Talk:British Rail Class 222

?

You're not even going to tell us where they're made? How can they be "British Rail" so many years after privatisation? Please explain that too. --kingboyk 21:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Grand Central

Are Grand Central planning to use Meridians, Pioneers or have ther own form of 222? Simply south 13:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No order has been placed so are presumed to be using High Speed Trains (Class 43). Chaz247 21:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It actually shows on their website a set of Class 222. See [1] Simply south 21:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. Grand Central have also previous had on there website Class 158s, Class 64 + Mk3s and HSTs. No order has been placed with Bombardier and production has ceased. In a recent Rail Magazine it was stated that they are refurbishing a High Speed Train to 1000v ETS to use in 2007. Chaz247 18:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

9 car meridians to have coach removed and placed on the 4 car meridians?

According forum members on this this website - http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/showthread.php?thread=1847. All the 9 car meridians are to have a coach removed so they are then 8 car meridians, the removed coach will then be added to some of the 4 car meridians to turn them into 5 car meridians. Does anybody know if this is true, i have not seen anything about this on any other websites, so did not want to add anything about it to the main article

If you click here then you will see that 222004 has 8 carriages and 222014 has 5. Although this is just a trial at the moment, it does look like it will be a success and that 6 other carriages will be transferred between trains. Edvid 05:18, 31st October 2006 (UTC)

Subclasses

I have read somewhere that the MML sets are not 222/0, but rather were 222/4 and 222/9 (dependent on length). Am I right or am I wrong? Chris cheese whine 20:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, according to Rolling Stock Review 2019-2020 [9781912205981-19] the 222/0 (222001-222006) is the 7-car stock, 222/4 [222007-222023] is 5-car stock, and 222/1 [222101-222104] is now 4-car stock. I'll try and edit this whole page when I get time! E6Bruz6R (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hull Trains

"Recently an additional stop was introduced at Howden"

How relevent is this statement? It appears irrelevent to my eye, but could it be as a result of the faster journey times? 82.40.75.55 22:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure now. additional stops hjave been added at Retford and Stevenage. Simply south 23:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

222017 taken out of service : more details

I was told that by a member of staff (who was also a rail enthusiast).

The statement that 017 is out of service is correct, and i can prove this, as i have seen nothing of it in the way of photos on fotopic since Thursday (the day it was taken out of service).

Also, I can trust that that person is correct, as they told me a EMT class 153 would be coming in at 11.00, and they were correct.

ACBestDog and Bone 15:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Who is this who posts pictures of every train in service to fotopic on a daily basis? Still, the member of staff in question probably knows what he/she's talking about, though I'm not sure if random personal communications count as sources as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned. Moreover, you still haven't provided any evidence for the bit that caught my attention – "apparently this is something to do with the yellow on the front of the unit not covering a sufficient area". -- Smjg (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the sort of information that belongs on something like news:uk.railway but not Wikipedia. A pillar (RULE) of Wikipedia is "verifiability not truth". Check out no original research and verifiability. – Kieran T ^(talk) 14:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

I attempted to tidy the article - as part of that I've tagged the section British_Rail_Class_222#Details as requiring clarification. ie multiple coupling..

Accuracy problem

British_Rail_Class_222#Formation_and_Passenger_facilities states that there are 3 versions 222/1 222/4 222/9 and is referenced.

Another editor has said that these versions do not exist.

Currently there is only one reference to show that they do - it may be innacurate.

Can someone show one way or another whether or not the information in the above section is accurate. Thanks.

I've tagged the reference with a tag

I am sure it is 222/0 and 222/1 - the /0 or /1 represents the number of the train such as 222001 or 222101. The 222/1s are slightly different from the 222/0s. Year1989 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the /4 /9 versions - I've only found one mention of it.

At the same time I can't find anything about a 222/0 version as such.

Your right that midland mainline got theres numbered from 222100 upwards - but I can't find anything to say that the 2220xxs are different from the 2221xxs (except maybe the seating). It might be better to say 'pioneer' and 'meridian' since these terms are used by bombardier, rather than 222/0 and 222/1 which nobody else apart from wikipedia seems to be using.

If you think (or suspect) that the railway center [[2]] screwed up and there's no such thing as a 222/4 etc then removed that from the article just in case. I don't know which is right or wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 02:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

update

I've removed mention of all the subclasses until someone can clarify this: Only one source mentions the 222/4 and 222/9 subclasses and there are no sources that I have found to suggest any mechanical difference between the hull and midland trains versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 19:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Class 222 subclasses

The Department for Transport does not make any distinction between the five and seven car units operated by East Midlands Trains. On its list of vehicles that comply with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations, it lists 222001-222023 as Class 222. On the same list, the four units that were operated by Hull Trains are listed as Class 222/1. this can be seen here. The reason that the 222/1 is classed seperately is not due to any mechanical differences, but because of the different internal layout, which saw a four car Hull Trains unit seating 192, compared to 174 on a four car MML unit. Bombardier Class 222; The Railway Centre Class 222. As a consequence, I think it is correct that the EMT units be classed as Class 222/0, as that is what they are numbered as. Please note also that the page on The Railway Centre has not been updated since 2006. [[User:Hammersfan|Hammersfan] 24/02/09, 15.45 GMT

Hello thanks for supplying that reference - I've readded the mention of class 222/1 into the article with the reference.

