Virgin Voyagers

[junglejames]

These things don't wait for months to spill over into an argument, there's usually always one thread on here full of these arguments (though they usually start as a discussion about something else)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Correct.

Its funny how the people who have a hatred of Voyagers for things like "windows not lining up with seats" never start threads slagging off other modern units. In fact, one of the chief anti-Voyager contributors to this thread has praised Turbostars as being one of the best modern units (yet has never mentioned the fact that windows and seats fail to align on 170s either)

Its like the fact that people suddenly find other things to slag off once they have one fault (e.g. the Voyagers get criticised for having "massive" toilets, but I've not see the same criticism of other units with disabled toilets - the difference being that these other units have more seats).

Now would you by any chance be refering to me as this chief voyager hater? I know ive said that the 170s are the best modern units before.
Well if so, one thing I have never grumbled about regarding voyagers, is the windows/ seat lineup. Reason i have never grumbled about this, is because many trains that i do like, suffer the same problem (just like your saying). Although I dont really like it, this fact means I cant complain about this with voyagers, so i havent. So if you are on about me, your unfairly picking on me in that little bit.
Anything i pick on with the voyagers, is something that other trains i do like, dont suffer from, in my opinion.
I have mentioned the large toilets yes, but i mention the amount of large toilets. All of them are overly large, meaning a lot of seating space is lost.
I could name many things i dont like about them, and whilst its always my opinion, every one of them is fair. My main problems are namely the overhead racks, the annoyingly intruding walls (both sorted on the 222s i may add), and the fact they are used on journeys, that in my opinion, they really are not suited for. The passenger environment is wrong for these journeys.

 

[4SRKT]

Its like the fact that people suddenly find other things to slag off once they have one fault (e.g. the Voyagers get criticised for having "massive" toilets, but I've not see the same criticism of other units with disabled toilets - the difference being that these other units have more seats).

If we can move on to massive smells in the toilets, you may well be right about people slagging them off....

 

[TomJ93]

I have mentioned the large toilets yes, but i mention the amount of large toilets. All of them are overly large, meaning a lot of seating space is lost.
I could name many things i dont like about them, and whilst its always my opinion, every one of them is fair. My main problems are namely the overhead racks, the annoyingly intruding walls (both sorted on the 222s i may add), and the fact they are used on journeys, that in my opinion, they really are not suited for. The passenger environment is wrong for these journeys.

I think all this DDA things for trains are way over the top. With 220/1 and 390s I think If coach B had a large disabled toilet and then lets say 5 places for disabled people within the coach it would suit everybody. People with disabilities would be well catered for, the staff can look after everyone travelling better, as they are all in the same coach and everybody else gets more seats. The Government are right to make the railways more accesible for people with disabilities- but if 4 people with disabilities needed to use the lavvy at the same time aboard I Voyager i'd be very surprised!

I've always thought people who are proven disabled (whether this be a blue badge or another form of proof) should be allowed free 1st class travel. Then they can make more room in standard, and Coach K (390) could be equipped for disables where the staff are never far from.

 

[junglejames]

I think all this DDA things for trains are way over the top. With 220/1 and 390s I think If coach B had a large disabled toilet and then lets say 5 places for disabled people within the coach it would suit everybody. People with disabilities would be well catered for, the staff can look after everyone travelling better, as they are all in the same coach and everybody else gets more seats. The Government are right to make the railways more accesible for people with disabilities- but if 4 people with disabilities needed to use the lavvy at the same time aboard I Voyager i'd be very surprised!

I've always thought people who are proven disabled (whether this be a blue badge or another form of proof) should be allowed free 1st class travel. Then they can make more room in standard, and Coach K (390) could be equipped for disables where the staff are never far from.

Thats a nice idea. Wonder which TOC will be the first to take it up!!!

 

[RobShipway]

Not that I travel on East Midlands trains, but I suspect if nyone from that TOC has read TomJ93's idea that are most likely in my book the one's to take that up and have the capacity to do so.

 

[asylumxl]

If we can move on to massive smells in the toilets, you may well be right about people slagging them off....

It's only as smelly as the sh*t that goes into it mate.

In reality, the retention tanks need to be emptied more often, especially the XC Voyagers!

 

[Daimler]

It's only as smelly as the sh*t that goes into it mate.

In reality, the retention tanks need to be emptied more often, especially the XC Voyagers!

