Voyagers could be the best current train

[61653 HTAFC]

Can't speak for anyone else, but one of the things I dislike about them is the style of the interior. VT obviously wanted them to look futuristic back in 2000 so the vestibules are rich in their house colours of red and silver, applied as if to make them look like a set from Deep Space 9...

However, nothing ages faster than visions of the future, and now (not helped by XC doing the bare minimum to update them other than getting rid of the shop) they look very dated.

 

[TheBigD]

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?

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?

Back in 2007 when Arriva won the XC franchise, they proposed removing one of the toilets from the Voyagers. This would have left 2 toilets for 200 seats* on the 4 car 220s, and 3 toilets for the 262 seats on the 5 car 221s.

The idea was abandoned before the refurbishment project started though XC never publicly said why.

* For comparison, the XC 3 car 170s at the time were refurbished to 200 seats and also have just 2 toilets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Removing one would be nuts, but the OP was proposing removing one and replacing with a "small" cubicle.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

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.

Nothing official just people talking. Would make sense though considering they are similar to the Voyagers so it would be an ideal move.

 

[swt_passenger]

Nothing official just people talking. Would make sense though considering they are similar to the Voyagers so it would be an ideal move.

They aren’t compatible for multiple working, which is why it’s generally assumed west coast 221s are far more likely for XC.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

They aren’t compatible for multiple working, which is why it’s generally assumed west coast 221s are far more likely for XC.

Are they not? Didn't know that.

 

[Richard Scott]

This is an easy one to answer, it's "No!"

 

[jfowkes]

I mean, I don’t judge a train based on its cycle provisions alone myself but I suppose different people have different priorities.

The level boarding is more about disabled access. Being able to board and alight without assistance is a game changer and in my mind truly sets those units apart.

 

[Mordac]

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.

I would have loved for the unmuzzled software units to have had a go at breaking the HST speed record.

 

[XC victim]

I have always had a soft spot for the voyagers. I really think they are a good train but with a few flaws.
Their performance is very good and pretty reliable. I am sure any carers, or anyone with young children really appreciate the large toilets. The seats are comfortable (compared to most modern rolling stock) and I love the large windows. But there are too many seats with very restricted or no window view and certainly the XC voyagers are now looking tatty and in need of a refresh or refurb. oh and they are really several coaches short!!! (Maybe people wouldn’t notice the toilet smell so much if they weren’t crowded into the vestibule)

But I have a feeling I will miss them when they are gone, but luckily they will be around for a few more decades.

 

[davetheguard]

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.

O.K. I'll bite.

WTF!? A few people also believe the world is flat......

Meanwhile, why CIGs? Surely you mean VEPs, so much better, all those lovely draughts round the doors cutting your leg in two.

 

[DannyMich2018]

For anyone wanting rare diagrams 220029 is today on the 10.52 Birmingham to Leicester and 12.18 return. 220 do occasionally substitute for 170s on this route but first time since 2007 I've not had a 170 myself on this route!! Apologies if this is in the wrong tread but can't find open thread suitable. Whether on arrival at Birmingham it gets replaced by 170 as service then goes to Stansted via Peterborough.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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.

I think the only credible 22x cascade principle at the moment is that any coming free will dispose of remaining HSTs, at XC and elsewhere.

 

[TheBigD]

For anyone wanting rare diagrams 220029 is today on the 10.52 Birmingham to Leicester and 12.18 return. 220 do occasionally substitute for 170s on this route but first time since 2007 I've not had a 170 myself on this route!! Apologies if this is in the wrong tread but can't find open thread suitable. Whether on arrival at Birmingham it gets replaced by 170 as service then goes to Stansted via Peterborough.

The return 1322 Birmingham-Stansted is shown as 170621...

 

[voyagerdude220]

The return 1322 Birmingham-Stansted is shown as 170621...

Both 220029 and 220030 seem to be on (different) Birmingham to Nottingham workings this afternoon.

 

[Jozhua]

The issues with Voyagers:

• Tight profile due to tilt, which has been disabled anyway.
• Not enough carriages
• Bogs that reek into the rest of the train
• Not enough carriages
• Terrible luggage racks not really capable of carrying anything people would call 'luggage' unless you're literally Alvin the chipmunk
• Not enough carriages
• Terrible bike racks that are probably only suitable for carrying a child's bike (providing it doesn't have stabilisers attached)
• Not enough carriages
• Seat pitch is awful (seats are way too thick and don't provide very good cushioning anyway)
• Not enough carriages
• Seat alignment is pretty terrible - there are many effectively windowless seats on XC.
• Not enough carriages

The thing that is so frustrating with XC is that capacity issues have been bad for about 15 years now and continue to get worse, with no attention from government on the issue.

Similar to 185s, 220/1s probably to catch too much flack, but people are rightly frustrated with the lack of capacity these trains brought. Issue would simply be resolved with proper provision of new trains, or a cascaded fleet from Avanti for example.

My opinion of the 222's is rather good, but like the 220's, they are in need of a proper refurb and more capacity.

They would be fandabidosy if they were longer, didn't smell of poo and had seats layed out like the OP describes.

Almost certainly

Only experience with XC, and my main problem has been too many people trying to fit in too little train.

