Voyagers could be the best current train

[Bletchleyite]

Prefer the Avanti Voyagers myself compared with the Cross Country Voyagers.

That's not a hard choice. Avanti are a bad TOC, but at least they actually bother with basic maintenance, plus they have "Coach D" and no four-car sets.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

That's not a hard choice. Avanti are a bad TOC, but at least they actually bother with basic maintenance, plus they have "Coach D" and no four-car sets.

I disagree. Avanti are great. It was great to see them refurb the 221s as they were knackered inside. I like the new refurb. Avanti did a great job.

 

[RailWonderer]

Avanti run almost all their Voyagers as 10 car and with the refurb, they are clean and very comfortable. Same spec as a Pendolino with larger windows and no claustrophobia (and no airline cabin ambience).
Most of the forum uses the XC ones which were are to an extent still are heavily crowded even when doubled up to 8 or 9 car. That is certainly the case Oxford - Birmingham.

When new the toilet smell was a major problem but since they had a fleet upgrade less so, but sometimes the smell can still spread into the coach, but less often. They do get unnecessary hate, then again you have the inefficient spacing (luggage rack area that used to be a buffet area but wasn’t replaced with windows and seats) but that is down to the spec ordered not the train itself.

 

[sprinterguy]

Currently on a Voyager, and it strikes me this is the closest I've seen to a great train since I used to commute on CIGs. Perfect window/seat alignment, a toilet at both ends, all tables, luggage space between seats. It's basically a modem mk2. Why do people dislike these? They're fantastic.

It's a shame, then, that that layout accounts for just 18 vehicles out of a total of 352 and provides 12 fewer seats than a mark 2 vehicle despite being 3 metres longer. I appreciate that modern requirements for things like disabled toilets impinge on the available saloon length, but it's worth noting that there are in fact NO toilets in these Avanti Coach D vehicles (The space instead being used for the Shop), although there are toilets at the closest ends of the the two carriages adjacent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's a shame, then, that that layout accounts for just 18 vehicles out of a total of 352 and provides 12 fewer seats than a mark 2 vehicle despite being 3 metres longer. I appreciate that modern requirements for things like disabled toilets impinge on the available saloon length, but it's worth noting that there are in fact NO toilets in these Avanti Coach D vehicles (The space instead being used for the Shop), although there are toilets at the closest ends of the the two carriages adjacent.

The Voyager layout is incredibly inefficient. If you want to compare with something else that also complies fully to modern standards, look at the Class 397. The vehicles are maybe a foot longer, but that's neither here nor there, it doesn't even get you a row of seats.

397: 22 first, 264 standard, total 286
221: 26 first, 230 standard, total 256

So the 397 manages an extra 30 seats - that's half a coach's worth - despite having a far lower density layout. If you upseated the 397 to Voyager density you'd probably manage an extra row per vehicle, so a further 20. That's nearly a whole Voyager coach.

This is one reason why the Voyager shouldn't really have a future - it's just too flawed a design, using only about two thirds of the vehicle length for seating.

 

[swt_passenger]

The all-table coach (D) on Virgin/Avanti 221s was originally used flexibly for 1st class (inc at-seat dining) on peak services in/out of Euston, and standard otherwise.
I think that type of operation was abandoned at some point during the latter days of Virgin, and the coach was reconfigured as standard.
Not long for them to go in any case.

Yes that’s what I was getting at, but wasn’t aware it had since been abandoned. But I think it still means the OP would be unwise to view it as representative of the whole fleet.

 

[sprinterguy]

The Voyager layout is incredibly inefficient. If you want to compare with something else that also complies fully to modern standards, look at the Class 397. The vehicles are maybe a foot longer, but that's neither here nor there, it doesn't even get you a row of seats.

397: 22 first, 264 standard, total 286
221: 26 first, 230 standard, total 256

So the 397 manages an extra 30 seats - that's half a coach's worth - despite having a far lower density layout. If you upseated the 397 to Voyager density you'd probably manage an extra row per vehicle, so a further 20. That's nearly a whole Voyager coach.

