Class 230 units training/introduction on the Borderlands line: updates

[pokemonsuper9]

Don't you mean most similar to the D78s as they are still DC powered EMUs.

I believe they mean they are the most different to the other D78 derived units, the LNWR 230, TfW 230, GWR 230 and 484.

 

[D365]

It seems strange to draw comparisons between the class 150 units that were introduced as long ago as the 1980s with the 5 Class 230 units of TfW that were introduced to the line in question some 40 years later.

For users of the Borderlands line, that is the exact comparison that they will be making.

 

[CaergwrleKen]

Failed again today around 1500, not sure if anyone has said amongst all the technical talk

 

[Bertie the bus]

So from a bad start, when we were told not to judge after just a couple of weeks in service, things have got worse. Is that 4 or 5 failures this week?

 

[transportphoto]

Failed again today around 1500, not sure if anyone has said amongst all the technical talk

All fine and healthy for my journey earlier today - I was quite impressed at the overall finish. Really smart with the notable negative being the lack of legroom.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I was quite impressed at the overall finish. Really smart with the notable negative being the lack of legroom.

Are the Welsh a small breed and that being part of the specification requirements that you state above....

 

[Peter Sarf]

Don't you mean most similar to the D78s as they are still DC powered EMUs.

+

I believe they mean they are the most different to the other D78 derived units, the LNWR 230, TfW 230, GWR 230 and 484.

Correct these 484s have the least in common with the various versions of 230 - all derived from the LU D78s.

 

[tomuk]

+

Correct these 484s have the least in common with the various versions of 230 - all derived from the LU D78s.

They all share the same structural modifications, have varying levels of similar interior refurbishment, share the same replacement AC traction motors and traction equipment. The difference is the power fed into the traction gear, third rail, diesel genset or hybrid battery diesel genset.

 

[Woods]

Technical differences....

WMT, TfW and GWR 230s and the 484s all share the following common features:

1. AC traction motors from TSA of Austria. Replaced the original D78 DC motors.
2. Traction Control Unit (TCU) from Strukton of Holland, although it should be noted that the 484s have a water/glycol-cooled TCU rather than an air-cooled TCU as fitted to the WMT/TfW units, the former was envisaged to become the standard for all future 230s but Vivarail were badly let down by Strukton when commissioning the 484s and there was a big commercial fall-out as a result. Even though Vivarail is no more, this cast a long shadow and it is therefore yet to be determined whether Strukton will be the supplier of choice for future TCUs if more 230s are built by GWR.
3. Cab controls (with a few minor differences between the fleets) and cab crash structure.
4. Passenger door controls; same concept on all fleets but precise configuration depends on number of doors per car; e.g. WMT units only have 4 doors per car whereas TfW units have 8 doors per car (except on the DMB car where one of the doors is blocked up because of the presence of the toilet module).
5. Compressors; same (new) design on all fleets. One of the only bits, as with the TSA traction motors, that never changed!
6. Saloon heating provided by electric elements, same concept as original D78 but old elements replaced with new (as old elements were obsolete).
7. Brake system; basically unchanged from D78, with all components overhauled, with the addition of a modern WSP system on top and with the ability to do dynamic braking; in the case of the TfW and GWR units the energy is recovered back into the traction batteries providing they can receive it. In the case of the WMT and 484 units, the energy is dissipated through resistors (known as rheostatic braking).
8. Bogies; basically unchanged from D78, just overhauled.
9. Passenger Information System, WiFi, CCTV, Passenger Counting (only fitted on TfW units), OTDR, DSD/Vigilance, AWS/TPWS - the same systems are common to all fleets. The only exception is DOO; the GWR unit will be fitted with DOO to work on the Greenford branch. None of the other fleets have ever had DOO fitted.

The biggest technical differences are:

1. WMT and TfW units have basically the same diesel gensets acting as the 'prime movers'. The 484 takes power directly from the 3rd rail. The GWR unit carries batteries and is charged through the 'Fast Charge' system which has nothing whatsoever to do with normal 3rd rail electrification.
2. The TfW units have traction batteries manufactured by Valence, now LithiumWerks, whereas the GWR unit has traction batteries from Hoppecke which are capable of higher charge rates because each battery has its own active thermal management system. The Hoppecke batteries will most likely become standard in future. The TfW units work in a sort of 'series hybrid' configuration; the diesel gensets keep the batteries charged, but the charge rates required are much lower than for 'Fast Charging' hence it is possible to use the inferior Valence battery modules for this duty cycle.

