Talk:Bombardier Voyager

No mention is made of the fact that these trains are only suitable for the very short or the very masochistic. Seriously though, they represented a huge step back in comfort compared with the loco+mk2's or mk3's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.63.63 (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Operation Thor needs better references

This bit diff

Section : Future, subsection : Operation Thor

Bombardier has plans , apparently known as Operation Thor, to convert the Voyager and/or Meridian DEMUs into electro-diesels (EDMUs). Exact details are unclear, but would involve the construction of additional intermediate cars with a pantograph and a transformer which would feed power into the traction motors of the existing diesel-electric cars when running off overhead lines .

Bombardier has already introduced two electro-diesel variants of its AGC series multiple units for the French operator SNCF using its MITRAC Hybrid Technology. The SNCF Class B 81500 uses 1.5 kV DC (when available), whilst the dual-voltage SNCF Class B 82500 can use either 1.5 kV DC or 25 kV AC; with both variants, the electricity is collected by means of a pantograph from overhead catenary. The Voyager power-train appears to use the same components, so conversion to the full MITRAC electro-diesel system should be fairly trivial.

Reflinks:

The first paragraph seems ok but the reference doesn't confirm the vital details eg any project using voyagers or the name "operation thor". The second paragraph is not quite right - it's vaguely synthesis - ie trying to draw conclusion from other (unrelated) projects.

Has anyone got a better (reliable, no forums) reference for the plans - that actually confirms this. ? Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The only other reference I found at the time was the proceedings of the Transport Committee from Hansard ("Transport and the economy: Memoranda – Part 2" (PDF). Hansard. September 2010. p. 110-116. Retrieved 2011-03-04. Project Thor, being developed with a number of UK private sector partners, would see 500 existing diesel multiple unit vehicles converted to bi-mode diesel / electric capability, allowing them to operate as electric trains where there is already electrification infrastructure in place, while continuing their journey in diesel mode where the wires end.), where, you might note, it is referred to as "Project Thor" in that one part-quoted paragraph on page 114 of the PDF. I didn't think it said anything more or added to the Rail-News article in terms of the vital details, although I doubt if Bombardier would have said such to the Transport Committee were it not true. I also infer that "500 existing diesel multiple unit vehicles" means 500 cars (ie about 100 trainsets) -- I calculate that there are 495 Class 22x cars.

I accept your comment that the second paragraph is synthesis. I know that you (or someone) has mentioned that to me before, but probably sometime this year (ie after I added that paragraph). Would it be acceptable if I could find a reliable source saying much the same thing (rather than a web-forum / letters page where I found it)? Tim PF (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've now found an HTML reference for the above PDF: ("Transport and the economy: Memorandum from Bombardier Transportation UK Limited (TE 89)". Parliament of the United Kingdom. 10 November 2010. Retrieved 2011-03-04. Project Thor, being developed with a number of UK private sector partners, would see 500 existing diesel multiple unit vehicles converted to bi-mode diesel / electric capability, allowing them to operate as electric trains where there is already electrification infrastructure in place, while continuing their journey in diesel mode where the wires end.). Tim PF (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Good at least you've confirmed the name "Project Thor", but it doesn't narrow it to the Voyager family ? Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

revert diff The current content is not good enough - still needs confirmation that marks this to voyagers. Also the writing style is not suitable eg would most likely involve ..

This may be a suitable reference [1] Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

But that's already referenced -- I assumed that you thought it wasn't good enough. It's also at odds with the parliamentary reference (differing name, new-build or conversions only). But, it does specifically state "...existing vehicles in the 22x fleet into EDMUs." Tim PF (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake - I didn't notice that reference, I've rewritten it removing speculation. In all honesty the rail-news.com site doesn't appear that reliable - it's almost a blog - but it's all there is , so I'll assume it is reliable..Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Rename

I'd like to suggest that this article be renamed to just Voyager (train) or some variant thereof, to be consistent with Turbostar, Electrostar and Desiro. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

An interesting suggestion, seeing as this was moved to Voyager (train) for a couple of days in October 2007, but was speedily moved back. I note that, even so, there are no article page links to its 4 redirect pages, although I only had to change a few such pages recently.

I also note that, unlike the mostly British Turbostar and Electrostar family articles, the multinational Desiro is actually a redirect to Siemens Desiro, and both pages have many links. Until such time as Bombardier sell some Voyager family trains elsewhere, its name is perhaps not necessary, but neither is it wrong (and I note that the Dutch article is nl:Bombardier Voyager).

"Voyager" is a problem in that it is also the actual name given to one member of the class, so, "Voyager (train)" should perhaps be a dab page to both British Rail Class 220 and Bombardier Voyager family (or at least there should be a hatnote or two to clarify things). Another member uses a different name (Meridian (train)), and previously one of its subclasses used yet another ("Pioneer").

Unlike "Turbostar", "Electrostar" or even "Desiro", Voyager is a common name, so needs some form of disambiguation (and branding), and for the other reasons above, I think that "Bombardier Voyager family" or "Voyager family" works just as well as "Voyager (train)", and often avoids the use of a piped link.

I therefore think that the current title "Bombardier Voyager family" is not wrong, is as good as anything else, and if it ain't bust, don't fix it. Tim PF (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

criticism of ventilation system

Should there be some mention of the flaw in the ventilation system where the "fresh" air inlet for the ventilation system is very close to the retention tank exhaust (with obvious malodor)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.80.178 (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bombardier Voyager family. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131221005408/http://www.rssb.co.uk/RGS/Pages/MECHANICALANDELECTRICALCOUPLINGINDEX.aspx to http://www.rssb.co.uk/RGS/Pages/MECHANICALANDELECTRICALCOUPLINGINDEX.aspx

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) 16:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)