• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Alstom celebrating 20 years anniversary of Voyager's introduction

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stephen Lee

On Moderation
Joined
7 Jul 2019
Messages
675
RailBusiness Daily, Alstom’s Voyager Fleet celebrate 20 years of Inter-City service in UK
For Alstom, they deserve to celebrate this day, but for passengers, I don't think there is a value to celebrate especially those who usually take XC due to reduction of capacity unless they acquire Class 221s from AWC and 222s from EMR-IC, what do you think?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
2,902
Location
Leeds
I think they’re right to celebrate. Though the 220/1s were rubbished by passengers, in some cases rightly, they’ve served their purpose and become the backbone of the country. The improvements to the 222s showed an understanding of how to improve the product and what good maintenance does for the fleet.
Just a shame DaFT stipulated what they did.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,531
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I think they’re right to celebrate. Though the 220/1s were rubbished by passengers, in some cases rightly, they’ve served their purpose and become the backbone of the country. The improvements to the 222s showed an understanding of how to improve the product and what good maintenance does for the fleet.
Just a shame DaFT stipulated what they did.

They were a good first go at a high speed underfloor engined DEMU, and the 80x takes the concept and makes it rather better.

Celebrate, but also move on.

That said, the main complaints tend to be about legroom and overcrowding - both can be solved by running longer trains and a less tight seating arrangement (as the 222s already have). I don't think they are as hated on the WCML where they have the all-tables Coach D and mostly run as 10-car double sets.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,552
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Voyagers were transformational in their day, and it was a great pity the e-Voyager was not progressed by Bombardier to make them into bi-modes.
As a WCML user they are the mainstay of Chester/North Wales services and performed well before services were hit by Covid restrictions.
They also worked well on Birmingham-Scotland WCML services and on the many weekend diversions during WCRM (including on the Chiltern route).
It remains to be seen if the (non-tilt) Hitachi 805s on order will match their journey times times on the WCML.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,531
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It remains to be seen if the (non-tilt) Hitachi 805s on order will match their journey times times on the WCML.

They probably won't, but the discrepancy will be a few minutes, but meanwhile they are more fuel-efficient, less noisy/rattly, have better aircon, have a reliable reservation display system, don't burn diesel under the wires, are more spacious etc. Tilt was all very well but resulted in a very tight body profile. Also the bogs don't stink.

The 80x is altogether a much better train - but being about 20 years newer this should be expected.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,531
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
What was the first service that was worked by a Voyager?

If I recall rightly there was a Reading-Brum via Oxford shuttle as the first thing they worked. I went down to have a ride on it when I was still a student (2001 ish). I remember they took off like a plane, throwing you back in your seat a bit - sadly the software and/or driving style was later modified for a bit less acceleration. After that they went on existing XC services as double sets. And then later (2005 ish?) came Operation Pumpkin*, something which XC has never really recovered from.

* Operation Princess, the major frequency upgrade which came with a capacity reduction, which was never going to work and did the railway's reputation no good at all, with serious overcrowding from pretty much day one.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,713
Location
Glasgow
They were a good first go at a high speed underfloor engined DEMU, and the 80x takes the concept and makes it rather better.

Celebrate, but also move on.

That said, the main complaints tend to be about legroom and overcrowding - both can be solved by running longer trains and a less tight seating arrangement (as the 222s already have). I don't think they are as hated on the WCML where they have the all-tables Coach D and mostly run as 10-car double sets.
Virgin XC and Arriva XC did of course both change the seating. Virgin removed a few seats to increase luggage space within two years of introduction as I recall, AXC later tightened the pitch and inserted more seats.

I don't think a perfect balance can be struck really.

If I recall rightly there was a Reading-Brum via Oxford shuttle as the first thing they worked. I went down to have a ride on it when I was still a student (2001 ish). I remember they took off like a plane, throwing you back in your seat a bit - sadly the software and/or driving style was later modified for a bit less acceleration. After that they went on existing XC services as double sets. And then later (2005 ish?) came Operation Pumpkin*, something which XC has never really recovered from.

* Operation Princess, the major frequency upgrade which came with a capacity reduction, which was never going to work and did the railway's reputation no good at all, with serious overcrowding from pretty much day one.
I've never actually seen a copy of the 'Operation Princess' timetable. I know XC cut a number of the lesser used extensions to the likes of Brighton and a more frequent service to Guildford etc but how different was the timetable, I don't recall ever finding a decent description of the changes anywhere.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,530
And then later (2005 ish?) came Operation Pumpkin*, something which XC has never really recovered from.
Try September 2002.

I've never actually seen a copy of the 'Operation Princess' timetable.
It never lived up to its billing. The grandiose plans for it kept on getting watered down. September 2002 should have been the first stage, with further improvements in 2003, but the introduction didn't work and consequently, I don't think the full aspiration is documented anywhere. From then on, the retraction of the network to core routes was all about bringing stability to the operation.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,531
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Virgin XC and Arriva XC did of course both change the seating. Virgin removed a few seats to increase luggage space within two years of introduction as I recall, AXC later tightened the pitch and inserted more seats.

