Talk:British Rail Class 323

Technical and historical questions

1/ anyone know what's going on with the distinctive "18 speed gearbox" type noise that comes out of the drive mechanics as the train pulls away and comes to a halt? i can't figure out if it's actually some kind of heavy duty multi-ratio gearbox that's been fitted (rare on trains as far as i know, but certainly useful for the hard acceleration they do and dragging the things up over the lickeys) or some clever electronic jiggery pokery. I was pre-teen at the time these units were brought into service but i remember some rather vague news story on their arrival saying something like the series vs parallel circuit arrangements of the motors were rapidly changeable for extra power "like gears in a car" or something.... (i'm no electric motor whiz, i'm afraid, though i aim to be someday - my car really needs hybridisation on the ghetto-cheap)

2/ what's this "infamous 1064 day gap in train orders"? it's not infamous enough for joe schlub like myself to know what the heck context is being referenced so please either link it, or provide some inline exposition. cheers

3/ where's the CCTV? all I see are *LCD* TV screens - with overly powerful speakers - that show nothing but crap programs, the more annoying flavour of local news, and both overly earnest advertisements and advocations to spend a lot of money entering SMS-based competitions... the last two types of content, we had originally been promised would not appear. maybe if they HAD invested in CCTV instead the train would be a safer and more preferred way to travel.

-mp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.128.25 (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Good questions; I don't know the answers either, but if anyone else does, they would be useful contributions to the article. In particular, I agree that the class 323s make a most peculiar noise when accelerating away from standstill; I initially assumed it was some kind of regenerative brakeing system working in reverse, but I may be quite wrong. DWaterson 00:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I know the answer to number one; the distinctive sound is created by the GTO (gate-turn-off) thyristor (motor), it is also fitted to the British Rail Class 465, and a similar (but not the same) motor is fitted to the London Underground 1996 Stock, used on the Jubilee line. I hope that helps. Meateater 14:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is at least a very useful start, so thank you! The linked articles were a little thin on info, and I'm not sure I quite understand the theory/physics in them and in an independent search for GTOs/Thyristors, but I get the main concept; it's an innovative/early use of AC motors for propulsion (before the smaller scale/more high-tech IGBT & heavily computerised applications seen in e.g. the T-Zero and Tesla Roadster cars) instead of DC, with the noise being a characteristic of the components used to vary the effective input current and frequency to get the best torque out of the motor at a range of speeds (unlike the typically single-best-speed running of a household AC motor). No physical gears, or at least only two or three simple ones (e.g. the rather big change in motor tone about halfway through it's usual acceleration), most of the 'gear shifts' being changes in electrical characteristic instead. So I'd say you've pretty much cleared up that side of the query even if it's opened up a new can of worms with it... Unfortunately it seems it's an interesting feature we won't see again as the newer types have a much more continuous and quieter operation (Nottingham trams? and the cars of course) but it probably won't be missed except for us few sad cases heheh. Can't say I even noticed it on the few tubes I've ridden, though perhaps they were the wrong line - seemed more like DC motors or low-frequency AC and had rather ferocious acceleration even compared to the 323's! 82.46.180.56 (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Alterations being made to the Northern route table to reflect the new timetable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noddingdonkey142 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have some experiance of Class 323 units, so will try to explain what's going on. The units have a fixed final drive gear ratio. The characteristic ‘gear change’ sound is produced by the traction motors - four on each cab vehicle. The motors are powered by a three phase AC supply provided by an electronic inverter. The motor torque in traction and braking is controlled by varying the inverter output voltage and frequency relative to the train speed.

The inverter synthesises the three phase AC supply from a DC source by applying complex switching patterns to six Gate Turn Off Thyristors (GTOs). Thirteen different switching patterns are used in braking, twelve in traction. It’s the changes in switching pattern that give the ‘gear change’ effect. The distinct tone change about half way through the speed range is probably caused by the change from sine wave to square wave modulation (Modulation is the mathematical method used to create the switching pattern).