I hope that is of some interest.

As the more informed observers have correctly noted over the years, the achillies heel of the 230s was and continues to be the diesel gensets. This is borne out by the fact that the 484s, which don't have gensets, are now generally trouble-free. And, touch wood, the GWR unit should hopefully end up in a similar happy place as the 484s for the same reason (no gensets).

If TfW can get on top of the genset reliability then eventually the 230s should prove their worth. I know that some people will never be convinced and will relish every opportunity to say "I told you they were rubbish old tube trains" but I guess that's just life. The fact of the matter is that the ex-D78 parts, where re-used, have never actually been much of a problem, so to suggest that the concept was flawed simply because the trains were old is just lazy Daily Mail-style thinking. 99% of the problems has actually been down to the new kit. But unfortunately, like the myths which are constantly peddled about HS2, misinformation has gone twice round the world before the truth has even got its trousers on (or words to that effect!).

So from a bad start, when we were told not to judge after just a couple of weeks in service, things have got worse. Is that 4 or 5 failures this week?

It's hard to tell how bad the performance is from this thread. Of the number of scheduled round trips on the Borderlands route this week, how many have been cancelled due to failure of the 230s. Does anybody know?

 

[TDK]

It seems strange to draw comparisons between the class 150 units that were introduced as long ago as the 1980s with the 5 Class 230 units of TfW that were introduced to the line in question some 40 years later.

230's are Converted from trains introduced in 1977 so in reality older than the reliable 150's

 

[Cravens]

230's are Converted from trains introduced in 1977 so in reality older than the reliable 150's

I think that objectively we need to remind ourselves that the only bits of these trains which entered service in 1980 on the District line which are in use on today’s product are the body shells which play a minuscule role in reliability. Even the bogies date from the early 00’s.

 

[L401CJF]

Technical differences....

WMT, TfW and GWR 230s and the 484s all share the following common features:

1. AC traction motors from TSA of Austria. Replaced the original D78 DC motors.
2. Traction Control Unit (TCU) from Strukton of Holland, although it should be noted that the 484s have a water/glycol-cooled TCU rather than an air-cooled TCU as fitted to the WMT/TfW units, the former was envisaged to become the standard for all future 230s but Vivarail were badly let down by Strukton when commissioning the 484s and there was a big commercial fall-out as a result. Even though Vivarail is no more, this cast a long shadow and it is therefore yet to be determined whether Strukton will be the supplier of choice for future TCUs if more 230s are built by GWR.
3. Cab controls (with a few minor differences between the fleets) and cab crash structure.
4. Passenger door controls; same concept on all fleets but precise configuration depends on number of doors per car; e.g. WMT units only have 4 doors per car whereas TfW units have 8 doors per car (except on the DMB car where one of the doors is blocked up because of the presence of the toilet module).
5. Compressors; same (new) design on all fleets. One of the only bits, as with the TSA traction motors, that never changed!
6. Saloon heating provided by electric elements, same concept as original D78 but old elements replaced with new (as old elements were obsolete).
7. Brake system; basically unchanged from D78, with all components overhauled, with the addition of a modern WSP system on top and with the ability to do dynamic braking; in the case of the TfW and GWR units the energy is recovered back into the traction batteries providing they can receive it. In the case of the WMT and 484 units, the energy is dissipated through resistors (known as rheostatic braking).
8. Bogies; basically unchanged from D78, just overhauled.
9. Passenger Information System, WiFi, CCTV, Passenger Counting (only fitted on TfW units), OTDR, DSD/Vigilance, AWS/TPWS - the same systems are common to all fleets. The only exception is DOO; the GWR unit will be fitted with DOO to work on the Greenford branch. None of the other fleets have ever had DOO fitted.

The biggest technical differences are:

1. WMT and TfW units have basically the same diesel gensets acting as the 'prime movers'. The 484 takes power directly from the 3rd rail. The GWR unit carries batteries and is charged through the 'Fast Charge' system which has nothing whatsoever to do with normal 3rd rail electrification.
2. The TfW units have traction batteries manufactured by Valence, now LithiumWerks, whereas the GWR unit has traction batteries from Hoppecke which are capable of higher charge rates because each battery has its own active thermal management system. The Hoppecke batteries will most likely become standard in future. The TfW units work in a sort of 'series hybrid' configuration; the diesel gensets keep the batteries charged, but the charge rates required are much lower than for 'Fast Charging' hence it is possible to use the inferior Valence battery modules for this duty cycle.

