465s finally get CCTV and new displays
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
 
Advanced search
MATCHING GROUPS



more...
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

found 3 articles for 0.047 sec
Re: 465s finally get CCTV (and new displays)     

Group: uk.transport.london · Group Profile · Search for 465s finally get CCTV and new displays in uk.transport.london
Author: Rupert Candy
Date: May 12, 2008 09:18

On May 12, 5:13В pm, MIG <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote: Are there displays on the fronts? I thought it was incredible that with all the refurbishment work that went into creating 465/9s from 465/2s, the original displays, which had never been any use since day one, were not replaced. I didn't notice any change outside, so presumably not. They are indeed useless.
Show full article (0.38Kb) · Show article thread
Re: 465s finally get CCTV (and new displays)     

Group: uk.transport.london · Group Profile · Search for 465s finally get CCTV and new displays in uk.transport.london
Author: MIG
Date: May 12, 2008 09:13

... presumably to be a fleet installation of CCTV on Networkers. Rather surprisingly, the cameras ...similar appearance to) the original PIS displays above the gangway doors. These are replaced...was a new design of information sticker with prominent notices warning about CCTV and penalty fares. The train I was... 465/9s from 465/2s, the original displays, which had never been any use...
Show full article (1.31Kb) · Show article thread
465s finally get CCTV (and new displays)     

Group: uk.transport.london · Group Profile · Search for 465s finally get CCTV and new displays in uk.transport.london
Author: Rupert Candy
Date: May 12, 2008 09:03

... be a fleet installation of CCTV on Networkers. Rather surprisingly, the ... appearance to) the original PIS displays above the gangway doors. These...not sure whether the new PIS displays incorporate additional cameras, but...with prominent notices warning about CCTV and penalty fares. The train...was on was an (unidentified) 465/2. IIRC these are owned...a different ROSCO to the 465/0s, so I suppose it...
Show full article (0.91Kb)