Talk:British Rail Class 220

Trains: in UK / Passenger trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Passenger trains task force.

Naming convention

There is a discussion about the naming convention to use for articles about British locomotive and multiple unit classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Split?

This article needs to be split. The two classes are different. — Dunc|☺ 22:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the two classes are not identical but to the casual observer/average passenger the only difference they are likely to notice is that the Class 221 has one more carriage than the Class 220. As they are more similar than they are different, two articles would have a large degree of repetition - so unless this article needs to be split on length grounds (which it currently doesn't) then I don't see the benefit. Thryduulf 23:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think if more content is included, such as vehicle numering, set formations and names, then there would be grounds for a split. The Class 221 article could certainly include details of the tilt mechanism. Using that argument I suppose technically, the Class 171 article should be split from the Class 170 article.

I think there are grounds for a split if and only if a lot more info is added. Too many people seem all too eager to deconstruct good articles into heaps of crappy stubs. Plugwash 12:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A parent article like pacer (train) covering all classes 22x built by Bombardier to the same general design viz British Rail Class 220 British Rail Class 221 and British Rail Class 222 makes sense. Also, a list of units and their names should be given which will take a fair bit of space. — Dunc|☺ 13:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

couplers

am i right in thinking that the couplers on theese can be folded down and a screw coupling attached for shunting etc? Plugwash 03:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC) AFAIK Voyagers carry an emergency drawbar that either attaches to the coupler or alongside it --Enotayokel 10:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--82.25.94.168 21:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)==Flock of turkeys== This is hardly NPOV, and also comes only from an email but it'll be worth keeping an ear out regarding anything official from Virgin...[reply]

Meanwhile at Virgin X Country top management has privately accepted that the Voyager fleet is a flock of turkeys and plans are well advanced for a completely new train to operate down here [South West England]. Can't at present reveal the exact details but this new train has been undergoing extensive testing for the last 30 years under a secret name starting with H and ending with T.

Thryduulf 19:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could be adelantes ;) - There currently is a MidlandMainline H*T operating with 'This train is on hire' stickers in this area (and it's not one of First's private collection pre Barbie/Neonfying) - also seems to be proving very popular with the punters Enotayokel 00:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed I specifically chose to take this train for my Taunton to Leeds journey on Friday. The PA person (would have been called a senior conductor pre-privatisation) apologised for the lack of reservations (it seems that VXC have sold the printer) but did point out that there would be plenty of space as the train was twice as big as their normal ones! Quite a contrast to the near-crushloading on the 220 I had to get from Leeds to Brum on the return (only service from Leeds to Brum for over 2 hours before and at least 1 hour afterwards, that also makes an important connection with a GNER service from London at Doncaster, and they allocate a four-car train... </rant>). Thryduulf 00:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know about the crush - had a very late running 4 car from York to Exeter, hit Bristol at 5:30pm and all the commuters chose an already busy Voyager over the Pacer Enotayokel 17:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That sounds like the Bristol rush hour. The choice between a crowded voyager and a 143 (which can get nearly as crowded) for a journey to Taunton is a tough one, for all there foibles I'd take probably take an empty voyager over an empty pacer, but I'd almost certainly take a 158 and quite likely a 150 or (empty) 153. Wessex have recently started using their 143s on longer distances and running single 153s on busier services than they used to. Part of me wonders whether this is a cynical ploy to make FGW look good when they take over and use longer, better trains? Thryduulf 01:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Un)reliability

However many of the engine problems have now been resolved, the article tells us. Not in my experience. As a fairly frequent commuter between Southampton, Birmingham, and Durham, I'd estimate that on around 30% of journeys I've taken there's been at least one fault en route, either mechanical or electronic, and on at least 10% the service has broken down and a replacement unit drafted in (oddly, usually seems to be at Derby, Doncaster, or Darlington - is there some sort of jinx on stations beginning with a D?)... Does anyone have any sourced statistics on current Voyager reliability? DWaterson 00:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am really surprised because I have been using them from Manchester up to Scotland and there was never a problem. Even, one evening, the Super-Voyager did the Carlisle-Lancaster strech in 45 minutes including a stop in between at Penrith. This means that these trains do run at faster speeds than 200 km/h.