I hope that is of some interest.

As the more informed observers have correctly noted over the years, the achillies heel of the 230s was and continues to be the diesel gensets. This is borne out by the fact that the 484s, which don't have gensets, are now generally trouble-free. And, touch wood, the GWR unit should hopefully end up in a similar happy place as the 484s for the same reason (no gensets).

If TfW can get on top of the genset reliability then eventually the 230s should prove their worth. I know that some people will never be convinced and will relish every opportunity to say "I told you they were rubbish old tube trains" but I guess that's just life. The fact of the matter is that the ex-D78 parts, where re-used, have never actually been much of a problem, so to suggest that the concept was flawed simply because the trains were old is just lazy Daily Mail-style thinking. 99% of the problems has actually been down to the new kit. But unfortunately, like the myths which are constantly peddled about HS2, misinformation has gone twice round the world before the truth has even got its trousers on (or words to that effect!).


It's hard to tell how bad the performance is from this thread. Of the number of scheduled round trips on the Borderlands route this week, how many have been cancelled due to failure of the 230s. Does anybody know?

A very informative post, thank you.

 

[DelW]

Not at all. I'm not saying they're overly reliable at the moment either and clearly there are major delays and cancellations due to faults when they occur.

Being a guard who works them myself, my experience is as follows. My first in service working was 2 round trips (4hrs). The first trip I lost around 5 minutes getting used to the door controls, the position of the door panels, being extra careful to ensure the whole train was platformed as they're longer and quite tight at some stations. For your first working you have trainers onboard to assist - in their words I picked the unit up quickly in comparison to some others. I had one of the regular drivers on the 1st trip who was very good on the acceleration/braking!

By the 2nd trip, I had got used to working it, however there was a driver change and the driver was also on their first working in service, and lost about 15 minutes as they were very cautious coming into stations. It took a few minutes at each end for them to setup the desk. In the 12 hours I've spent on 230s since, my maximum delay has been no more than 5 minutes.


This is an interesting point. I worked a 197 recently where a group of trainees were onboard doing their first ever session of dispatch training. The opening/closing of doors was extremely slow as you would expect and dwell times were quite lengthy. The 197 performance however is very good and they have few issues keeping to time along the coast, often having to wait time at all stations (whereas a 175 might lose a minute or 2, the 197 makes up a minute or 2)

The door control layout on a 230 is quite different to every other unit, the buttons are all arranged differently and panels on some doors are the complete opposite way around to those at others - certainly takes a while to get used to! On the Bidston line there just isn't time for dwells at all. You open, quick watch as everybody gets on/off, then close up and go asap.


I wasn't aware different timings were coming in for 230s at some point, an improved timetable with chance to recover time would be a welcome change on this line as its been crying out for it for decades. Here's hoping!

Technical differences....

WMT, TfW and GWR 230s and the 484s all share the following common features:

1. AC traction motors from TSA of Austria. Replaced the original D78 DC motors.
2. Traction Control Unit (TCU) from Strukton of Holland, although it should be noted that the 484s have a water/glycol-cooled TCU rather than an air-cooled TCU as fitted to the WMT/TfW units, the former was envisaged to become the standard for all future 230s but Vivarail were badly let down by Strukton when commissioning the 484s and there was a big commercial fall-out as a result. Even though Vivarail is no more, this cast a long shadow and it is therefore yet to be determined whether Strukton will be the supplier of choice for future TCUs if more 230s are built by GWR.
3. Cab controls (with a few minor differences between the fleets) and cab crash structure.
4. Passenger door controls; same concept on all fleets but precise configuration depends on number of doors per car; e.g. WMT units only have 4 doors per car whereas TfW units have 8 doors per car (except on the DMB car where one of the doors is blocked up because of the presence of the toilet module).
5. Compressors; same (new) design on all fleets. One of the only bits, as with the TSA traction motors, that never changed!
6. Saloon heating provided by electric elements, same concept as original D78 but old elements replaced with new (as old elements were obsolete).
7. Brake system; basically unchanged from D78, with all components overhauled, with the addition of a modern WSP system on top and with the ability to do dynamic braking; in the case of the TfW and GWR units the energy is recovered back into the traction batteries providing they can receive it. In the case of the WMT and 484 units, the energy is dissipated through resistors (known as rheostatic braking).
8. Bogies; basically unchanged from D78, just overhauled.
9. Passenger Information System, WiFi, CCTV, Passenger Counting (only fitted on TfW units), OTDR, DSD/Vigilance, AWS/TPWS - the same systems are common to all fleets. The only exception is DOO; the GWR unit will be fitted with DOO to work on the Greenford branch. None of the other fleets have ever had DOO fitted.

