222016 - New nose cone?

[asylumxl]

Saw a 222 in the Cricklewood sidings today (assuming it's 222016) with an entirely yellow front nose cone.

Looks quite good. Is it 222016? I also wonder if it will be put into service as is.

 

[MCR247]

Yes, its 222016 with a new nose cone
http://www.flickr.com/photos/martin65/4373655756/sizes/l/

 

[asylumxl]

Reminds me of a 378...

 

[EM2]

It's already in service, I saw it at St.P on Friday (I think).

 

[2030720310]

I saw it at West Hampstead (Thameslink) last Friday too, must have been out for a while (?)

 

[Royston Vasey]

Reminds me of a 378...

Reminds me more of the prototype HST. The yellow coverage is very similar!

 

[asylumxl]

I saw it at West Hampstead (Thameslink) last Friday too, must have been out for a while (?)

Ah ok. Well last time I saw it, it had a hole and blood on the front nose cone . This is the first time I've seen it since.

 

[Helvellyn]

Reminds me of a 378...

And everyone still thinks 172s are going to be used on Gospel Oak to Barking.

 

[mallard]

I suppose this was rushed into service to cover for 222005 then?

 

[MCR247]

Surely 222005 could run without the affected coach?

 

[Dreadnought]

I suppose this was rushed into service to cover for 222005 then?

The incident with 222005 happened on Saturday but 222016 was seen running on Friday so I would suggest that the 2 are unrelated.

 

[route:oxford]

Reminds me of a 378...

Reminds me more of a class 370...

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

Surely 222005 could run without the affected coach?

If only it were that simple. Thanks to so called modern electronics, it means that the on-board computers would need to be reconfigured/reprogrammed to compensate for the lack of the damaged vehicle.

Then you'll need to alter the inter-vehicle jumpers as well; Never used to have these problems with good old fashioned LHRS! :roll:

 

[transportphoto]

I personally think its better with the new design!

See http://www.flickr.com/photos/martin65/4373655756/sizes/l/

 

[MCR247]

If only it were that simple. Thanks to so called modern electronics, it means that the on-board computers would need to be reconfigured/reprogrammed to compensate for the lack of the damaged vehicle.

Then you'll need to alter the inter-vehicle jumpers as well; Never used to have these problems with good old fashioned LHRS! :roll:

Why? 222104 took on 016s Coach B :?

 

[asylumxl]

Why? 222104 took on 016s Coach B :?

Indeed. And furthermore, the entire fleet was reconfigured to new lengths, so the idea that it wouldn't work goes out the window.

 

[EM2]

Just seen it again tonight, and I noticed that the little hatch on the left-hand side is still in blue & orange!

 

[Ibex]

Excuse my ignorance but was this the unit that was involved in the fatality at Elstree & Borehamwood not long ago?

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

Indeed. And furthermore, the entire fleet was reconfigured to new lengths, so the idea that it wouldn't work goes out the window.

You still have to re-program the computers so they know what coach is where, also the vehicle number into it to; Then there's the jumpers to do, then you need to alter the maintenance cycles as well, because the replacement coach will have increased mileage accumulation.

 

[poshbakerloo]

urgh too much yellow!!

 

[jopsuk]

Better too much yellow than not in service. I guess they'll paint the other colours on when they get a chance,

Excuse my ignorance but was this the unit that was involved in the fatality at Elstree & Borehamwood not long ago?

That's what asylumxl alludes to, yes.

 

[222001]

You still have to re-program the computers so they know what coach is where, also the vehicle number into it to; Then there's the jumpers to do, then you need to alter the maintenance cycles as well, because the replacement coach will have increased mileage accumulation.

Seems easy enough though. EMT put coach B from 222016 in 222104 for a couple of weeks without issue. At one point 222002 was mixed with 222008 too.

 

[Crossforth]

Anybody know what diagrams it will be on tomorrow?

 

[GNERman]

woah that's scary, any reason on why it has been replaced?

 

[asylumxl]

woah that's scary, any reason on why it has been replaced?

The collision between body and train at Elstree & Borehamwood a while back damaged the original nose cone.

 

[37401]

Reminds me of a 378...

Reminds me of a 222 with a new face, looks odd though
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

woah that's scary

If you think that dont look for "horror" & "films"

 

[Pumbaa]

Vaguely related - a 221 is now to receive a new nose cone;

Click

Does mean that Virgins stock woes continue; they've just shoved 390004 back out into service as an 8-car (minus coach E) which is being repaired after collision damage at Oxley, and is stuck on an EBW diagram all day avoiding peak flows where possible, and they lock away WB64 only to lose another unit! D'oh!

 

[WillPS]

I was thinking then - oooo an XC unit without a stupid triangle on the front, but no, it would be a Virgin one wouldnt it

I like 222016. From a certain angle it looks like a LOROL unit.

 

[Death]

Reminds me more of a class 370...

So I'm not the only one who thought that, then?
Although that said; Photoshop the colours a little bit and it'd bear an even more striking resemblance to the APT-E, I reckon!

The collision between body and train at Elstree & Borehamwood a while back damaged the original nose cone.

Vaguely related - a 221 is now to receive a new nose cone; Click

Oooof...Doesn't sound like it's a good time to be working in a railway "body shop" unless ye have the stomach for such things - My sympathies go to the drivers and others involved in the mess.

On that note though - With apologies to anyone who considers it in bad taste (Which is not as it's intended) - I've always wondered just how far I could catapult a Chav's corpse with the nose-cone of an HST carefully applied at about 500mph or so... hock:

 

[eddygrim]

i saw it at derby going go london st pancras (1.01) last saturday.