In the problem section of this article, I do not see the relevance of some points such as doors that close on people. They do on all trains if you put yourself in the way since no trainsets do have such sensors. I do not see what is the point to complain that the Voyagers are noisy, this is true of any train autorail type coach where a diesel motor is fitted under the carriage. I use other trains and I can tell you that the other trainsets are even noisier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laurentien (talk • contribs) 21:43, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I use these trains everyday and I they were never any problems. They are on time and they offer a confortable ride. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentien (talk • contribs) 01:13, 26 August 2007

I might as well pip-in here. I use them fairly regularly, and think they're among the best trains out there. Only really beaten by Desiro trains on South West Trains, which are, let's admit, fantastic. _TheIslander 00:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't say much about the current state of British railways. I find Voyagers uncomfortably cramped, almost as bad as airlines, unless you're lucky enough to get a table seat, which is a huge drop in quality with what was available before, yet without a corresponding drop in fare. In comparison, the oversized toilets waste too much space. They feel like commuter trains with ideas above their station. -Riedquat 18:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laurentien, I guess if you use them every day you use them mostly for commuting and probablly don't spend more than an hour or so on them in one go. They are fine for that and much better that most commuter trains. On the other hand when you try and do a journey like brockenhurst to stockport you really notice that the things are cramped and rough running compared to the old locomotive and coach sets they replaced.

Another thing this article doesn't mention, the voyagers seem to have a lower ceiling that most other trains i've been on. My guess is that with the engines under the floor they had to put a lot more equipment in the ceiling.

Having travelled on british railways and particularlly the crosscountry routes quite a bit I'd say the voyagers are as good as the old medium distance trains (the ones marketed under the sprinter brandname and similar) but nowhere near as good as the old intercity locomotive and coach sets or the pendolinos. Plugwash 08:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use these trains on a regular basis on long and short distance trips. I think its the internal decor that makes them cramped. If you travel on a Meridian you will see what I mean. Meridians are the same size but feel a lot less cramped. The Meridians also seem to have a lot more internal lighting that helps. The interal design of the voyagers is the problem. How can people say the ride is worse than lets say a HST - which actually bump around so much they make me feel sick. The ride quality is one of the best of any UK train. The vibrations on the Voyagers are the annoying thing that needs attending to, but this can vary between units. Some have no vibrations others sound as if they are just about to fall apart. Another thing to note is some vibrations are caused by peoples lugguage vibrating on the metal/plastic. They are good well built trains, but just needs a good interior refurb which CrossCountry may be able to provide. And going back to the original subject, they are reliable, out of all the times I have been on one (about 50 times) not a single problem has happened, or have I just been lucky?. Year1989 13:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, reliable in some aspects. I've not had a problem with them actually being able to move, but have experienced plenty of smaller things going wrong on them (doors sticking open, electronic seat reservations not working, to the extent of having seen the good old reliable bits of paper used, toilet doors not locking, and so on). -Riedquat 00:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rheostatic braking is unusual in the UK???

I thought the Class 91 uses it (can't immediately find a source, but have you heard an Intercity 225 as it arrives in the station—or seen the heat haze above the power car?) and according to the Wikipedia article on the Class 90, that does too.

This particular configuration of rheostatic braking may be unusual but surely rheostatic braking in itself is not. Roy Badami 22:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've found a reference that seems to confirm my belief that the Class 91 uses rheostatic braking http://www.therailwaycentre.com/New%20Loco%20Tech%20Data/Class91.html so I will remove the claim that rheostatic braking was "uncommon in the UK up until recently"

Roy Badami 17:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Class 86 and 87 locos had rheostatic braking as well. It was quite usual on AC locos. The difference with the 220/221 class is that the traction motors are essentially AC, be it electronically generated. This has allowed rheostatic braking on a diesel-electric.The system blends the brake using both disc and rheo when brakes are applied until the speed drops below 18 mph, there the brake is 100% friction. Atari001 (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Model train info

Is this really relevant? I think not, but ya know, I'll see what you lot think beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Units built in Canada? No.

