but there isn't much about the 180 interior that suggests appalling. It's in better shape than the Voyager interior...
davetheguard
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 1,939
Especially if you compare Great Western's smart 180 interiors with Cross Country's Voyagers which would definitely benefit from a refurb.
The advantage is much less marked however, if you compare Great Central's slightly worn & tatty 180's & Virgin's well-maintained Voyager interiors.
On balance though, thinking purely from a passenger's perspective, I'd much rather travel in a 180.......
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
GWR totally ruined their 180s by fitting horrible dentist's chair daylight tubes which are even brighter than the already awful Mk3 ones because the lights don't switch to half brightness (or aren't switched to it).
I came back on a voyager from Bristol to Exeter on False Boxing Day and changed coaches to avoid football supporters, only to be joined by more of these jolly types at Taunton (you know the scene). One spilt his Carling BL tin all over the carpet, but in fact the smell thankfully hid the stink of the toilets. The seats are just very uncomfortable.
This is a very bad train, hopelessly overcrowded on this route, but that is not the fault of the train designer of course. I suppose as long as they can fill the trains, even though they are often stopped at Exeter in bad weather, pitching pax into a 15x possibly, no one at XC cares.
NB The last point is a design fault of course.
Last edited:
As an occasional CrossCountry Voyager traveler (Reading <-> Coventry or New Street), I'm very much in two minds about them.
The bog stench issue annoys me, partly because I clearly don't enjoy the smell, and partly because it hasn't been fixed which smacks of complacency given that the engineering issues associated with non-stinky train plumbing were clearly solved a long, long time ago.
The seats are odd things insofar as I wouldn't like to spend much longer in them than I do due to the angle of the seat, but being a taller bloke I appreciate the leg room. The padding's past its best though, that's for sure. They're also wide enough to mean sitting next to someone who's been going at the pies isn't the end of the world.
As far as the interior condition in general goes, yeah, they could do with a tart-up, but given that I don't spend my time on trains critiquing the state of the decor I'm not overly bothered by it.
One thing I do very much like is the windows - large, deep, and with a very high number of seats with unobstructed views. Being quite a tall bloke, the view out over the heads of everyone else if seated at one end of a carriage looking towards the other is most pleasant. Actually, I think I might have understated that one as if there's one thing I really don't like it's carriages* with small or high windows - one area where rail has an unassailable lead over other forms of ground transport is the view, and I'll never understand why train designers don't attempt to maximise this (within safety and seating density limits, clearly).
Not being the type who keeps old timetables, I can't answer this myself, but ...
Do any of you more knowledgeable / book-retaining individuals happen to know how the timings of the current Bournemouth - Manchester Voyager services compare with those of a 47 plus stock (six Mk2s and a Mk1 buffet, IIRC) in the 80s on that portion of the old Poole - Manchesters?
* Having spent a good amount of time on 442s when they were younger, I never, ever got over the revolting high window position compared to the Reps and TCs they replaced. Not much of a fan of Mk3s in general, apart from the ability to open windows.
The bog stench issue annoys me, partly because I clearly don't enjoy the smell, and partly because it hasn't been fixed which smacks of complacency given that the engineering issues associated with non-stinky train plumbing were clearly solved a long, long time ago.
The seats are odd things insofar as I wouldn't like to spend much longer in them than I do due to the angle of the seat, but being a taller bloke I appreciate the leg room. The padding's past its best though, that's for sure. They're also wide enough to mean sitting next to someone who's been going at the pies isn't the end of the world.
As far as the interior condition in general goes, yeah, they could do with a tart-up, but given that I don't spend my time on trains critiquing the state of the decor I'm not overly bothered by it.
One thing I do very much like is the windows - large, deep, and with a very high number of seats with unobstructed views. Being quite a tall bloke, the view out over the heads of everyone else if seated at one end of a carriage looking towards the other is most pleasant. Actually, I think I might have understated that one as if there's one thing I really don't like it's carriages* with small or high windows - one area where rail has an unassailable lead over other forms of ground transport is the view, and I'll never understand why train designers don't attempt to maximise this (within safety and seating density limits, clearly).
Not being the type who keeps old timetables, I can't answer this myself, but ...
Do any of you more knowledgeable / book-retaining individuals happen to know how the timings of the current Bournemouth - Manchester Voyager services compare with those of a 47 plus stock (six Mk2s and a Mk1 buffet, IIRC) in the 80s on that portion of the old Poole - Manchesters?
* Having spent a good amount of time on 442s when they were younger, I never, ever got over the revolting high window position compared to the Reps and TCs they replaced. Not much of a fan of Mk3s in general, apart from the ability to open windows.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Ridiculously, SBB seem to like designing awful, cramped double deck stock with tiny windows.
The high windows were because BR thought a view of the moving track at speed would make people feel sick. It doesn't, it turned out, so modern stock has lower windows, but it was a genuine belief at the time.
Well there you go, I never knew that. I'd always assumed it was just an unintentional BR design fail a la the "We have no soul, welcome to Dystopia" original interiors of the PEP stock. Cheers Neil!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
No problem. It's mentioned, if I recall, in the excellent book "Two Miles a Minute" by L.T.C. Rolt. Well worth a read about the development of the HST and APT.
Ash Bridge
Established Member
This high window thinking actually predates the mk3 design as it was first seen on the slightly earlier mk2d aircon stock.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I know "sleeper flicker" has been suggested as a reason for the noses on early diesel classes, but never heard it mentioned in connection with coaches. As the early Mk2s were regularly doing 100mph on the WCML you'd think there would have been a chance to research this before the later ones were designed.
- Status