In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

In message , at 18:31:20 on Sat, 8 Jan
2005, David Splett remarked:
Cleaning would help, but they are older than you think. Introduced in
1995.

I'm sure they were introduced later than that. They were built in
c.1995, but my memory tells me they didn't start to enter service until
1997-8.

http://www.semg.org.uk/gallery/class365_01.html

"two batches of the now designated class 365 were built between
1994 and 1995. Sixteen DC units (but with provision for AC) were
provided for Kent Coast services (numbered 365501-365516) and
twenty five AC units (but with provision for DC) for Great
Northern services out of Kings Cross (numbered 365517-365541)."

Why would they sit un-used for 2 years?

http://www.hse.gov.uk/railways/pottersbar/interim1.htm

"The Class 365/5 was introduced to the Kings Lynn – Cambridge
- Kings Cross line in the mid 1990's."

I remember them taking some time to get into service Roland. It could have
been two years before the job was complete.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at
01:19:00 on Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
I remember them taking some time to get into service Roland. It could have
been two years before the job was complete.

OK, so we are agreed that they entered service in 1997.

Getting back to the original issue, are we surprised/shocked/unphased
that they are looking a bit worn and dirty after 8 years daily use??
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

In message , at
01:19:00 on Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
I remember them taking some time to get into service Roland. It could
have been two years before the job was complete.

OK, so we are agreed that they entered service in 1997.

Getting back to the original issue, are we surprised/shocked/unphased
that they are looking a bit worn and dirty after 8 years daily use??

I thought they had worn pretty well until I noticed a recent increase in
glass scratching and graffiti when in service.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at
08:36:00 on Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
Getting back to the original issue, are we surprised/shocked/unphased
that they are looking a bit worn and dirty after 8 years daily use??

I thought they had worn pretty well until I noticed a recent increase in
glass scratching and graffiti when in service.

Even two years ago there were plenty of scratches and dents in the
doors, and a generally "rusty/grubby" look to the outsides from knee
level down. The insides were reasonable, though.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

In message , at
08:36:00 on Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
Getting back to the original issue, are we surprised/shocked/unphased
that they are looking a bit worn and dirty after 8 years daily use??

I thought they had worn pretty well until I noticed a recent increase
in glass scratching and graffiti when in service.

Even two years ago there were plenty of scratches and dents in the
doors, and a generally "rusty/grubby" look to the outsides from knee
level down. The insides were reasonable, though.

I don't agree. The external paintwork is in very good condition.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at
12:30:00 on Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
Even two years ago there were plenty of scratches and dents in the
doors, and a generally "rusty/grubby" look to the outsides from knee
level down. The insides were reasonable, though.

I don't agree. The external paintwork is in very good condition.

Generally, yes, but there are lots of scrapes and dents. And brown
stains.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk...
In message , at
12:30:00 on Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
Even two years ago there were plenty of scratches and dents in the
doors, and a generally "rusty/grubby" look to the outsides from knee
level down. The insides were reasonable, though.

I don't agree. The external paintwork is in very good condition.

Generally, yes, but there are lots of scrapes and dents. And brown
stains.

What about some of the 317s though? The unrefurbished ones must have been
like that for much longer.

Angus

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk...
Getting back to the original issue, are we surprised/shocked/unphased
that they are looking a bit worn and dirty after 8 years daily use??

IMO they are in pretty good condition, especially when compared to other
members of the Networker family. Many of the 465s are in a shocking internal
and external condition, and a 365 looks new by comparison.

One of the main problems with the 365s (common to many new trains) is the
way the lighting diffusers collect dust, which in turn creates a yellowish
glow to the lighting, making the interiors seem dark and dirty. The ex-South
Eastern units, having had a deep clean upon transfer, are much better in
this respect. The interior poster-frames could also benefit from replacement
with a more robust design.