Reader Comments:

Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.

• George Davidson, Newport, wales

  Is it really worth ploughing any more money into these nasty Voyager trains? Narrow bodies - presumably for tilt purposes yet the tilt does not work on most services. This has resulted in silly little seats totally unsuited to long distance travel. Many of the seats have the view blocked by a pillar and even the buff coloured seat backs reflect into the windows. Then we have the high floor level - presumably to allow for tilt mechanisms - which results in passengers having a higher step from platform levels than other trains. Who an Earth commissioned these awful trains and thought they were suitable for long distance travel?
  
  What we need to do now is design and build new long distance trains whether electric only or bi-mode as is happening for the Great Western coupled with a rolling programme of electrification. (If HS2 is built - this will release some Pendolinos for other routes). Let us hope that they get the design right with "full bodied" coaches, big windows, no vibration/ noise from underfloor engines and decent seats. Then a programme of fleet cascades could take place with 158's replacing 150 sprinters and Voyagers being switched to medium distance routes currently operated by 158's until such time as these lines are also electrified.

• Lutz, London

  There are reports that Bombardier would not be able to build the steel frames in the UK, so the value of this project is questionable.
  

• Colin Brooks, frinton on sea , UK

  because these were built by bombardier and this is a bombarider design there may be case that says this is not subject to procurement as only bombarider can do them -- you may remmber the DFT trying to issue a tender to do the 106 pendolino coaches which could ony be done by alstom - which it eventually was -- -- if this is the case an contract could be let very quickly (a few months) rather than average of 2 years -- i think is all tied up with the 40 infrastctutre projects raised by nick clegg -- i think one of these will be electification infll -- will will increase voyagers under the wires so these 2 things my be intrinsdcally linked

• royburnley, bradford, west yorkshire

  IT IS GREAT IDEA GO FOR IT

• Paul Hepworth, York, UK

  Hope they incorporate better storage space for pedal cyces. Preferably four bike spaces with "both wheels on the ground" rather than having to shoehorn bikes into narrow cubicles and hang them by the front wheel as at present.

• Geoff Steel, Northampton, United Kingdom

  I have a better idea which is to progressively electrify the whole Cross country network then we won't need these expensive hybrid trains for the entire long distance train network.

• Chris Reynell, Longstock, Hampshire.

  Ah ha! That explains coach F, perhaps Virgin intended to have 6 car Voyagers in the first place.
  
  Restoring tilt to Cross Country's 221's and some new-build with tilt could be ideal for Devon and Cornwall with it's meandering main line.

• Paul, London, England

  From the Passenger's point of view, the decision to choose Siemens was entirely correct. Their products are far superior to Bombardier's. Compare the build quality and robustness of the Desiro to that of the Electrostar and Turbostar. Or take Bombardier's dreadful Voyager, recognised as one of the most incomfortable trains in Britain. I rest my case.

• Norton, DERBY, United Kingdom

  In fact Bombardier were not going to re-cycle the Electrostar for Thameslink; it was a new product line. With the loss of Thameslink they will no longer have the funding to develop a new EMU product and so will also lose future orders on technology grounds. So it's even worse than it seems.
  
  An electric voyager really would be a good thing ... and a bigger job than it seems, as you can't simply slot a 5th / 6th electric car into the set; there is a LOT of cabling too. Carbodies fromr Brugge (Belgium), one imagines, and propulsion from Alstom (France) .. plus some assembly and refurb work for Derby. Nice, but hardly a "lifeline".
  
  Meanwhile, the engineers in Derby do lots of work for Bombardier's global business ... but it would indeed be good if a bit more production work could come to the UK as well. I imagine, it's easier to sack British workers than Germans.

• Johno, St Albans, UK

  As someone who uses thameslink every day, Bombardier trains are awful plasticky rubbish that constantly fail and constantly have issues with the aircon. I am pleased that the contract has been awarded to Siemens who build solid, well-built trains with aircon that works properly.
  
  The new trains on the underground are bombardier, they are phasing them in now, as are the 170's and 172's on Overground and London Midland respectively.
  
