XC Voyagers

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why? Is the Chiltern Mainline not a Main Line because it operates mostly with DMUs? Chiltern's DMUs can offer significantly more inter-city capacity than their Loco Hauled sets too, with 8 or 9 standard coaches, rather than only 5.

After the downsizing of the 1960s/70s, the Chiltern and LSWR routes became part of the "London and South East" sector as far as BR and the DfT was concerned.
That became NSE and then the group known as London commuter TOCs (Network Card etc).
ORR still uses the BR sectors when it reports statistics.
The distinction is becoming blurred as services change, but neither line is "inter city", any more than London-King's Lynn or TPE.
In the other direction, GWR ("Greater Western") is classed as Intercity but has Thames Valley (ex-NSE) and Wessex (ex-Regional) services in its overall portfolio.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Very interesting to read! Thank you

 

[Chester1]

Everyone complains about Voyagers, but I can promise you if I was travelling on a VT/XC Voyager I'd do that over travelling on any of the following any day:

142/143/150/153/155/156/158/159/165/166/168/170/171/172/175 (yes, really! Not as good as people make out)/185/313/314/315 (shudder)/317/318/319/320/321/322/323/332/333/334/345/350/357/360/365/380/395/442/444 (everyone adores them, I do too but find them boring because I'm always on them)/450 (yuck)/455/456/458/465/466

Yes, I prefer Voyagers to all of the above. Don't look so shocked!

So I enjoy Voyagers, although I prefer travelling on 180s, 222s, HSTs, 90+Mk3s, IC 225s (my fave), Pendolinos, 373s and 374s and that's it! Anything else I'll take a Voyager over.

You can't say stuff like that on this forum! Voyagers are some of the worst trains on the network....

I used Voyagers very regularly when I lived in Chester and when I joined this forum I was bemused when I saw the number of people who disliked them. I don't remember the 'glory days' of loco hauled trains and prefer getting a seat to no engine noise or a good view. Compared with a pacer and many sprinters Voyagers are quiet and comfortable. I can only draw the conclusion that most Voyager haters have a good choice of alternative trains. Consider the Voyager alternative between Chester and Crewe...

Taking the Meridians and ditching the HSTs would provide sufficient rolling stock to reduce the number of seats per coach and increase capacity overall even if some services lose seats. There is no need to remove toilets.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Windows give the best view of any UK train too!

 

[gimmea50anyday]

TPE do NOT want voyagers, Thanks!!! XD

Interesting idea for the 185s on bristol, however it is widely believed that the remaining 185s will be retained for Liverpool-Nottingham work if the Norwich workings are split and gets transferred to TPE

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

185s I have yet to experience, but they can’t be much better than Voyagers, with their 3 Car formation. They have thin seats and underfloor engines too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

185s I have yet to experience, but they can’t be much better than Voyagers, with their 3 Car formation. They have thin seats and underfloor engines too.

Try one. They have big windows and a very comfortable seat layout with well spaced airline seats and plenty of tables. They are heavy and fuel inefficient but that doesn't reflect on the passenger experience per-se.

The problem with them (and it is a big problem) is that they are all 2 coaches too short.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Try one. They have big windows and a very comfortable seat layout with well spaced airline seats and plenty of tables. They are heavy and fuel inefficient but that doesn't reflect on the passenger experience per-se.

The problem with them (and it is a big problem) is that they are all 2 coaches too short.

Oh don’t get me wrong, I don’t think they look bad! Far from it. One look at that new first class and I can’t look away!

 

[Chester1]

TPE do NOT want voyagers, Thanks!!! XD

Interesting idea for the 185s on bristol, however it is widely believed that the remaining 185s will be retained for Liverpool-Nottingham work if the Norwich workings are split and gets transferred to TPE

Liverpool - Nottingham with doubled up 185s would need 12 + spares so there is the possibility of a mini fleet elsewhere. TPE taking over the service is far from certain. 185s are more suited to regional services than Voyagers but Voyagers are better for intercity services because of their end doors.

Try one. They have big windows and a very comfortable seat layout with well spaced airline seats and plenty of tables. They are heavy and fuel inefficient but that doesn't reflect on the passenger experience per-se.

The problem with them (and it is a big problem) is that they are all 2 coaches too short.