However did you realise that upom reverting you undid work done to the article as well as reintroducing some erronius references.?FengRail (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way see the talk section above for the reason for the temporary removal of the 222/1 reference. Thanks for clarifying that.FengRail (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Class 220/1 and Class 222 multiple working

I've asked for clarification on the electric connections on the class 222 - on the site listed http://www.rssb.co.uk/rv_coupling_system_data/list_index.asp there is no mention of inter-unit electric connectors - so I assume they are absent.

Is this right.?FengRail (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons images

Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 222s is now completely sorted by line, operator and livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avicennasis (talk • contribs) 18:15, 10 March 2011‎ (UTC)

Passenger reaction

As a regular user on the London - Sheffield I hear several comments on the Meridians. In particular the luggage racks are unable to take even a reasonable size holdall or backpack. This is because what I assume is an air duct taking up much of the ceiling space.

Another comment is that the high seat backs make the carriages very claustrophobic - you can't see when the train manager or the refreshment trolley is passing through the train. Danensis (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Danensis: Wikipedia is not the place for expressing opinions. Please use the customer feedback service provided by the relevant train operator. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a section entitled "Passenger reaction" - I'm a passenger - this is my reaction Danensis (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Danensis: You're still on the wrong website for that. Choosing a section heading does not entitle you to go against Wikipedia's policies. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Even with high seat backs, the fact that there's a queue of people trying to get past the trolley should alert you to its presence.

Wikipedia however is not a forum. This is an encyclopaedia, and your personal opinion of the train is not notable. If you want to talk about trains on a forum, go and visit a forum. We are here to improve the article. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on British Rail Class 222. 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
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705034433/http://rssb.co.uk/rv_coupling_system_data/list_index.asp to http://www.rssb.co.uk/rv_coupling_system_data/list_index.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.railwayherald.co.uk/issues/RHUK/Issue4.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eastmidlandstrains.co.uk/emtrains/aboutus/news/#{2243FFDD-C675-4207-9435-9D611E927AA3}
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007021313/http://www.eastmidlandstrains.co.uk/midland.php to http://www.eastmidlandstrains.co.uk/midland.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120224640/http://www.railpro.co.uk/issues/pdfs/nov07business_people.pdf to http://www.railpro.co.uk/issues/pdfs/nov07business_people.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050309132841/http://mark-herriott.fotopic.net:80/c116844.html to http://mark-herriott.fotopic.net/c116844.html

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) 22:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 222. 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/20110727200131/http://www.railwayherald.org/magazine/pdf/RHUK/Issue257HIGH.pdf to http://www.railwayherald.org/magazine/pdf/RHUK/Issue257HIGH.pdf

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) 09:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2021

Revert edit 1003817877 by 'SavageKieran', factually incorrect as said and cited on two occasions in the past week. 2A02:C7F:7C23:BC00:35D6:8771:AAAC:F715 (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I +1 this. This goes for the same with the Class 810. I have cited my sources and nowhere (either ROSCO or the TOC they are used with) say they are called Voyager. Voyagers are a brand name in themselves. If we go by 'SavageKieran' 's logic, then the Class 395's are called "AT300s" and the Class 180's are called "Coradia"s. This is factually incorrect and will mislead so many people. Stop this. 92.13.9.126 (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

As per the Hitachi A-train article, the Class 395 units are actually an AT300 (Javelin as their brand) and this is backed up by citations. Same goes on this same article for the Class 810 units and all of the other Class 80x units if you actually look at their respective articles too. You shouldn't say that the information isn't factually correct and misleading when you haven't even read the citations behind them, considering the AT300 term is used by Hitachi on their official website. --SavageKieran (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

 On hold. Discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Rolling_stock_lead_sentences. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Name Dispute.

There has been dispute about whether the name on the infobox should be British Rail Class 222 Meridian or British Rail Class 222 Voyager. Please discuss below whether you think it should remain as British Rail Class 222 Meridian or should change to British Rail Class 222 Voyager. This discussion will close on Monday 8th February 2021 at 01:10 AM. E.Wright1852 (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@E.Wright1852: This is already being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Rolling stock lead sentences. SK2242 (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Using undefined terms

Table at end of article describes Class 222/0 and Class 222/1 trains without providing any definition or description of what these terms mean and how they differ. 77.98.117.249 (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)