The biggest technical differences are:

1. WMT and TfW units have basically the same diesel gensets acting as the 'prime movers'. The 484 takes power directly from the 3rd rail. The GWR unit carries batteries and is charged through the 'Fast Charge' system which has nothing whatsoever to do with normal 3rd rail electrification.
2. The TfW units have traction batteries manufactured by Valence, now LithiumWerks, whereas the GWR unit has traction batteries from Hoppecke which are capable of higher charge rates because each battery has its own active thermal management system. The Hoppecke batteries will most likely become standard in future. The TfW units work in a sort of 'series hybrid' configuration; the diesel gensets keep the batteries charged, but the charge rates required are much lower than for 'Fast Charging' hence it is possible to use the inferior Valence battery modules for this duty cycle.

I hope that is of some interest.

As the more informed observers have correctly noted over the years, the achillies heel of the 230s was and continues to be the diesel gensets. This is borne out by the fact that the 484s, which don't have gensets, are now generally trouble-free. And, touch wood, the GWR unit should hopefully end up in a similar happy place as the 484s for the same reason (no gensets).

If TfW can get on top of the genset reliability then eventually the 230s should prove their worth. I know that some people will never be convinced and will relish every opportunity to say "I told you they were rubbish old tube trains" but I guess that's just life. The fact of the matter is that the ex-D78 parts, where re-used, have never actually been much of a problem, so to suggest that the concept was flawed simply because the trains were old is just lazy Daily Mail-style thinking. 99% of the problems has actually been down to the new kit. But unfortunately, like the myths which are constantly peddled about HS2, misinformation has gone twice round the world before the truth has even got its trousers on (or words to that effect!).


It's hard to tell how bad the performance is from this thread. Of the number of scheduled round trips on the Borderlands route this week, how many have been cancelled due to failure of the 230s. Does anybody know?

Thank you both for taking the time to post such detailed explanations. In particular, @L401CJF's experience of actually operating these units is the sort of valuable and informative 'gen' that can be found on these forums, but that would simply be unavailable anywhere else (that I'm aware of anyway).

 

[CaergwrleKen]

There was due to be a 230 out today according to crews but it hasn’t showed, both 150s

 

[Peter Sarf]

First of all thank you to @Woods for your detailed and informative post. I wonder if Wikepedia would benefit from your knowledge.

230's are Converted from trains introduced in 1977 so in reality older than the reliable 150's

But the important parts (bogies, traction motors etc) are much newer as they were replaced by London Underground after 2000. The motive power is the very new bit.

I think that objectively we need to remind ourselves that the only bits of these trains which entered service in 1980 on the District line which are in use on today’s product are the body shells which play a minuscule role in reliability. Even the bogies date from the early 00’s.

Correct.

 

[Dan G]

Technical differences....

WMT, TfW and GWR 230s and the 484s all share the following common features:

1. AC traction motors from TSA of Austria. Replaced the original D78 DC motors.
2. Traction Control Unit (TCU) from Strukton of Holland, although it should be noted that the 484s have a water/glycol-cooled TCU rather than an air-cooled TCU as fitted to the WMT/TfW units, the former was envisaged to become the standard for all future 230s but Vivarail were badly let down by Strukton when commissioning the 484s and there was a big commercial fall-out as a result. Even though Vivarail is no more, this cast a long shadow and it is therefore yet to be determined whether Strukton will be the supplier of choice for future TCUs if more 230s are built by GWR.
3. Cab controls (with a few minor differences between the fleets) and cab crash structure.
4. Passenger door controls; same concept on all fleets but precise configuration depends on number of doors per car; e.g. WMT units only have 4 doors per car whereas TfW units have 8 doors per car (except on the DMB car where one of the doors is blocked up because of the presence of the toilet module).
5. Compressors; same (new) design on all fleets. One of the only bits, as with the TSA traction motors, that never changed!
6. Saloon heating provided by electric elements, same concept as original D78 but old elements replaced with new (as old elements were obsolete).
7. Brake system; basically unchanged from D78, with all components overhauled, with the addition of a modern WSP system on top and with the ability to do dynamic braking; in the case of the TfW and GWR units the energy is recovered back into the traction batteries providing they can receive it. In the case of the WMT and 484 units, the energy is dissipated through resistors (known as rheostatic braking).
8. Bogies; basically unchanged from D78, just overhauled.
9. Passenger Information System, WiFi, CCTV, Passenger Counting (only fitted on TfW units), OTDR, DSD/Vigilance, AWS/TPWS - the same systems are common to all fleets. The only exception is DOO; the GWR unit will be fitted with DOO to work on the Greenford branch. None of the other fleets have ever had DOO fitted.