This is one reason why the Voyager shouldn't really have a future - it's just too flawed a design, using only about two thirds of the vehicle length for seating.

Quite right: The Voyagers seem to be the pinnacle of poor internal design.

Now you've mentioned the type, the central Coach C vehicle on a class 397 appears to be as close a modern equivalent to the mark 2 layout as we're likely to see: A toilet at each end of the carriage, 68 seats, a large proportion of those around tables and, if the photo on the class' Wikipedia page is indicative, a decent window alignment to boot.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite right: The Voyagers seem to be the pinnacle of poor interior layout.

Now you've mentioned the type, the central Coach C vehicle on a class 397 appears to be as close a modern equivalent to the mark 2 layout as we're likely to see: A toilet at each end of the carriage, 68 seats, a large proportion of those around tables and, if the photo on the class' Wikipedia page is indicative, a decent window alignment to boot.

With the 397 a decision* was made to space the windows for Standard bays, so there is full alignment or very close to it. The downside is that 1st is misaligned.

* I don't know if that was a CAF decision or a TPE one - the 195 also has windows spaced for Standard bays, so that might just be the standard for the UK Civity, but whoever specced them was too lazy to make them actually line up.

 

[sprinterguy]

With the 397 a decision* was made to space the windows for Standard bays, so there is full alignment or very close to it. The downside is that 1st is misaligned.

A sensible decision that benefits the majority*, and only one step down from the air-con mark 2 design with 7 saloon windows for first class vehicles and 8 to suit standard class table bay spacings.

*Though like most passengers I can't say that I really noticed the overall layout the last couple of times I travelled on 397s - As long as there's at least part of a window to see out of by my chosen seat on any given service then that's good enough for me.

 

[voyagerdude220]

The Voyager layout is incredibly inefficient.

Whilst I'm a fan of 220/221/222s (although haven't been on a 222 for many years)

I wonder why Cross Country didn't convert the Disabled size toilets in coaches B and C to normal size ones which 222s have to save space?

Of course there wouldn't be windows but maybe use this space for luggage racks and add more seats where racks currently are.

I encourage companies making sure facilities are available for people with additional needs, but of course wheelchair users aren't going to benefit from the larger size toilets when there aren't wheelchair spaces in those carriages.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst I'm a fan of 220/221/222s (although haven't been on a 222 for many years)

I wonder why Cross Country didn't convert the Disabled size toilets in coaches B and C to normal size ones which 222s have to save space?

Of course there wouldn't be windows but maybe use this space for luggage racks and add more seats where racks currently are.

I encourage companies making sure facilities are available for people with additional needs, but of course wheelchair users aren't going to benefit from the larger size toilets when there aren't wheelchair spaces in those carriages.

That's an interesting question, because they did do that with the shop space (it's a 156 style luggage van area now). Perhaps too costly?

 

[voyagerdude220]

That's an interesting question, because they did do that with the shop space (it's a 156 style luggage van area now). Perhaps too costly?

Knowing Cross Country, your suggested answer why would make alot of sense.

Myself and my Wife (who is not a rail enthusiast) often agree with each other that we perceive Cross Country Voyagers to be in a far worse state of repair internally compared to Avanti ones.

 

[setdown]

I may be in the minority but I love the sound the Voyager engines make, especially when pulling away quickly leaving a station. It feels so raw and powerful, coupled with the visibly impressive acceleration, I always found it amazing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I may be in the minority but I love the sound the Voyager engines make, especially when pulling away quickly leaving a station. It feels so raw and powerful, coupled with the visibly impressive acceleration, I always found it amazing.

Should have tried one in the early days. Before they throttled them in the software, they "took off" like an aircraft with a very similar sound.

 

[Prestige15]

Don't really mind them, They are rather poorly designed but I like the beefy sound they make and you'll actually be going somewhere unlike the 180

 

[Lampshade]

They had all the ingredients for a good train, but messed up the recipe; they got a new chef for the 222s however, which are superb.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They had all the ingredients for a good train, but messed up the recipe; they got a new chef for the 222s however, which are superb.