I don't think a perfect balance can be struck really.

Part of the problem is that the layout is really inefficient, with there only being seats in about 2/3 of each vehicle. So despite the layout being quite tight, the number of seats is very low.

It never lived up to its billing. The grandiose plans for it kept on getting watered down.

It'd have worked if they had been 7-car units. The problem was that you can't put a swanky new timetable in place while reducing the overall capacity from what operated before. It was a massive embarrassment.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,530
It'd have worked if they had been 7-car units. The problem was that you can't put a swanky new timetable in place while reducing the overall capacity from what operated before. It was a massive embarrassment.
While you are right, many of the intended services used infrastructure (eg Reading platforms 3 and 7) that wasn't capable of holding longer trains, so the services wouldn't have worked.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,713
Location
Glasgow
It'd have worked if they had been 7-car units. The problem was that you can't put a swanky new timetable in place while reducing the overall capacity from what operated before. It was a massive embarrassment.
Or if there had been about twice as many units perhaps! ;)

Try September 2002.


It never lived up to its billing. The grandiose plans for it kept on getting watered down. September 2002 should have been the first stage, with further improvements in 2003, but the introduction didn't work and consequently, I don't think the full aspiration is documented anywhere. From then on, the retraction of the network to core routes was all about bringing stability to the operation.
Well even just the implemented timetable that collapsed so spectacularly.

Would I be looking at the winter 2002 timetable or the summer 2003 one? Something like that?



Part of the problem is that the layout is really inefficient, with there only being seats in about 2/3 of each vehicle. So despite the layout being quite tight, the number of seats is very low.
62 max as built, reduced to 60 for additional luggage space. Increased to 66 by AXC.

Even 66 is ridiculously low for the length of vehicle.
 

47444

Member
Joined
10 Aug 2019
Messages
282
.. it was a great pity the e-Voyager was not progressed by Bombardier to make them into bi-modes.
I don't think it was a choice Bombardier made - DfT wouldn't pay the price Bombardier wanted for the conversion.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,530
Would I be looking at the winter 2002 timetable or the summer 2003 one? Something like that?
Yes, winter 2002 (although there were still some HSTs operational) with highlights like hourly calls at Solihull, four trains a day to Brighton, trains every two hours at Liverpool, five trains a day to Penzance...
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
If I recall rightly there was a Reading-Brum via Oxford shuttle as the first thing they worked. I went down to have a ride on it when I was still a student (2001 ish). I remember they took off like a plane, throwing you back in your seat a bit - sadly the software and/or driving style was later modified for a bit less acceleration. After that they went on existing XC services as double sets. And then later (2005 ish?) came Operation Pumpkin*, something which XC has never really recovered from.

I used to travel a fair amount between Reading and Leeds at that time and I remember getting a brand new one on that route. It was all quite exciting !

They've certainly shifted a lot of people in their time.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,531
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Or if there had been about twice as many units perhaps! ;)

Indeed, if all services through the core were double sets it'd have worked fine give or take the Reading platform issue noted.

62 max as built, reduced to 60 for additional luggage space. Increased to 66 by AXC.

Even 66 is ridiculously low for the length of vehicle.

Given that the high density GWR layout (which is a similar idea in terms of the layout, actually with more legroom, and also a 23m vehicle) manages 84 in a full length vehicle or 72 with accessible bog and wheelchair space, it's truly appalling.
 

RailWonderer

Established Member
Joined
25 Jul 2018
Messages
1,588
Location
All around the network
Part of the problem is that the layout is really inefficient, with there only being seats in about 2/3 of each vehicle. So despite the layout being quite tight, the number of seats is very low.



It'd have worked if they had been 7-car units. The problem was that you can't put a swanky new timetable in place while reducing the overall capacity from what operated before. It was a massive embarrassment.
A bit of an exaggeration, but I will agree that the vestibule areas are too long, and the cycle space is larger than it needs to be, and the first class coach only uses half the coach for seats. Several people can stand inside the overly large cycle area. Then the legroom area is so tight that I always gun for the airline seats at the end of the coach, as some of those have nicer legroom. I agree, they are inefficiently laid out, but I've always liked the large windows and the squidgy Alstom seats similar to the 390s and 458s, and the tilt for the 221s.
If I was commuting on the Reading-Brum or around the Leeds area I don't think I'd like them as much though. It's been a great 20 years, looking forward to another 10-15.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
Is there any plans to replace these?
Well Avanti are replacing theirs with the Hitachi class 805 and 807 units they have on order. But it seems almost inevitable that their 20 Super Voyagers will then be cascaded to XC; the DfT underwrote the lease for 30 years I believe, so they'll be paying for them either way.
 

185

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
4,969
Good train. Shame about the pollution they kick out - New Street copes well with 158s, 170s etc but one of them parks up.. god it's horrid.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,713
Location
Glasgow
Yes, winter 2002 (although there were still some HSTs operational) with highlights like hourly calls at Solihull, four trains a day to Brighton, trains every two hours at Liverpool, five trains a day to Penzance...
Thank you, now I know what to look for I may have more success in finding the relevant timetable!