That's not the problem - the issue with the 220s and 390s lies in the placement of the retention tanks within the vehicle - I can't remember the exact details, but they're situated somewhere ridiculous (behind the bulkhead between passenger compartment and toilet, or something), rather than the logical place which would be slung as low as possible in the carriage, to keep any potential smells away from passengers.

No matter how much stuff is in there/how smelly it is, there should be no opportunity for smell to escape - anything else is just poor design.

 

[LE Greys]

SuperVoyagers tilt, Voyagers don't. So that makes them super

By that theory, 222s are "Super-Duper Voyagers".

 

[asylumxl]

That's not the problem - the issue with the 220s and 390s lies in the placement of the retention tanks within the vehicle - I can't remember the exact details, but they're situated somewhere ridiculous (behind the bulkhead between passenger compartment and toilet, or something), rather than the logical place which would be slung as low as possible in the carriage, to keep any potential smells away from passengers.

No matter how much stuff is in there/how smelly it is, there should be no opportunity for smell to escape - anything else is just poor design.

Where would you place your waste without an opening?

 

[Daimler]

Where would you place your waste without an opening?

Well, not speaking as an expert I'd have suggested as far away as possible from the passenger areas of the train, with the best possible seals/u-bends/whatever they use to prevent smell from escaping.

However, like I said, I'm not an expert - but all other designs of train seem to manage to prevent nasty smells from invading the carriage, so it can easily be done!

 

[tbtc]

In reality, the retention tanks need to be emptied more often, especially the XC Voyagers!

I wonder whether the nature of XC work (journeys of several hours) means its harder to find time to empty the tanks?

A Voyager may do a journey like Edinburgh - Plymouth where there aren't opportunities to empty tanks (compared to doing Intercity journeys like London - Bristol/ Manchester/ Leeds where there will be a few layovers in termini every few hours during the day)

 

[Daimler]

I wonder whether the nature of XC work (journeys of several hours) means its harder to find time to empty the tanks?

A Voyager may do a journey like Edinburgh - Plymouth where there aren't opportunities to empty tanks (compared to doing Intercity journeys like London - Bristol/ Manchester/ Leeds where there will be a few layovers in termini every few hours during the day)

I'm not really convinced by that - other trains which operate on long distance services (and which have retention tanks) such as TGVs and Mk4s don't have any problems, and let's not forget that if this were the case, Virgin's 390s/221s should be free of the problem, and they are sadly not.

I'd also be very surprised if the retention tanks in trains such as FCC/Southern 377s and LM/SWT Desiros are emptied more than once daily*, considering the intensive diagrams many of them operate - and they seem to have no 'smelly toilet' issues.

It's just a poor piece of design.

*As a genuine question, are there even facilities to empty retention tank toilets at terminus stations? I know that water tanks can be refilled, but this requires much less sophisticated apparatus, since there are no hygiene hazards involved. I had always assumed trains would only be 'emptied' on return to a depot.

 

[LE Greys]

I'm not really convinced by that - other trains which operate on long distance services (and which have retention tanks) such as TGVs and Mk4s don't have any problems, and let's not forget that if this were the case, Virgin's 390s/221s should be free of the problem, and they are sadly not.

I'd also be very surprised if the retention tanks in trains such as FCC/Southern 377s and LM/SWT Desiros are emptied more than once daily, considering the intensive diagrams many of them operate - and they seem to have no 'smelly toilet' issues.

It's just a poor piece of design.

With the Voyagers, space for power unit, alternator, traction motors, fuel tanks, radiators and so on might present a problem. With Pendys

 

[MCR247]

The problem about toilet smells has a solution. Virgin regularly do this, XC don't.

 

[Daimler]

With the Voyagers, space for power unit, alternator, traction motors, fuel tanks, radiators and so on might present a problem. With Pendys

This sounds sensible, but surely other units would suffer from the same problem? I still put it down to poor design...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem about toilet smells has a solution. Virgin regularly do this, XC don't.

Plenty of smelly toilets on Virgin too, I can confirm...

 

[Blindtraveler]

Enlighten us all about the solution to the bogging bogs please? If you share it with us, there may be a minor wrisk someone from xc may read it!

When 170sfirst entered service in scotland, the toilets wernt seen to enough, resulting sometimes in them being full or in a bad smell of eggs when flushed. Think i read in another thread that the 175s have problems too?