I fully agree with this and I am looking forward to more 6 coach services once new TPE trains enter service in May. They should have been 4-5 coaches including a dedicated first class coach. The TPE skip stop service should be allocated to specific units with no first class. The smallest number required to run the service could be converted. When neccessary a normal 185 could replace them (with first class declassified).

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Ugh. I hate declassified first class.

Unless it happens to be during the rare occasion I have a standard class ticket.

Oh dear, I suppose that makes me a hypocrite.

 

[Chester1]

Ugh. I hate declassified first class.

Unless it happens to be during the rare occasion I have a standard class ticket.

Oh dear, I suppose that makes me a hypocrite.

I meant replacing first class seats with standard class on units that will run the skip stop service. It will replace Northern's stoppers which are currently pacers and sprinters. When a normal 185 fills in for a standard only unit no one would be downgraded because first class tickets would never be sold. It would add capacity and avoid needing to seperate the fleets. How many people will travel first class from Marsden to Leeds etc?! I suspect the first class will be filled by end to end advanced ticket holders who have chosen a longer journey to travel first class cheaply.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Oh I see, sorry.

 

[185143]

Part of the bodyshell? Oh great...

Although I would be happy to travel on one really, especially in first class. If I go to Southampton (usually from Basingstoke), I often deliberately miss the 444 to get the CrossCountry service.

Everyone complains about Voyagers, but I can promise you if I was travelling on a VT/XC Voyager I'd do that over travelling on any of the following any day:

142/143/150/153/155/156/158/159/165/166/168/170/171/172/175 (yes, really! Not as good as people make out)/185/313/314/315 (shudder)/317/318/319/320/321/322/323/332/333/334/345/350/357/360/365/380/395/442/444 (everyone adores them, I do too but find them boring because I'm always on them)/450 (yuck)/455/456/458/465/466

Yes, I prefer Voyagers to all of the above. Don't look so shocked! I can rarely ever smell excrement, I think the seats are decent enough, although I'm mainly used to the 1st class seats, yet the Standard class ones are good too. Window blinds great idea, although I'm always sure to ask the person sitting in the row that shares mine if they mind before lowering it. Underfloor engines are brilliant because a Voyager makes my favourite diesel sound and yes, I have heard 37s and yes, I have heard Valentas. For some reason I crave the sound of a Voyager "bing bong" and always listen out for it (very upset when it was replaced on Pendos). I always reserve myself a seat about ten to fifteen minutes before travelling so I don't have to stand. Oh, and decent legroom too. If you disagree, try riding those 159s you seem to adore. Although I do like them too.

So I enjoy Voyagers, although I prefer travelling on 180s, 222s, HSTs, 90+Mk3s, IC 225s (my fave), Pendolinos, 373s and 374s and that's it! Anything else I'll take a Voyager over.

Very happy to see (I assume) that you prefer a 507 or a 508 to a Voyager!

 

[XCTurbostar]

Why? Is the Chiltern Mainline not a Main Line because it operates mostly with DMUs? Chiltern's DMUs can offer significantly more inter-city capacity than their Loco Hauled sets too, with 8 or 9 standard coaches, rather than only 5.

Agreed. The operator of the Chiltern Franchise would also have no use for DEMUs with a 125mph capability. The existing units provide a lot of flexibility on the network at the moment and I cannot see a fleet of Voyagers improving that.

Edit: Apologies for this being a reply so far back.. I just assumed the ‘Alerts’ in the top right took me to the most recent post.. oops.

 

[Chester1]

Agreed. The operator of the Chiltern Franchise would also have no use for DEMUs with a 125mph capability. The existing units provide a lot of flexibility on the network at the moment and I cannot see a fleet of Voyagers improving that.

Voyagers would probably be faster due to acceleration and offer decent flexibility. Long distance services run by three separate units is not ideal. 2 x 4 set would also have more seats than a 6 carriage loco hauled set and likely have lower running costs.

 

[The Ham]

Um. Don't kill me here, but I wish voyagers or meridians would replace 159s on WofE line Services to Exeter,

If you were to form then as 10 coach units and use them for some services (i.e. mostly off peak) which run to Exeter then that:
- could allow more 10 coach 15x units (possibly also 3 coach units on the Salisbury 6 services)
- would provide a similar number of seats as a 9 coach 15x
- would provide a high quality Intercity style train to Exeter
- would provide lots more capacity West of Yeovil
- would allow EMU's to replace the 15x's once electrification reaches Yeovil
- could have a positive impact on journey times, even without line speed improvements

Is the above likely to happen, probably not. However it does demonstrate that Voyagers could be an option on many lines that at first glance they wouldn't be suitable for.