Indeed, if all services through the core were double sets it'd have worked fine give or take the Reading platform issue noted.
Double and splitting or just specific services purely running on the 'core'?


Given that the high density GWR layout (which is a similar idea in terms of the layout, actually with more legroom, and also a 23m vehicle) manages 84 in a full length vehicle or 72 with accessible bog and wheelchair space, it's truly appalling.
I mean it's got to be just about the worst. The over provision of accessible toilets for one, really eats the space. On the Meridians the same design of intermediate cars seated 70 with the standard toilet, reduced to 68 to increase luggage space.

Not a huge difference but if the fleet was increased to all 5-car and only the end vehicles had accessible toilets it would add up.

Or maybe even if they were all 5-car, even though a small improvement, would’ve been something.
I think there was an early plan to extend 38 sets to 5-car but that obviously never came to fruition.

Is there any plans to replace these?
Immediate? None I'm aware of.

Probably looking at some plans being drawn up in the next 10 years though, what with the various targets on cutting diesel use.

Good train. Shame about the pollution they kick out - New Street copes well with 158s, 170s etc but one of them parks up.. god it's horrid.
Probably those very beefy lorry engines they have! ;)
 

TT-ONR-NRN

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2016
Messages
10,412
Location
Farnham
And rightly so they should celebrate. While less popular with your traditional rail enthusiasts who turn their noses up at anything without a loco on the front ;) their levels of reliability put 175/180, CAFs, 80x and IC225s to shame.
 
Joined
10 Jan 2018
Messages
276
The introduction of both Class 220 Voyager and Class 221 Super Voyagers back in the early 2000s was under Virgin Trains as part of ‘Operation Princess’ - that is when the new Voyagers were introduced with fewer carriages than their predecessors (Class 47 + Mk2 carriages and HSTs) but also increased the service frequency.

A four-car Voyager may be a lot shorter than a Class 47 with a rake of six or seven Mk2 coaches, but some XC services have seen a nine-car set (4-car Class 220 or 221 + 5-Car Class 221) which is actually longer than loco-hauled predecessors.

I remember when the Voyagers first came out in the early 2000s when I did trainspotting at Glasgow Central and they were operated by Virgin Cross Country at the time.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
Still feels very strange to see the Alstom name in front of these!

Mechanically they've certainly been a success when you compare them to the rival Class 180 made by, ahem, Alstom... I assume Alstom won't be celebrating their 20th anniversary :D
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,713
Location
Glasgow
four-car Voyager may be a lot shorter than a Class 47 with a rake of six or seven Mk2 coaches, but some XC services have seen a nine-car set (4-car Class 220 or 221 + 5-Car Class 221) which is actually longer than loco-hauled predecessors.
But even a double Voyager (in original configuration) seats less than either a 47+Mk2 or a 2+7 HST.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,160
Still feels very strange to see the Alstom name in front of these!

Mechanically they've certainly been a success when you compare them to the rival Class 180 made by, ahem, Alstom... I assume Alstom won't be celebrating their 20th anniversary :D
Although the underfloor bits of a Voyager are “proper Alstom” as they use the Onix traction system.

Shame they didn’t do the same for the 180s. But that was for the Western and the Western wanted hydraulics…
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,771
appreciate the bay at Reading was (is) a restriction, but it would not have been beyond the wit of man to sort that had longer trains been desired. But the concept was shorter, faster, more frequent services.

And yes, the DFT killing the e-Voyager was a massive mis-step in my view and it should be re-invigorated, using the the 222s as well. Find a few spare QSk19 and make them 8 car units for XC and 7 car units for Scotrail, all with two pantograph coaches. Strip the 221s of all tilt kit and new lightweight 220 style bogies. A fantasy, yes. But it makes sense, no?
Maybe even retractable 3rd rail shoes for the XC units...
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
appreciate the bay at Reading was (is) a restriction, but it would not have been beyond the wit of man to sort that had longer trains been desired. But the concept was shorter, faster, more frequent services.

And yes, the DFT killing the e-Voyager was a massive mis-step in my view and it should be re-invigorated, using the the 222s as well. Find a few spare QSk19 and make them 8 car units for XC and 7 car units for Scotrail, all with two pantograph coaches. Strip the 221s of all tilt kit and new lightweight 220 style bogies. A fantasy, yes. But it makes sense, no?
Maybe even retractable 3rd rail shoes for the XC units...
Unfortunately, at this point I would imagine they're too old (and non-standard) for it to be economically viable.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
Thank you, now I know what to look for I may have more success in finding the relevant timetable!


I mean it's got to be just about the worst. The over provision of accessible toilets for one, really eats the space. On the Meridians the same design of intermediate cars seated 70 with the standard toilet, reduced to 68 to increase luggage space.
I don’t recall at some of the other ends of the route but I do recall them ORCATs raiding scotrail with 1 train every 2 hours to Dundee.

if I recall the have lots of disabled toilets as they were supposed to be 3 classes. Never got off the drawing board (thank goodnes)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top