Yes

The airline seats are appallingly laptop-unfriendly - the flip-down table isn’t big enough to rest a laptop, especially given the angle of the seat back. Compare with the 80Xs or the GWR HSTs with their pull-out laptop extensions.

The train is unnecessarily cramped, having been built with a tilting profile which is never used on XC, and with three massive accessible toilets because Virgin/Bombardier misread the specs.

Yes

If not busy I agree they are ok trains. Trouble is they usually are busy. Had they all been built as 7 car trains to replace the 7 coach rakes they replaced, then their legacy would I feel be somewhat better.

Yes

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair the "not enough carriages" one can be resolved by either reforming into say 7 car sets (keeping the spare driving coaches for parts) or always running in pairs.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I think the only credible 22x cascade principle at the moment is that any coming free will dispose of remaining HSTs, at XC and elsewhere.

The only credible 22x cascade is a one way trip to booths or sims. They are hateful units and pure DMUs need to be consigned to history. It’s time that serious money was spent on electrification.

 

[Richard Scott]

The issues with Voyagers:

• Tight profile due to tilt, which has been disabled anyway.
• Not enough carriages
• Bogs that reek into the rest of the train
• Not enough carriages
• Terrible luggage racks not really capable of carrying anything people would call 'luggage' unless you're literally Alvin the chipmunk
• Not enough carriages
• Terrible bike racks that are probably only suitable for carrying a child's bike (providing it doesn't have stabilisers attached)
• Not enough carriages
• Seat pitch is awful (seats are way too thick and don't provide very good cushioning anyway)
• Not enough carriages
• Seat alignment is pretty terrible - there are many effectively windowless seats on XC.
• Not enough carriages

Not forgetting irritating droning and vibrations from engines, poor fuel consumption and lack of ability to run off electricity from the overhead wires.

 

[JonathanH]

It’s time that serious money was spent on electrification.

Even if it was there would still be a number of years before it covered the XC network, with inertia in the mean time.

The only credible 22x cascade is a one way trip to booths or sims.

It will happen one day.

 

[cj_1985]

The only credible 22x cascade is a one way trip to booths or sims. They are hateful units and pure DMUs need to be consigned to history. It’s time that serious money was spent on electrification.

Voyager/Super Voyager/Meridian/Pioneer units are NOT pure DMUs.

Whatever the failings of the unit are not their own, but those of Virgin Rail and DfT (or SRA as it was at the time) who approved the "more short trains, less long trains" idea.

And I'm sure many things could be changed on them in the form of an actual overhaul/refurb... but ultimately the DfT don't want to spend the money.

 

[JonathanH]

Whatever the failings of the unit are not their own, but those of Virgin Rail and DfT (or SRA as it was at the time) who approved the "more short trains, less long trains" idea.

That isn't how they are (mainly) operating at the moment. The economics of longer trains didn't add up in the planning. The economics of shorter ones didn't add up in practice.

 

[cj_1985]

Not forgetting irritating droning and vibrations from engines, poor fuel consumption and lack of ability to run off electricity from the overhead wires.

Again... blame the DfT. They didn't want to lay out, or authorise, the money to equip them to operate from the OHLE.
Although not solely just on DfT.

 

[Richard Scott]

Again... blame the DfT. They didn't want to lay out, or authorise, the money to equip them to operate from the OHLE.
Although not solely just on DfT.

Ok but that is still an issue with the trains whoever is to blame. Something that isn't fit for purpose doesn't automatically become fit for purpose because someone didn't get the spec right. They are rubbish and that's that whoever is to blame.

 

[XAM2175]

Voyager/Super Voyager/Meridian/Pioneer units are NOT pure DMUs.

They are multiple-vehicle units powered by diesel engines, are they not?

 

[Bletchleyite]

They are multiple-vehicle units powered by diesel engines, are they not?

Technically they are DEMU as they have electric transmission, but that is of limitead relevance to the point you were making, namely the lack of pantograph.

 

[Mat17]

I'd pick a lash up 6 car set of 158s over a Voyager any day of the week.

The HST sets were far superior on XC, it's been dire since 2001.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd pick a lash up 6 car set of 158s over a Voyager any day of the week.

The HST sets were far superior on XC, it's been dire since 2001.

I am no HST zealot, Class 170s would have been fine. But it is utterly shocking that XC is still suffering from poor decisions made 25 years ago with no effort being made to fix the situation.

 

[JonathanH]

But it is utterly shocking that XC is still suffering from poor decisions made 25 years ago with no effort being made to fix the situation.

That isn't strictly true - there have been piecemeal changes - some of the effort which has been made has generally been to improve the services which share the XC routes where this is possible - for example the Northern service from Sheffield to Leeds being increased, the EMR service from Sheffield to Derby being increased and so on. Building more diesel units for XC would clearly have been a mistake. XC has had to make the best use if its fleet. The proposals a few years back to further improve fleet utilisation were rejected.

 

[modernrail]

Problems that should never have happened,

- totally pointless overhead luggage store
- seat back tables far too small for long distance train.
- don’t love the seat pitch but can live with it
- not enough carriages on most of them - probably the biggest sin as other problems would feel less noticeable if not so overcrowded

Problems inherent in design,

- they are really noisy and full of vibration for a long distance train. Would have preferred the Greater anglia diesel power unit solution bearing in mind platform length not such a challenge at XC stations as it is on some commuter routes.
- tapered side