Modern AC traction systems, like those used on the Pendolino, use Insulated Gate Bi-polar Transistors (IGBTs) as the inverter switching device. IGBTs switch at much higher frequencies than GTOs, so the gear change effect is less noticeable. Thyristortwister (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oho. As the original question master, I thank you all. Nice info. Though I'm left wondering what the point of it is - if the motor is getting continuously faster, why does the AC synthesis need to keep "slowing down" in irregular steps rather than keeping pace with it? (As can be heard on the aforementioned Notts trams, that start low then get higher and higher and you wonder when it's going to suddenly explode...). I do also wonder if that maximum power is continuous rather than peak, they seem to have a bit more poke about them than their (what I calculate as) ~13hp/ton unladen (11, full up) - much like powering my car with a 125cc bike engine - would suggest, even when we consider the benefits of zero-rpm torque.193.63.174.10 (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The AC output from the inverter doesn't change in irregular steps, it changes in linearly to achieve a controlled slip frequency (more slip = more motor current = more torque). It's the GTO switching pattern used to synthesise the AC waveform that changes in steps. On class 323, 13 pulse patterns are used to synthesise the required frequency range. Change from one switching pattern to the next occurs at predetermined inverter frequencies.Thyristortwister (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thyristortwister (talk • contribs) 22:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Took a good many years to get back here, but thanks for clearing that up. I'd argue that it *is* irregular, because the pattern of "gearshifts" (is there a better word for that?) don't follow each other in a consistent linear relationship - i.e. either always stepping up by the same amount, or getting progressively "longer" or "shorter". The latter being how most car gearboxes are arranged, that is the ratio gaps get progressively tighter; the 323 "shifts" are more like that of an articulated truck with a 13-or-greater speed gearbox (and under control of an inexperienced or indecisive driver) where you can't entirely predict at what "rpm" (that is, the note/frequency of the audible whine) the next shift will come, nor how big the gap (how much "rpm"/frequency the whine note will step down or up by), based on the other shifts up to that point. Sometimes it'll be higher, sometimes lower; sometimes "wider", sometimes "narrower", and those two variables aren't necessarily related to each other either. There must be some kind of rhyme and reason to it, but it doesn't seem to be any kind of specifically linear relationship (...mind you, I still need to make good on recording and analysing it, so there's still time for my ears to be proven wrong).

The waveform shape switch is an interesting one... is there any reason it changes from sine to square? And how is the latter even achieved... some kind of mode switch in the inverter to favour maximum power output over smoothness of delivery? 80.189.129.246 (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hunslet

1.The article makes reference to Hunslet collapsing. Perhaps this needs to be re-written as to the best of my knowledge, Hunslet was taken over by other manufactures and now trades under a different name. 60.241.240.218 (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Is there any difference between Hunslet TPL and Hunslet Engine Co.? The TPL link goes to the Leeds Industrial company page, which doesn't mention the 323s, and the plaques on the emus say as they were birmingham built. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.151.140 (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

London Midland and Northern 323s

The official Government plan is now that Northern will now receive all of London Midland's 323s. 94.192.241.209 (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Do you have a source for this? NRTurner (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That's good to hear, though ten years on the newly minted West Midlands Trains has repainted all the existing 323s and is still running them daily. Do we have an updated idea on what's going to happen to them once they're replaced, and, if they're going to Northern, whether they'll have a continued life after *they* get bored of them? As a lifelong Brummie this near-unique, charismatic little workhorse class seem rather like "our" trains, and it'd be sad if they were just unceremoniously scrapped after nearly 30 years of faithful (and accidentally musical!) service. Line electrification is progressing rather more slowly than it should be, but there are new sections coming online now and then, so there might be new lines they could explore, maybe leveraging their inherently better accessibility to take over from a set of Pacers... 80.189.129.246 (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

4) Northernrailwaysfan: On British Rail Class 323, the article has multiple issues. Here are the issues: The article or section appears to be slanted to towards recent effects, the article needs additional citations for verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northernrailwaysfan (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Previous units on B'ham X-city line

Only a minor thing, but I'm sure the class 310s were pressed into service in the early days of the cross-city line's electrification, as well as some of the old DMUs? In fact the old slam-door, continuous-whine electrics seemed far more common than the diesels, as the 323s were introduced and gradually overcame their reliability issues. Rode that line almost daily in the early/mid 90s and must only have been on a diesel once or twice, but slammed many doors before it all became push-button... 193.63.174.10 (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ten years later on (since I wrote that comment) and it seems that this has been at least partly corrected: the actual trains used after the Cross-city's electrification were Class 116 EMUs ... it's actually listed as such on the 116 article, but I'll have to double-check this one. The description and photos of the 116s on said article certainly match what I remember riding. 80.189.129.246 (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

...edit: Derp. Scratch that. I somehow didn't realise that the 116s were DMUs even though I ended up on that page after looking through pages about diesel railbuses. From the rest of the article though, it looks like I might have been thinking about the 304s, 308s or 310/311s. They appear to have very nearly the same body design, just with different powerplants and the addition of a pantograph (plus a power electronics cabinet built underneath it...). 80.189.129.246 (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

304 and 308 have the same body design as each other. All of the others are very different from each other. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Commons images

Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 323s is now completely sorted by operator and livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Cascade to Northern

How many units are going to Northern? Both websites referenced say all 26, but it has been listed in the article as 17 until reverted earlier today. Also, if 17 is the correct number, are the remaining 9 transferring to ScotRail? Or is this just unsourced speculation? Cheers, PinkPanda272 (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit Reversions July 5th 2020

The current image on this page shows a 323 in version of the Northern livery which is no longer the standard. With this in mind I replaced it with this image which is more representative of what these units currently look like. In addition, on 13th June 2020 an additional reference was added for the Ardwick derailment mentioned in Accidents and Incidents.