The biggest technical differences are:

1. WMT and TfW units have basically the same diesel gensets acting as the 'prime movers'. The 484 takes power directly from the 3rd rail. The GWR unit carries batteries and is charged through the 'Fast Charge' system which has nothing whatsoever to do with normal 3rd rail electrification.
2. The TfW units have traction batteries manufactured by Valence, now LithiumWerks, whereas the GWR unit has traction batteries from Hoppecke which are capable of higher charge rates because each battery has its own active thermal management system. The Hoppecke batteries will most likely become standard in future. The TfW units work in a sort of 'series hybrid' configuration; the diesel gensets keep the batteries charged, but the charge rates required are much lower than for 'Fast Charging' hence it is possible to use the inferior Valence battery modules for this duty cycle.

I hope that is of some interest.

As the more informed observers have correctly noted over the years, the achillies heel of the 230s was and continues to be the diesel gensets. This is borne out by the fact that the 484s, which don't have gensets, are now generally trouble-free. And, touch wood, the GWR unit should hopefully end up in a similar happy place as the 484s for the same reason (no gensets).

If TfW can get on top of the genset reliability then eventually the 230s should prove their worth. I know that some people will never be convinced and will relish every opportunity to say "I told you they were rubbish old tube trains" but I guess that's just life. The fact of the matter is that the ex-D78 parts, where re-used, have never actually been much of a problem, so to suggest that the concept was flawed simply because the trains were old is just lazy Daily Mail-style thinking. 99% of the problems has actually been down to the new kit. But unfortunately, like the myths which are constantly peddled about HS2, misinformation has gone twice round the world before the truth has even got its trousers on (or words to that effect!).


It's hard to tell how bad the performance is from this thread. Of the number of scheduled round trips on the Borderlands route this week, how many have been cancelled due to failure of the 230s. Does anybody know?

That's really interesting, thank you.

I'd love to know why the generator sets are failing. Is it the same thing every time? A bunch of failures that keep reoccurring? Or something different every time? It does seem quite surprising as the Ford "Puma" diesel is reliable afaik (I don't think I've ever seen a Transit on a roadside!).

 

[D365]

I'd love to know why the generator sets are failing. Is it the same thing every time? A bunch of failures that keep reoccurring? Or something different every time? It does seem quite surprising as the Ford "Puma" diesel is reliable afaik (I don't think I've ever seen a Transit on a roadside!).

From my brief time working with Viva - cooling of the tightly-packed generator rafts has been the perennial bugbear.

 

[CaergwrleKen]

No 230s in service again today, they should have started this weekend but haven’t been out which has meant some trains cancelled. So that’s two full days on the list of delays and cancellations

 

[Zontar]

No 230s in service again today, they should have started this weekend but haven’t been out which has meant some trains cancelled. So that’s two full days on the list of delays and cancellations

Is it meant yo be 2ph yet?

 

[CaergwrleKen]

Is it meant yo be 2ph yet?

Yes we should have two trains per hour now with one being a limited stop but it’s not happening due to shortage of trains so we still have the original hourly timetable. Also from this morning it looks like the diagram has changed the 230
is on the first trip instead of the second one

 

[Dan G]

I've attempted to tot up days completed and days with failure since introduction on 3 April (page 53!). I've accounted for weekends, but my counting is likely not perfect!

Days completed: 24
Days failed: 10

About half of the failures were in the last fortnight .

Unit no. 7 seems MIA, being neither a parts donor (as no. 6 is apparently) nor having worked in service, as far as I can see.

 

[bristollh]

I've attempted to tot up days completed and days with failure since introduction on 3 April (page 53!). I've accounted for weekends, but my counting is likely not perfect!