 

[The Ham]

Voyagers would probably be faster due to acceleration and offer decent flexibility. Long distance services run by three separate units is not ideal. 2 x 4 set would also have more seats than a 6 carriage loco hauled set and likely have lower running costs.

Even if we assume a 8 coach version (same length as 6 coaches a loco and a DVR) then the capacity advantages would be quite significant.

 

[Bletchleyite]

- would provide a high quality Intercity style train to Exeter

You mean a train with a pointy nose?

Class 159s are end-doored and have a much higher quality InterCity style interior than Voyagers.

But having observed how badly a Pendolino handled lots of people boarding with bags etc at Preston, and how easily it went on a 350/1 from Crewe which was equally busy with people with bags, I'm increasingly sold on the "doors at thirds" or FLIRT-style "door in the middle" option even for IC.

Remember that Mk1 and non-aircon Mk2 coaches had doors in the middle, not just at the ends.

 

[Mordac]

You mean a train with a pointy nose?

Class 159s are end-doored and have a much higher quality InterCity style interior than Voyagers.

But having observed how badly a Pendolino handled lots of people boarding with bags etc at Preston, and how easily it went on a 350/1 from Crewe which was equally busy with people with bags, I'm increasingly sold on the "doors at thirds" or FLIRT-style "door in the middle" option even for IC.

Remember that Mk1 and non-aircon Mk2 coaches had doors in the middle, not just at the ends.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't share the obsession with end doors some people have. Having commuted from Edinburgh to Lancaster on Virgin and TPE, dwell times on TPE's 350s were a breeze, whereas Voyagers and Pendos always felt like they took an eternity at stations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't share the obsession with end doors some people have. Having commuted from Edinburgh to Lancaster on Virgin and TPE, dwell times on TPE's 350s were a breeze, whereas Voyagers and Pendos always felt like they took an eternity at stations.

I do see that end doors give a nicer environment once you're in, but I've found recently as trains have got busier that they mean that boarding and preparing to alight is much more stressful and awkward, particularly with big bags.

I'm tending towards the idea, as noted, that the ideal layout for a 23/24m coach for long distance use is doors at approximately 1/4 and 3/4. To me this layout means the Scottish Desiros have an InterCity feel despite basically just being fancy suburban EMUs. This layout also allows things like buffet facilities and wheelchair space/toilet to be placed in one of the "quarter" bits at the end, and luggage racks to be placed more frequently against the blank bits of wall by the doors.

As an alternative if you use short articulated vehicles like the FLIRT you place one door and a vestibule in the middle of the short coach. Because psychologically you get on "in your coach" this removes the crossover you get in end-doored vehicles where people just board "Coach X" then look for their seat/an empty seat which may be past half way. I find the PKP IC layout to work fairly well, and I've been on one of those that was very overcrowded indeed. The layout for the East Anglia FLIRTs is to be similar to this (though the door is slightly to one end presumably to avoid long steps to curved platforms).

PKP FLIRT:

East Anglia FLIRT:

 

[JonathanH]

Voyagers would probably be faster due to acceleration and offer decent flexibility. Long distance services run by three separate units is not ideal. 2 x 4 set would also have more seats than a 6 carriage loco hauled set and likely have lower running costs.

Why would Chiltern take Voyagers when the Anglia 170s seem to be available?

Has anyone considered that the Cross Country franchise could probably just go on as it is today with the existing rolling stock if that is what delivers the greatest return to the government? There are some reasons, e.g. depot capacity, platform length (bays), staff costs etc why short trains are preferable to the operation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why would Chiltern take Voyagers when the Anglia 170s seem to be available?

Quite. 170s are much more suited to Chiltern's operation, and they have made them VERY nice inside - certainly InterCity quality.

 

[Chester1]

Why would Chiltern take Voyagers when the Anglia 170s seem to be available?

Has anyone considered that the Cross Country franchise could probably just go on as it is today with the existing rolling stock if that is what delivers the greatest return to the government? There are some reasons, e.g. depot capacity, platform length (bays), staff costs etc why short trains are preferable to the operation.