On 5th July, both of these fairly reasonably looking edits were reverted in a short space of time by unregistered user 2a00:23c5:882:6101:55c9:c343:3019:5b12 with no edit reason provided - can anyone see why?

Python megapixel (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Images on this page

Images on this page could do with improvement: the title image is fine but the interior image isn't brilliant quality. Also the only represented interior/exterior branding is Serco-Abellio Northern, London Midland and West Midlands Railway, with the notable absence of interior or exterior photos of the current Northern branding. Any discussion/suggestion on how to improve this situation would be welcome.

Python megapixel (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The image of the interior of a 323 should be changed from the serco-abello refurbished interior to the interior of a refurbished Northern class 323.

As for the rest of the photos we need at least one photo of a 323 in Northern livery, don’t really mind which photo we change but one photo must be changed.

Can we also agree that once the 323’s have left West Midlands Trains we will replace all the images of the 323’s in West Midlands livery to ones in Northern livery.

We should have changed the image of the interior of a 323 months ago once we had photos of the new refurbished interior of the class 323. Maurice Oly (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The interior image uploaded by Python only shoes one side of the carriage which isn't ideal, His other livery image is useless as you can't see it!, I've looked on Commons as well as Flickr and everything so far is in the previous Northern livery (images in the new one aren't CC licensed). –Davey2010^Talk 18:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I'm aware of the issue with the exterior image I uploaded previously. That livery isn't the easiest to photograph as it's incredibly reflective which causes unpleasant glare! I appreciate the feedback as I can now see that it's not ideal for those who haven't previously seen the livery.

As for only showing one side of the carriage I do have an image which shows both sides of the carriage and is better centred, but unfortunately it also shows the grab-poles. If you like I can upload it and see if it works better. Python megapixel (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Upload has now finished, @Davey2010: @Maurice Oly: Please see the alternative interior photo which I have uploaded to the Commons here

pythonmegapixel (talk|contribs) 18:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Python megapixel, I agree it doesn't look the easiest to photograph, I'll see if I can brighten the image a little but I don't think it'll make much different,

I personally don't have an issue with grab poles as they're apart of the carriage/train so if you could kindly upload it that would be appreciated and fantastic :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah thanks for that, Yeah I see what you mean about grab poles now, Meh I think it's much much better (although lighting isn't great but IMHO better than half a carriage), Thanks for uploading that, If Maurice is happy with it I'll readd it to the article later –Davey2010^Talk 18:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Cool no problem, happy to help! I was wrong about the grab poles, thought they were far more obtrusive than that, but I have quite a number of photos of the old interior so I was probably thinking of one of them instead. As for the lighting that's a disadvantage of the new interior; it does feel a lot gloomier thanks to the black seat backs (and the new layout meaning more seatbacks facing you as you stand in the door area doesn't help with that!) and the dark blue walls but also in hindsight my camera wasn't set up perfectly. Unfortunately I only had a short time to get that shot before hopping on another train or I'd have spent some time adjusting the settings to improve the brightness of the image. pythonmegapixel (talk|contribs) 18:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@pythonmegapixal I have seen the image you uploaded and I think the image is good, half a refurbished carriage is better than what we have now.

I get that the new interior is hard to get a good photo of due to the colour but that photo will do, if later anybody comes along with a long shot of a refurbished carriage then they can feel free to upload it, but again I’m happy with your photo. Maurice Oly (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pythonmegapixel: sorry for not pinging you the right way in my message, this is my first time pinging someone on here. Maurice Oly (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Python megapixel: Hoping this works, please upload/link your photo onto the page, many thanks. Maurice Oly (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Maurice Oly: Done. Next time I'm in that area I can try to get a longer shot of the carriage, and as you say if anybody else manages to get some then they can replace the current image. pythonmegapixel (talk|contribs) 19:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Python megapixel: Many thanks. Maurice Oly (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Python megapixel Many thanks for your patience, civilness and generosity all are much appreciated, Happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 21:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Update:

Under “service history” can the image of a 323 in London Midland City livery be removed and replaced with an updated image of a 323 in ether WMT or Northern livery please as the image is outdated due to london midland no longer existing.