Someone wrote "The Classes 220, 221 and 222 are all made by Bombadier transportation of Canada. The Class 390 (Pendolino) is made by Alstom, creators of the Eurostar and TGV. The two companies worked jointly on the Acela for American railway Amtrak." The units are not built in canada. The units are built in Belgum and Wakefield, UK. The Class 390 were built in Washwood Heath, UK.

I think the important word is of, this mean that the company comes from Canada, not that the trains were built there Talltim (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tidy

I reorganised the article - adding some info and removing some images.

The article probably needs a "reference improve tag" - specifically subjective comments such as passenger problems should have references. I haven't added the tag as yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 14:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banbury fire

The two references for this seem to contradict each other - one says a bird got lodged in the brakes - the other suggests the fire was in the air vents.

Can anyone clarify this. Thanks.FengRail (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the mention of Bournemouth, because neither source mentions Bournemouth. Further, both sources state that the train was going to Derby; one source (the Oxford Mail one) gives the time as "at 4.25pm", the other (Banbury Guardian) states 'Watch manager Darren Gough said: "We were called at 4.26pm ..."'. If the train was on time, then according to the Dec 2007-May 2008 timetable, this would have been the 15:40 from Reading to Derby (arr. 18:34), which would have called Banbury 16:25. Of course it could have been the 13:45 from Bournemouth running late, which should have called Banbury 15:53, but that is an Edinburgh service (arr 22:24). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smells

From the article:

Initial problems with smells from the toilets being conducted into the carriages - this was due to the close proximity of the sewage tank outlet and other components[clarification needed]. This problem has been fixed.

Really? All those I've been on recently are still pretty stinky. Anyone seen any anouncements - there's nothing official on the VT site mentioning the smells (surprisingly enough) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.135.209 (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask me I've got no sense of smell.

I've added a request for a reference to the 'stinky toilet' problem on this class.

At the same time I've removed the assertation that the problem has been fixed.

If anyone can show (ie references) that the performance has been fixed then they should be able to show that the problem existed...

Possibly this may be mentioned on one of those "performance reports" that some govermental institution produces (can't/don't remember which) - if anyone is listening who is good at finding these things.FengRail (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coach B

I can't find anything saying why there is no coach B on these trains... can anyone explain and add it to the article? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure but I suspect it's to make reservation management easier in a mixed fleet of voyagers and super voyagers. Plugwash (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember they actually have a coach F though. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons images

Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 220s is now completely sorted by operator and livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible change to the title of this article

This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome.

Langston Rock photo

Why does it say the train "look(s) like it's tilting" in the photo's caption? The train does not look like it is tilting; it merely looks like it is running on super-elevated tracks, and the suspension gives no indication of tilt. Besides, there is a distinct appearance of tilting with tilting trains.

71.181.165.31 (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I have deleted that comment. -- Alarics (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'British Rail' Class 220?

British Rail had long ceased to exist as a railway operator by the time that the Voyager trains were intriduced (or even thought of). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.4.249 (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the topic #Naming convention above. - David Biddulph (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation regarding Dawlish Sea Wall restrictions

Would it be best to delete the information regarding the Sea Wall restriction as it is difficult to provide citation? The information is not in the public domain (although it does exist). Atari001 (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership

Who owns the 220 and 221s? I mean which ROSCO? 82.46.109.233 (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC) http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/assets/competitioncommission/docs/pdf/inquiry/ref2007/roscos/pdf/hearing_summary_voyager_leasing 82.46.109.233 (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's Porterbrook, so Angel Trains I presume. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to

Pritchard, Robert; Hall, Peter (2013). British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock 2013. Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing. pp. 245–7, 373. ISBN 978-1-909431-02-7.

(I've not got the 2014 edition yet), the 220s and 221s are all owned by "Voyager Leasing (Lloyds Banking Group/Angel Trains)". --Redrose64 (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on British Rail Class 220. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on British Rail Class 220. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.voithturbo.de/applications/documents/document_files/597_e_10_g_1603_e.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090619193546/http://www.virgintrainsmediaroom.com/index.cfm?articleid=121 to http://www.virgintrainsmediaroom.com/index.cfm?articleid=121
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thejunction.org.uk/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/projects/details?docID=0901260d800128b6
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517221737/http://www.traintesting.com/Class_220.htm to http://www.traintesting.com/Class_220.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]