Depends on the leasing costs. Voyagers and Merdians will be much harder find new opperators for if EMT and or CrossCountry replace them. The 170s should be in high demand so the cost difference could be small. I agree flexibility is helpful but how many Chiltern services opperated by 168s and 172s wouldn't justfy a 4 coach unit all day? I think none. Chiltern has tried to compete on London - Birmingham market which will become easier as remaining capacity on the WCML services shrinks but before completion of HS2.

I agree that the government could decide to specify that the next CrossCountry franchisee use the existing stock or find another way of limiting growth during the next franchise but that doesn't match the governments franchising decisions in recent years. I think its more likely they will try to nudge it more towards being a genuine intercity opperator.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Voyagers and Meridians are so wasteful of space that you'd need a 4-car unit to provide the capacity a 3-car 170 would provide. Look at one, the seating area barely takes up a third of the length of each coach, and less than that on the end coaches.

They were the first high speed underfloor engined DMUs in the UK. They tried out concepts, some of which worked and some of which didn't. Time to bin them and buy some new, cleaner, more efficient (both fuel and space) stock which has learnt the many lessons.

 

[superalbs]

Quite. 170s are much more suited to Chiltern's operation, and they have made them VERY nice inside - certainly InterCity quality.

It seems to often be the case that Regional trains are vastly superior to InterCity stock.

380s, 159s, 168s are all, to me, preferrable to a Voyager, 390, or 800.

 

[DarloRich]

This. They are far from perfect but they are no where near as bad as people are trying to make out.

They are horrible but reliable. However they are being used on the wrong route and should be transferred somewhere else. AKA away from me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It seems to often be the case that Regional trains are vastly superior to InterCity stock.

380s, 159s, 168s are all, to me, preferrable to a Voyager, 390, or 800.

The new East Anglia FLIRTs are set to be very nice, and the regional ones seem set to have identical interiors to the IC ones.

And the new TPE LHCS and EMUs look like they're going to be lovely. (185s aren't bad, just too short and a weird interior layout involving the wheelchair area and large bog being marooned the wrong side of 1st).

And I definitely prefer a 350/1, /3 or /4 to a Pendolino or Voyager. (/2 just need reseating to 2+2 and they'd be fine).

Meanwhile, XC should have gone for 6 or 7-car 170s, which would have been affordable as they are so much cheaper than Voyagers.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't share the obsession with end doors some people have. Having commuted from Edinburgh to Lancaster on Virgin and TPE, dwell times on TPE's 350s were a breeze, whereas Voyagers and Pendos always felt like they took an eternity at stations.

There are several of us! Litteraly several!

I must admit I'm a big believer in doors at the 1/3 and 2/3 position (1/4 and 3/4) as it does make things so much easier and I've never noticed these arctic blasts people whinge about in winter.

I think it's reasonable to have end doors on long distance limited stop services however where you can afford multi-minute dwell times.

Look at one, the seating area barely takes up a third of the length of each coach, and less than that on the end coaches.

You'll get no argument from me that the interior layout is terrible but it's not quite that bad!

They are horrible but reliable. However they are being used on the wrong route and should be transferred somewhere else. AKA away from me.

Thankfully a slightly more pragmatic view is often applied beyond "ew I don't like it make it go away!"

They're fine where they are but they need a) a revamped interior, b) to be used in doubles in the core between Newcastle (or York) and Bristol (maybe Exeter/Plymouth) and c) to enable that the XC franchise needs more rolling stock.

 

[ainsworth74]

Meanwhile, XC should have gone for 6 or 7-car 170s, which would have been affordable as they are so much cheaper than Voyagers.

Personally I would have said a fleet of six/seven car 180s. I wouldn't discount the ability of the stock to get over 100mph and to do so quickly that easily personally.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They're fine where they are but they need a) a revamped interior, b) to be used in doubles in the core between Newcastle (or York) and Bristol (maybe Exeter/Plymouth) and c) to enable that the XC franchise needs more rolling stock.

If it would be cheaper to seat them all to a Class 158 style layout based on the windows, roughly half airline half table and with all seats aligned, and to replace the toilet modules with the modern double-doored ones that seem to be going into all new refurbs, they'd do. Grammer seats would be my choice, but I know they're a bit Marmite

Portion working may be a good way of handling the core, though I suppose punctuality could suffer. Certainly nothing should run through New St on an XC service with fewer than 7 coaches.