Virgin Voyagers, terrible.

shaun123 · Post by **shaun123** » Sat May 05, 2007 9:07 pm

Yep Sorry 60054 isn't stored.

bdy26 · Post by **bdy26** » Sat May 05, 2007 9:49 pm

Thrashin wrote:
There was an interesting feature on the Meridians in one of the Trainspotting programmes a while back. The impression I got from it was that they were similar to a Voyager, but with most of the problems ironed out. IIRC, there were very few features of the trains that were actually the same.

Cheers

Jack

I was speaking to a driver at Derby once, and he said they are incompatible for a number of reasons - the computer systems are totally different for one. I think they are generally better specced with much more thought as to the layout of the train. And having a declassified first class section is a nice mistake!

AlistairW · Post by **AlistairW** » Sun May 06, 2007 1:25 am

ajax103 wrote:
AlistairW wrote:Both trains stink. For a new train its terrible. Never had a problem on a MK3 or MK4, although of course they don't have retention tanks.
I have to question your post as I believe that Mk.3 coaching stock doesn't have CET as you pointed out but the Mk.4 coaching stock does.

BUT, I have to agree with you on them not having a problem.

Really? I'm sure I've seen a picture of a MK4 set with err well 'toilet flush' whilst travelling at speed. Maybe it was an HST. If so then I stand corrected.

The MK4 vestibules always smelt of old cheese to me when I was young, of course that was in the days of Intercity.

johncard · Post by **johncard** » Sun May 06, 2007 8:51 am

It's really odd to think it's been 13 years since the end of BR. It might have been in the early days of VXC when I last travelled from Oxford to Weymouth, I had this vague recollection of having to share a doughnut because they cost £1 each.

I had thought that my memory was bad because I could just remember a cream and brown colour scheme which was surely too dull to be right...... until I travelled to Newcastle last year in an unrefurbed Mk3

Surely I imagined the filth on the lower bodysides though

John

AlistairW · Post by **AlistairW** » Sun May 06, 2007 6:55 pm

AlistairW wrote:
ajax103 wrote:
AlistairW wrote:Both trains stink. For a new train its terrible. Never had a problem on a MK3 or MK4, although of course they don't have retention tanks.
I have to question your post as I believe that Mk.3 coaching stock doesn't have CET as you pointed out but the Mk.4 coaching stock does.

BUT, I have to agree with you on them not having a problem.
Really? I'm sure I've seen a picture of a MK4 set with err well 'toilet flush' whilst travelling at speed. Maybe it was an HST. If so then I stand corrected.

The MK4 vestibules always smelt of old cheese to me when I was young, of course that was in the days of Intercity.

Yep - I stand corrected, the MK4's certainly do have retention tanks, don't know where I got the idea that they didn't from.

Didn't smell though!

ajax103 · Post by **ajax103** » Sun May 06, 2007 8:21 pm

AlistairW wrote:
AlistairW wrote:
ajax103 wrote: I have to question your post as I believe that Mk.3 coaching stock doesn't have CET as you pointed out but the Mk.4 coaching stock does.

BUT, I have to agree with you on them not having a problem.
Really? I'm sure I've seen a picture of a MK4 set with err well 'toilet flush' whilst travelling at speed. Maybe it was an HST. If so then I stand corrected.

The MK4 vestibules always smelt of old cheese to me when I was young, of course that was in the days of Intercity.
Yep - I stand corrected, the MK4's certainly do have retention tanks, don't know where I got the idea that they didn't from.

Didn't smell though!

I have to admit, I've forgotten where I learnt that

I think it was when I first started with FCC, I asked about them about the toilets as I was under the impression wrongly at the time that all coaching stock had cet fitted which is not the case.

spartacus · Post by **spartacus** » Sun May 06, 2007 8:39 pm

I'd heard those tanks on Mk4s caused some big problems when first introduced, there was always a chance of them 'reverse flushing' if passing another in a tunnel at speed.

allypally · Post by **allypally** » Sun May 06, 2007 8:46 pm

They smell in the summer apparently, one of GNER's guards tells me. Better than the pendos year round stench.

alpha5 · Post by **alpha5** » Sun May 20, 2007 1:19 pm

consider yourself lucky i live near Birmingham new street, voyager central!!

wdpics · Post by **wdpics** » Wed May 23, 2007 6:05 pm

My question is why virgin went with vomet comets instead of waiting untill the IEP's came out and just didnt refurbished their HST's and class 90's

enotayokel · Post by **enotayokel** » Wed May 23, 2007 6:12 pm

I still don't see why Voyagers are hated.

The General Traveling Public seem to like them

BTW - Cross Country wasn't all HST. If you were lucky you got an HST, if you were unlucky you got a 47 and 5 mk2s. Not the most reliable..

As for why, they wanted 125mph capable stock on Cross Country and 140mph on West Coast.

One thing that was considered was class 67s and DVTs with new coaches, and we all know that the class 67s top speed only applies with an empty fuel tank.

Also to get 125 (or 140) on the WCML needs tilt, 87s and mk 3's don't tilt!

wdpics · Post by **wdpics** » Wed May 23, 2007 6:15 pm

enotayokel wrote:I still don't see why Voyagers are hated.

The General Traveling Public seem to like them

Well - i personally dont hate them, i just prefer the HST's and class 90/91's over them.

To me, they seem to be cheaply made. Too compact, squashed in, and too much plastic. If it had anymore plastic, it should have a "made in china" sticker on it.

From the outside, they do look nice - i have to admit that, but from sitting inside one for 3 hours compared to the HST - no contest. I didnt feel like a sardine in a tin lol

I agree with your comment on the tilting action - but even then, why voyager - why not go with class 373's instead of 390's?

enotayokel · Post by **enotayokel** » Wed May 23, 2007 6:21 pm

For cheap bodge job see Class 153.

The Voyagers are well built, but poorly laid out - never been on a Pendo.

wdpics · Post by **wdpics** » Wed May 23, 2007 6:24 pm

enotayokel wrote:For cheap bodge job see Class 153.

The Voyagers are well built, but poorly laid out - never been on a Pendo.

Pendo imo is just as badly laid out as the voyagers.

THis is where i think it comes down to really - if the designers were not playing a "who can design a train in under 30 seconds" game, i think we would have had a good coupla classes of trains in the 220/221's and 390's

As for well built - i cant deny that but imo compared to HST's, too much plastic. - it gives false impression really, plastic on the inside, what is on the outside is what some ppl think

AS for class 153's - they are just awful!

enotayokel · Post by **enotayokel** » Wed May 23, 2007 6:27 pm

wdpics wrote:
I agree with your comment on the tilting action - but even then, why voyager - why not go with class 373's instead of 390's?

373's can't tilt

(and IIRC are limitted to 110 on standard BR catnery)

Also a 373 would have problems doing Edinburgh to Penzance... The problems would start near York