Many Thanks. Maurice Oly (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maurice Oly: That’s why it’s called "history". SK2242 (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@SK2242: I know it’s called “history” but I just feel that maybe a more up to date image might be nice is all.

But if the other editors think it’s best to leave the image as is then I’m fine with that. Maurice Oly (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I have now updated the interior image, I hope it is to everyone’s liking. Maurice Oly (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Edits Monday 7th September

I have updated the future section a few times just get the wording right, and have updated some grammar. Maurice Oly (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Date entered service

G-13114 (talk · contribs) and Maurice Oly (talk · contribs), do you have a reliable source that states that Class 323s entered service in 1992? SK2242 (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

While I don’t have one yet, I sure I can find one. To please everyone for now let’s leave it as 1992-present and put the Citation needed tag next to it for now.

As soon as I have a source I will put it there.

I do have some hunslet TPL marketing material from 1992 but sadly It only hints that the 323s may have already entered service by 1992. Maurice Oly (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Got one.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR3MPhRP7QNFdcOo-iHMSo_EgsNHViXQZQbWiVhs5Ix5ddMDeNP9zcw0mUA&feature=youtu.be&v=F5Obzz13WCA Maurice Oly (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I had not watched that video before putting it as source, it sates the class entered service in 1994 which is when the class entered full service not when they first entered service.

I seen 1992 on this page before I’ve been told 1993 once.

I’m removing that link in case I get any more infomation, which could happen if by 24 hours later I have not received further information than I will update the page to say 1994 with that link as source. Maurice Oly (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

SK2242 I can confirm it was 1994 when the 323s entered service.

1992 was most likey when the class 323 was on test and when the safety issues with the class were found.

Would this youtube count? it’s a drivers eye view video from 1995 which does state that the class 323s entered service in 1994.

https://youtube/F5Obzz13WCA Maurice Oly (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@SK2242: I can confirm it was 1994 when the 323s entered service.

1992 was most likey when the class 323 was on test and when the safety issues with the class were found.

Would this youtube count? it’s a drivers eye view video from 1995 which does state that the class 323s entered service in 1994.

https://youtube/F5Obzz13WCA Maurice Oly (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@SK2242: I can confirm it was 1994 when the 323s entered service.

1992 was most likey when the class 323 was on test and when the safety issues with the class were found.

Would this youtube count? it’s a drivers eye view video from 1995 which does state that the class 323s entered service in 1994.

https://youtube/F5Obzz13WCA Maurice Oly (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@SK2242: I can confirm it was 1994 when the 323s entered service.

1992 was most likey when the class 323 was on test and when the safety issues with the class were found.

Would this youtube count? it’s a drivers eye view video from 1995 which does state that the class 323s entered service in 1994.

https://youtube/F5Obzz13WCA Maurice Oly (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the failed pings, I’m not really good with this part of wikiapeada. Maurice Oly (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok I’ve found what I think made edditors think 1992 was the date the class entered service.

It’s outdated though and so can’t be used as a reference.

https://web.archive.org/web/20071014115224/http://www.therailwaycentre.com/Recognition%20Tech%20Data%20EMU/EMU_323.html Maurice Oly (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The source I have provided is behind a paywall but it clearly states the 323s entered service on 7th February 1994. It contains a number of key dates concerning the introduction of the 323s. As mentioned, the Cross-City Driver's Eye View by Video125 also states 1994, as does Zebra Films' West Midlands Multiple Units DVD which actually shows the first public run in February 1994. The first 323 set wasn't completed until November 1992 anyway, let alone tested or commissioned. My edit certainly wasn't malicious, but an attempt to correct a mistake that has persisted on this article for years. L1v3rp00l (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I just rechecked my sources (two books by historian John Boynton) and it would appear that it was 1994 when they entered service. From the way I read it, I don't think they provided all the cross city line services until 1995, when all the technical problems had been resolved. A number of elderly units operated the services in the interim. G-13114 (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Reference 4

Reference 4 on this page is out of date and is factly wrong in regards to the date in which the 323s entered service.

Reference 4 links to a website that states the 323s entered service in 1992 which has now been proven to be false and that the 323s entered service in 1994.

It also did not take into account the 5 fold down seats when talking about capacity It stated that the 323s had seating capacity of 284 which is not true I put the correct figure of 289 in a while back.

Can we please find a more reliable source for reference 4, a reference that gives the seating capacity for the refurbished units would be preferred. Maurice Oly (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Seating capacities marked on the car ends normally only count the fixed seats, of which there are 284 in the original units; the PTS also has five tip-up seats and two wheelchair spaces. See

• Pritchard, Robert (2020). British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock 2020. Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing. p. 283. ISBN 978-1-909431-58-4.