  Bombardier has taken so many orders from the UK and yet they are now using these underhand tactics to force the government to waste more taxpayers money whilst prolonging the delivery of new trains that Thameslink so desperately deserves.
  
  What about all the signalling contracts that Bombardier has won recently? Do people not care about the Invensys employees losing their jobs as a result? You know, a real BRITISH company and NOT Canadian?
  
  There is so much misinformation about this, voyagers are AWFUL AWFUL trains and they were built in BELGIUM. Honestly, the unions are killing manufacturing in this country, not the government. When workers strike because they don't get a payrise that no-one in the private sector gets, the government MUST respond.
  
  This happened back in the day with the mining and car industries. It's just that now, the unions are spreading their wings and ruining the lives of not just engineering workers, but normal station staff also.
  
  Absolutely pathetic and the unions only have themselves to blame. Why would one actually pay for this privilege?

• Lee, Manchester, England

  With regard to the comment about Bombardier recycling the Electrostar design, what do you think Siemens will do for the Thameslink stock? Recycle the Desiro design by any chance? The reason the manufacturers use standard designs is to facilitate production toolling and components. The more mass-produced their products are, theoretically the cheaper they are to produce and sell. I know this is probably not always the case but it is the theory at least.
  
  The proposal to incorporate a pantograph car into the Voyager sets is interesting. Could I ask why such stock was built without this equipment when it was known before it was ordered that it would be required to run on lines with overhead and third rail electrification?
  
  As for awarding the order, it would seem logical to go to Bombardier as they built the stock in the first place. As I recall it emerged from the Brugge plant though, not Derby. Any new vehicles would probably be built at Brugge as the tooling to construct the body shells would be based there.

• Paul, Carlisle, UK

  There is an awful lot of nonsense still being spoken about Bombardier and their failure to secure the Thameslink order. It was a fair and square competition that Siemens won. Under no circumstances should the decision be overturned. Lets not forget Bombardier are a Canadian owned company that manufacture all over the world. They will be winning work from globally and if they where committed to Derby they would be using the capacity available now to manufacture trains for other customers rather than expecting the British Government to fiddle the rules so that they win orders here. In recent years both Bombardier and Siemens have been very succesful in winning new train business in the UK. Never before has anybody raised concerns when Siemnens won the 350, 444 or 185 orders, only now when Bombardier are short of work after putting all their UK eggs in one basket are they and the government suddenly seen as villains

• John Gilbert, Cradley, Herefordshire, England

  Further to my earlier comment, OF COURSE all the Voyager fleet should be made bi-mode. What crackpot idea is it to convert just the 220s. For one thing the 221s are tilting and, on the West Coast, run under even more catenary then the 220s. Watch those politicians and civil servants!!

• John Gilbert, Cradley, Herefordshire, England

  Though I realise that a welcome order for making the Voyagers bi-mode would be worth far less than the lost Thameslink order, and though the poliiticians and their civil servants are wholly culpable for this mess - nothing new there then! - it would be total common sense to make such a bi-mode conversion. One of the many stupidities on our railways is the sight of diesels running for mile upon mile under overhead catenary - without anyone until now doing anything about it, despite the valiant plea of logic from the professional railway press. (HSTs from London to Aberdeen under catenary as far as Edinburgh!! 400 miles!!!)
  But the Unions are right to be wary of these idiotic politicans and their civil servants who carried out the assessment of Thameslink contracts WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SOCIAL EFFECTS. For myself I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them!

• Izzie, London

  If Bombardier wish to win contracts, perhaps they should consider designing something new, rather than recycling the Electrostar design continuously.
  
  If the Class 379s are anything to go by, the quality of work is going down in Derby, with problems with the aforementioned trains almost daily.
  
  Also, Bombardier was planning to make many people redundant in Derby anyway and will do irrelevant of whether they get the Thameslink order or not.

• Rob, Derby, UK

  I'm sure Bombardier will put in a bid for this, but it's hardly the same as a billion pund 200 train order is it?