Days completed: 24
Days failed: 10

About half of the failures were in the last fortnight .

Unit no. 7 seems MIA, being neither a parts donor (as no. 6 is apparently) nor having worked in service, as far as I can see.

230007 is out today and has been out at least once before.

230006 appears to be missing some gen sets.

Jeff

 

[L401CJF]

Looking at RTT 007 looks to have failed on the 0930ish BID-WXC.

Later trips showing as 230008 now.

Edit- at a quick glance I can't quite make it out. It logged a time at Upton on RTT then service marked as cancelled along with the return to Bidston. 007 now showing allocations on training runs later on while 008 appears to be allocated for service.

Heard rumours that 006 has a case of diesel bug, can't clarify whether it's actually the case or just messroom gossip.

 

[Invincible]

From my brief time working with Viva - cooling of the tightly-packed generator rafts has been the perennial bugbear.

Found this

New trains: it’s too darned hot!

The need to manage engine temperatures reminds us that even in...

www.modernrailways.com

Positioning of radiators to get a good air flow is important
It talks of Vivarail having 2 types of radiators, one good, one bad, hopefully the bad ones are no longer used.
Also the importance of cleaning out airborne pollen, etc.

 

[L401CJF]

Found this

New trains: it’s too darned hot!

The need to manage engine temperatures reminds us that even in...

www.modernrailways.com

Positioning of radiators to get a good air flow is important
It talks of Vivarail having 2 types of radiators, one good, one bad, hopefully the bad ones are no longer used.
Also the importance of cleaning out airborne pollen, etc.

Its funny you should mention pollen as it was mentioned to me last week by one of the regular 230 drivers. He told me the radiators were getting clogged up with it over recent weeks.

Obviously I can't confirm the accuracy of this, but if the radiators are blocked with pollen and the gensets are shutting down due to high temperature/insufficient cooling, it would explain the increase in failures over recent weeks.

 

[bristollh]

Looking at RTT 007 looks to have failed on the 0930ish BID-WXC.

Later trips showing as 230008 now.

Edit- at a quick glance I can't quite make it out. It logged a time at Upton on RTT then service marked as cancelled along with the return to Bidston. 007 now showing allocations on training runs later on while 008 appears to be allocated for service.

Heard rumours that 006 has a case of diesel bug, can't clarify whether it's actually the case or just messroom gossip.

I caught 230007 on that trip as far as Heswall where it picked up further passengers and carried on, so something is clearly amiss with the RTT data. Was due to terminate at Wrexham General anyway as the next round trip was showing as cancelled due to lack of crew.

Jeff

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Its funny you should mention pollen as it was mentioned to me last week by one of the regular 230 drivers. He told me the radiators were getting clogged up with it over recent weeks.

Obviously I can't confirm the accuracy of this, but if the radiators are blocked with pollen and the gensets are shutting down due to high temperature/insufficient cooling, it would explain the increase in failures over recent weeks.

If it is grass pollen, that particular type has only just commenced and will last for a couple of months. That train route certainly passes through many rural areas where pollen levels will be high,

 

[L401CJF]

I caught 230007 on that trip as far as Heswall where it picked up further passengers and carried on, so something is clearly amiss with the RTT data. Was due to terminate at Wrexham General anyway as the next round trip was showing as cancelled due to lack of crew.

Jeff

How bizzare! Perhaps it's been put through as a full cancellation rather than partial between General and Central or something.

 

[Dan G]

Found this

New trains: it’s too darned hot!

The need to manage engine temperatures reminds us that even in...

www.modernrailways.com

Positioning of radiators to get a good air flow is important
It talks of Vivarail having 2 types of radiators, one good, one bad, hopefully the bad ones are no longer used.
Also the importance of cleaning out airborne pollen, etc.

That's a great article!

But given that cooling was an issue 3-4 years ago, I'd be surprised if that hasn't been resolved.

 

[L401CJF]

008 behaved well this afternoon. Managed to have a chat with a fair few passengers who all seem very impressed. The original tube seats seem very popular.

One passenger, an older lady of all people, said to me "these are old tube trains arnt they, my daughter lives in London so im used to these, what a great idea to refurbish them and use them elsewhere!" - a far cry from the opinions of some on this forum ( ha ha )

One thing I have noticed on a few is that the Aircon leaks through the ceiling and leaves puddles on the floor - presume it's condensation.