Hate them as I do, the 185s have the same motors and dont seam to rattle. i stil aint a fan but vt's voyagers seam better cared for than xc and are overall a bit more barable with enhanced phone signal etc and the nice new coach d interior!

 

[junglejames]

This sounds sensible, but surely other units would suffer from the same problem? I still put it down to poor design...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Plenty of smelly toilets on Virgin too, I can confirm...

According to Wiki (you know, the hive of all knowledge that never has mistakes in it!!), the problem with the voyagers is because the tanks are too close to the exhaust system, thus smelly gases come back up through the toilets.
Not sure if that is 100% accurate, but it does make sense.

 

[Blindtraveler]

According to Wiki (you know, the hive of all knowledge that never has mistakes in it!!), the problem with the voyagers is because the tanks are too close to the exhaust system, thus smelly gases come back up through the toilets.
And bring a load of toilet smells with it?

I aint convinced but as you say, it makes some sense I suppose. As has been said, the 222s have had very few problems compared to the voyagers which begs the question why did fgw go for a small non standard fleat of 180s? I've also wondered all along if the pressure hadnt been on from all sides to modernise so much etc etc etc if a lot of these problems would have been spotted and sorted?

The fact that mk2/3 stock stil runs today shows that the old fleat, despite its reliabilitty issues would have done another cupple of years til the design had been tested propperly, maybe with 5 or 6 trains in service on a range of runs? Same with the pendos but not perhaps to the same extent as a similar design was already in service in europe.

 

[tbtc]

I'm not really convinced by that - other trains which operate on long distance services (and which have retention tanks) such as TGVs and Mk4s don't have any problems, and let's not forget that if this were the case, Virgin's 390s/221s should be free of the problem, and they are sadly not.

I'd also be very surprised if the retention tanks in trains such as FCC/Southern 377s and LM/SWT Desiros are emptied more than once daily*, considering the intensive diagrams many of them operate - and they seem to have no 'smelly toilet' issues.

It's just a poor piece of design.

*As a genuine question, are there even facilities to empty retention tank toilets at terminus stations? I know that water tanks can be refilled, but this requires much less sophisticated apparatus, since there are no hygiene hazards involved. I had always assumed trains would only be 'emptied' on return to a depot.

That's fair enough, I was just wondering whether the duties the XC Voyagers worked on was partly to blame. It certainly seems harder to keep them clean (unlike stock which can be emptied/ tidied at each terminus several times a day)

 

[junglejames]

According to Wiki (you know, the hive of all knowledge that never has mistakes in it!!), the problem with the voyagers is because the tanks are too close to the exhaust system, thus smelly gases come back up through the toilets.
And bring a load of toilet smells with it?

I aint convinced but as you say, it makes some sense I suppose. As has been said, the 222s have had very few problems compared to the voyagers which begs the question why did fgw go for a small non standard fleat of 180s? I've also wondered all along if the pressure hadnt been on from all sides to modernise so much etc etc etc if a lot of these problems would have been spotted and sorted?

The fact that mk2/3 stock stil runs today shows that the old fleat, despite its reliabilitty issues would have done another cupple of years til the design had been tested propperly, maybe with 5 or 6 trains in service on a range of runs? Same with the pendos but not perhaps to the same extent as a similar design was already in service in europe.

Im very thankful FGW went for 180s. Much more comfortable, and more spacious. Thankfully Great Western realised that if you didnt want tilting trains, you didnt put a tilt profiled body on them.
The Meridians shouldnt have been built, and they should have been 180s. Virgin should have ordered 180s for their non tilting trains.
At least then the problems could have been sorted out with the 180s.

As said though, too many operators rushed in to fleet renewal, and we are paying the price for it. Esp with regards the voyagers and pendos.
I mention pendos, because if 222s have managed to significantly improve the voyagers, im sure a bit of thinking could significantly improve the pendos.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh, and apparently the smelly toilet syndrome on the pendos is because the vents from the retention tanks are right next to the air intake for the AC.

Crikey, if your going to fit the air intake next to anything, at least put it next to the brakes like on the Mk3s!!! I can put up with a burning brake smell. But a toilet smell?!!!

 

[Blindtraveler]

agree with you entirely mate. My 180 experience has been a doncaster london non stop, during which I couldnt believe the QSK19 under my feet made such little fus about it all, a fact brought home later in the week when a delay resulted in a nonstop 220 run from york to newcastle. My they are loud!