As for the refurbished units, that book shows that the two DMS each have one fewer seat, the PTS has seven fewer fixed seats and two fewer tip-up, for a total of 275 plus three tip-up and two wheelchair spaces. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much everyone for clearing all that up. There is however the issue of the former luggage rack sets 323223-323225 I know the luggage racks have been removed and replaced by seating but I don’t know what the seating total of those 3 sets are.

I just know those 3?units are different from the rest of the fleet, does the book talk about that? If so than reference 4 can be updated. Maurice Oly (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

These three units (323 223-5) are shown as seating 82 in each DMS, 80 in the PTS for a total of 244, plus 5 tip-up and 2 wheelchair. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: thank you very much, I will update the article now with that infomation.

Since I don’t have the book I need to ask this, would it be ok to use that book instead of https://web.archive.org/web/20071014115224/http://www.therailwaycentre.com/Recognition%20Tech%20Data%20EMU/EMU_323.html as reference 4 for this article?

I just want to check with you or somebody as the link currently used as reference 4 is used a lot on this page. Maurice Oly (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It can't be used as a direct replacement because a number of items sourced to ref. 4 are either different, or are simply not mentioned in the book. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@RedRose64: Ok thanks for replying to me with that, I shall just create a new reference with the book to cover the new seating capacity as the book covers that. Maurice Oly (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: sorry did not put your name in right when I pinged you. Maurice Oly (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Erm somebody help please, I tried to add the new reference when updating the seating capacity and well it didn’t work very well and I have no idea how to fix this I’ve tried everything I could understand how to do anyway. Maurice Oly (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok so can we please find a source to replace reference 4 please as what we have for reference 4 contradicts the start date for the 323s.

If somebody was to go to the website we have as reference 4 for information they would see on that website that the 323s entered service in 1992 which is wrong as I have said before.

I wish to know other editors input on what to do with reference 4. Maurice Oly (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

On board TVs.

So I have found photos of the class 323 from when they had TVs on board.

Could we maybe use this site as a source for that?

https://ukrailwaypics.smugmug.com/Daybyday/2005/2005-03-25-Birmingham-Area/i-g2ZVZNJ/A Maurice Oly (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

AWS?

So I was reading though reference 2 the class 323 drivers manual and on page 43 it lists safety systems on that page the manual says of AWS “AWSIS Automatic warning system (now known as TPWSIS)”

However on page 50 there is a table which talks about a AWS isolation Switch but I judging but is on page 43 it seems like that switch may now be used for isolating TWPS.

So should we keep AWS as a listed safety system in the infobox or not? Maurice Oly (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes because they are linked with one other. AWS is a historic term that should be left as is. Nightfury 08:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nightfury: thanks for the response, I’ll leave AWS as a safety system. Maurice Oly (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Depos

As can be seen I have removed reference 3 from the infobox as reference 3 is from 1994 and Allerton TMD was closed until 2012 thus reference 3 can’t back up that the Class 323 is allocated to Allerton TMD.

I have a feeling that reference 3 states the Class 323 is allocated to Longsight Electric TMD not Allerton TMD simply due to Longsight TMD being in Manchester and open in 1994.

The link below backs up that Allerton TMD did not re-open until 2012: https://web.archive.org/web/20171225092039/https://www.railengineer.uk/2012/06/27/allerton-reborn/

Sorry the link is from archive.org but the orignal link is dead so I had to use an archived link.

Please can we find a reffrence that backs up that the Class 323 is allocated to both Soho TMD and Allerton TMD. Maurice Oly (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

The current image is terrible! I've been trying to change it with much better images but keeps on being reverted back to this grainy terrible image! I don't want to start an edit war but it is highly annoying when a much improved image gets changed by something far worse. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/323210_AST.jpg This is, in my opinion, a much better image and is much clearer and less grainy. Vanmanyo (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The image you're trying to add is not clearer, and is far darker. Sorry, but I have to agree with G-13114 here. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention the side margins are extremely narrow. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Aluminium construction

They were also among the first trains to be built from aluminium rather than steel in the UK. - really? What about the London Underground R49 and R59 stock? Or the London Underground 1956 Stock? In fact pretty much all London Underground trains built during the last seventy years have been aluminium. Notifying G-13114. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

And even without considering London Underground stock, there were several hundred aluminium carriages of PEP and PEP-derived units built in the 70s. But apparently I need to provide a specific citation for the fact that Class 323s are, by some margin, not the first aluminium vehicles! DAB (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)