They're better but they still have an inefficient layout, a flawed-by-design reservations system and various other issues.

 

[sprinterguy]

I'll say one thing in favour of Voyagers, after just over twenty years service they're still excellent conversation starters on social media and forums such as these.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

Rumours going around Cross Country will have the 222s when EMR get there 810s.

 

[JonathanH]

Rumours going around Cross Country will have the 222s when EMR get there 810s.

Where? If they are on this forum or messroom gossip, I'd imagine they aren't credible. We really do need to wait now for a DfT announcement on the matter before bringing the idea of extra XC stock back.

 

[JohnRegular]

Part of the issue with the voyagers' capacity is the end vehicles. Very few seats (due to crashworthiness regulations, I understand) and make up half of the length of a 4 car voyager. Woeful!
I've said before on here, but it bears repeating- if/when XC get more voyagers, they would do well to reform them into longer, fixed sets, scrapping some of the end vehicles. No lugging around a coach length of train that doesn't carry passengers, and no need to double up on staff.

 

[185]

No comfort comparison between any 22x and a 397.

22x: On a stationary rocking horse.
397: On a rodeo horse, in a really bad mood.

397: 22 first, 264 standard, total 286
221: 26 first, 230 standard, total 256

I'd take a 142's (even the Merseytravel) seats in a 221 anyday over those awful 397 contraptions.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Should have tried one in the early days. Before they throttled them in the software, they "took off" like an aircraft with a very similar sound.

Might you please have a video? I’d love to hear that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No comfort comparison between any 22x and a 397.

22x: On a stationary rocking horse.
397: On a rodeo horse, in a really bad mood.

There's more to comfort than ride. Legroom and seat width are my first priority and window alignment my second, as they increase the number of seats on the unit which suit me (pretty much all of them on a 397, only priority seats on a Voyager).

The actual seats come third (Voyager wins that one), how pleasant the interior is on the eye (I like both) and ride is way down the bottom.

 

[dereksingh291]

Rumours going around Cross Country will have the 222s when EMR get there 810s.

Would the 222s be going to Chiltern Railways cos I’ve heard rumours that they could also be going to Chiltern?

 

[swt_passenger]

Would the 222s be going to Chiltern Railways cos I’ve heard rumours that they could also be going to Chiltern?

Very unlikely. Why would fuel guzzling 125 mph long distance units be suitable stock on Chiltern’s routes? There have been rumours about numerous different 22x cascades discussed in these forums; the vast majority are pure guesswork.

 

[JonathanH]

More to the point, these 'rumours' about 22x don't take into account the substantial investment that would be needed for the units to work new routes or significantly increase the fleet size

It is not just a case of saying to a driver 'here, take this today', it requires depots to be reconfigured, empty stock movements to change, driver and fitter training, timetable changes, so many things.

Any business case for taking on these units would come under intense scrutiny from the DfT as to whether they make a return on the additional costs that would be generated. It certainly wouldn't happen on a whim, it would be a major project with large costs.

 

[mmh]

it requires depots to be reconfigured, empty stock movements to change, driver and fitter training, timetable changes, so many things.

Simplified somewhat in this case by all 220 and 221 being owned by the same ROSCO, and already maintained at the same depot.

 

[JonathanH]

Simplified somewhat in this case by all 220 and 221 being owned by the same ROSCO, and already maintained at the same depot.

Yes, there is that with regard to the Avanti 221s, although capacity around the rest of the depot and stabling network still needs to be considered, as do the empty stock moves from Central Rivers to Birmingham New Street / Derby etc.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes, there is that with regard to the Avanti 221s, although capacity around the rest of the depot and stabling network still needs to be considered, as do the empty stock moves from Central Rivers to Birmingham New Street / Derby etc.

I’ve always assumed a high proportion of any extra XC 221s would still be out stabled pro rata at all their other overnight stabling locations, eg Laira, Eastleigh, Tyne Yard etc etc. So there’s perhaps little reason any individual place would be massively overloaded?