 

[junglejames]

agree with you entirely mate. My 180 experience has been a doncaster london non stop, during which I couldnt believe the QSK19 under my feet made such little fus about it all, a fact brought home later in the week when a delay resulted in a nonstop 220 run from york to newcastle. My they are loud!

Yep, they can be, plus when they first kick in, you get that horrible vibration all through the coach. Dies down a bit as the engine picks up speed, but its still there a bit.
The 180s dont seem to suffer from this vibration for some reason. Perhaps its down to better build quality inside, with less things vibrating. I dont know. But they are certainly more preferable. Hey, no smelly toilets on the 180s either.
Even when the smelly toilet isnt at its worst on the voyagers, there is still that faint lingering smell all through the train. Its always there and is now what i see as the smell of the voyagers! Unless of course thats the air freshener they use!!!! In which case, its time they changed it. Its been there ever since they came into service, and i dont like it.

 

[TomJ93]

Im very thankful FGW went for 180s. Much more comfortable, and more spacious. Thankfully Great Western realised that if you didnt want tilting trains, you didnt put a tilt profiled body on them.
The Meridians shouldnt have been built, and they should have been 180s. Virgin should have ordered 180s for their non tilting trains.

Thank goodness the 180s are more comfortable. On a identical journey you'd be spending more time on them due to the likelihood of a breakdown!

The same GreatWestern that got rid of these trains?

So the 9 car (originally) should have gone to 5 car 180s? Forgetting that Meridens are comfortable, very reliable, spacious, no smells, and all in all a fabulous train, with no major problems I can think of. Oh and they look fantastic!

The reason the 220s have the same body as the (larger build) 221s is purely a cost saving measure! It was a smaller fleet so it wasn't worth the money, or the effort on the part of BomBarbie. Now if a 220 had the same accident as that 222 running around with a yellow nose last year, then they could stuck a 221 cab on the end, saving money!

As said though, too many operators rushed in to fleet renewal, and we are paying the price for it. Esp with regards the voyagers and pendos.
I mention pendos, because if 222s have managed to significantly improve the voyagers, im sure a bit of thinking could significantly improve the pendos.

Fleet renewal needed to rushed into, 47s+mkIIs were very aged on the XC route. As well as the mkIIs on the WCML, as well as the constant 86/87/90 failures and them failing to work with the DVTs correctly all to often.

Pendolinos have no significant shortcomings really. Yes a big window would be nice, at the expense of crashworthiness and maybe weight? The significant increase in speed and reliability is probably well appreciated by travellers (something 180s really lacked!) Who knows, the new coaches and 390 054 might have the toilets improved.

 

[Blindtraveler]

have posted similar comment elsewhere but the next xc and west coast franchise holders wil have the joyus task of voyager midlife refurbs. If they have any sense, toilets and vestibules wil be gutted to create more space and some smaller toilets, to similar spec as 222s and where disabled ones must remain, refurb and alter to dispose of this rather pongy issue for good. the xc ones can be so bad that they can be smelt from the platform! Meanwhile, hows about some air purifying machines in vestibules?

 

[tbtc]

Im very thankful FGW went for 180s. Much more comfortable, and more spacious. Thankfully Great Western realised that if you didnt want tilting trains, you didnt put a tilt profiled body on them.
The Meridians shouldnt have been built, and they should have been 180s. Virgin should have ordered 180s for their non tilting trains

If the 180s didn't have shocking reliability problems, then they could have been the default long distance DMU (in the way that the 170s became the default middle distance DMU), there could have been over a hundred 180s if you add up all the orders which Alstom missed due to unreliability

• 23x 170 replacement on the MML (which became an order for 222s)
  
• 60x new DMUs for TPE (which became an order for 185s, though cut to just 51 units later on) - Arriva were planning on using four car 180s on their TPE bid
  
• 4x 170 replacements for HT

This would make the 180 a logical starting point for HST replacement (before electrification became the answer) or for routes like Glasgow/Edinburgh - Aberdeen, Nottingham - Cardiff etc - we could have had a range of four car (MML shorts), to nine car (HST replacements).

180s are nicer inside, and have better ride quality, but there's no denying that Voyagers are more reliable trains.

I like the idea of VT ordering 180s instead of 220s, but the story I'd heard is that 180s can't clear tunnels around Birmingham (something the narrow Voyagers don't have a problem with), so presume that'd be a non starter?

 

[TomJ93]

We have all totally forgot to discount the Voyagers are DEMUs. The 180s can never draw power from the wires, no matter how hard they tried. I think TPE should have had 220s, then they could be made EMUs come TPE electrification, rather than the current plan of more/moving 350s.

Another thing is the Voyagers RA. whereas our friends the 180 have an RA of 5, meaning they exert more weight on the rails whilst they are stationary awaiting a fitter, the Voyager is leaving less weight (for less of the time ) But this would suit them ideally for TPE as the 185s are penalised by the speed limits along their route due to their RA.

 

[LE Greys]

If the 180s didn't have shocking reliability problems, then they could have been the default long distance DMU (in the way that the 170s became the default middle distance DMU), there could have been over a hundred 180s if you add up all the orders which Alstom missed due to unreliability

• 23x 170 replacement on the MML (which became an order for 222s)
  
• 60x new DMUs for TPE (which became an order for 185s, though cut to just 51 units later on) - Arriva were planning on using four car 180s on their TPE bid
  
• 4x 170 replacements for HT

This would make the 180 a logical starting point for HST replacement (before electrification became the answer) or for routes like Glasgow/Edinburgh - Aberdeen, Nottingham - Cardiff etc - we could have had a range of four car (MML shorts), to nine car (HST replacements).

180s are nicer inside, and have better ride quality, but there's no denying that Voyagers are more reliable trains.

I like the idea of VT ordering 180s instead of 220s, but the story I'd heard is that 180s can't clear tunnels around Birmingham (something the narrow Voyagers don't have a problem with), so presume that'd be a non starter?

Having done a few long runs on 180s, the idea of doing Aberdeen-Stevenage on one is horrific. I'd hope that GNER/NXEC/EC kept as far away from them as possible. They are supposed to have the ambience of a loco-hauled coach, but they just don't. Better than a Voyager maybe, but not up to HST standard. It might have been better to stick with them on FGW and try to expand the range of services they could operate.

They seem more suited for fast/slow medium-distance or fast commuter duties such as Paddington-Worcester (Hereford should get HSTs), Oxford-Bristol, KX-Hull? and perhaps Paddington-Exeter semi-fasts. You can't do 125 on the Aberdeen Road (although Dundee-Arbroath could be upgraded). Nottingham-Cardiff is OK, as is Norwich-Liverpool, but I'd avoid using them on MML expresses. Yes, they are better than Meridians, but a distinct step down from HSTs.

As well as reviving Oxford-Bristol, I'd have looked at Cardiff-Plymouth and anything else I could think of involving semi-fasts making short runs over main lines (replacing 158s for cascade). Cardiff-Portsmouth is possible, but unlikely because of weight problems. 180s would be second-string trains behind HSTs, but would slot in ahead of other MUs).

 

[ainsworth74]

I think TPE should have had 220s, then they could be made EMUs come TPE electrification, rather than the current plan of more/moving 350s.

I disagree, on Manchester - Glasgow/Edinburgh perhaps (and I would've wanted 221s so they can take advantage of the higher tilt speeds), but on the core TPE routes you need a train kitted out for short dwell times and with plenty of comfortable standing room. Something which the 185s do very well and 22xs struggle with, to be honest whilst the 185s aren't perfect I do think they are very suited to TPE it's just a shame the order was cut to 51 and the desire to extend them to 4 cars was also shut down.

 

[Class172]

I like the idea of VT ordering 180s instead of 220s, but the story I'd heard is that 180s can't clear tunnels around Birmingham (something the narrow Voyagers don't have a problem with), so presume that'd be a non starter?

If it was XC you were talking about then trains from the SW could use the snow hill lines or the camp hill line (if the new Bordesley chords were opened) to get to Moor st. Then they could still get to their destinations by going though grand central junction and using surrounding lines.

 

[TomJ93]

How are they better than meridens? I'm yet to hear a single fault with Meridens, yet the less reliable 180 is better?

Why not reinstate stops at Oxford for more FGWs then oxford to Bristol is restored.

You're right Ainsworth, but some journeys (e.g to Edinburugh) are very long distance. The longer dwell times would go by being able to use the higher line speeds.

Using Moor street etc would be a farce just to use an unreliable unit