However the 230 program started back in late 2014, some three years earlier and had been previously rejected for the Nuneaton route because the originally built test unit had serious engine issues. So I'm afraid you are not even close to comparing like for like.
There was a fire on a test unit. That caused the project serious delays meaning the trains could not enter service to support the new Leamington services.
Let me be clear on my thoughts again. We (as in the travelling public) need trains that not only suit our railway network, but how our railways are run. With a privatised, medium term franchised set up units should be built to suit a multitude of routes, and a multitude of operating parameters. That is the thinking behind the CAF & Hitachi orders, large numbers of similar type units that can & doubtless will be used across large parts of our network over their lifespans. Lots of small, unique concepts like the 230s are not going to suit the industry in the long term. They are being used as a quick (although nearly 5 years cannot be considered quick) stopgap solution by the two operators that have so far ordered a whopping 8 of the units. Even Vivarail at this point will have realised that they are not going to be shipping dozens of these out anytime soon, hence their concentrating more on different engine designs which they doubtless hope to either sell directly or as a concept.
Thoughts based on practical experience or your own bias? The class 230's absolutely suit our railway network an how my part of the network is run. They would do that all over the country. OBVIOUSLY they are not suitable for high speed, long distance, intercity type lines but there are many lines in Northern land that could benefit from a quick capacity enhancement. I am think about, say, Castleford to Leeds where I have been left behind several times due to insufficient space on the trains. You and your fellow passengers are suffering because of the decision to rule out these units. You seem happy with that. I am not sure everyone would agree.
Now I know that it is considered almost heresy to even dare criticise the 230, as this unit has been giving the RUK seal of approval, but I'm not afraid to stand alone with my thoughts. The railway network isn't run for railway enthusiasts to try out a myriad of different unit and traction types,
You are being silly now. No one has suggested introducing train types to please train fans!
it is run to get people from one place to the next, and rightly or wrongly to make the companies operating them profits. And in today's world that doesn't mean lots of micro orders of different types of units that all require both crew and mechanical knowledge, it means large orders of similar units much in the way the airline industry works. Many here won't agree, and that's fine, but it is the reality. Time will tell, but I strongly suspect that the 230s, and indeed the 769s won't be seeing very long lifespans.
And that is exactly what these 230 trains are doing on my line. They are fixing a particular problem for LNWR and they are doing so in more comfort, greater speed, and with better on train facilities than the trains they have replaced. These new trains require less traction knowledge for Blethcley depot, reduce costs for LNWR, increase resilience by offering a local support operation, increase service resilience by offering us a "hot spare", have speeded up services to the extent that the class 230's are often 3/4 minutes ahead of the 150/153 timings and regularly have to stand at stations waiting time and have generated a positive news story for a line often overlooked by local people. Anecdotally numbers travelling look up already.
But you aren't interested in any of this because it doesn't suit your agenda. I wouldn't mind your views so much if they were based on first hand knowledge. What is infuriating is your certainty despite knowing nothing about these trains. It isnt about any silly "RUK seal of approval". It is about a good quality product being delivered to LNWR and that product being used to deliver an improved journey experience for users of the line.
I also find your conflating of minor and fairly typical early introduction into service problems as some serious project failure. It is frustrating in the extreme. The truth is that the service has been, at worst, as reliable as the 150/153 combo. Those trains, btw, are the ones you are happy to have in Northern land.
Have all 3 class 230s now entered service?
yes - all three have been in service. Only 2 are needed each day.
You are right, I do have a blinkered view of them despite not having been within a fair distance of them. They are old, ex-Subsurface stock, tarted up a bit and given a new diesel power unit that has taken well over four years to get from concept to revenue service, and is still falling over. As I said, time will tell but it is what it is, ex-LU stock with Transit engines shoved underneath. Let's see how they get on in the years to come. I honestly hope for the sake of yourself and your fellow users that they don't keep rattling themselves apart, or setting fire to themselves. But you will forgive me for not being in the slightest bit envious of not getting them. Because believe me, I am not.
I love the utter certainly of your view based as it is on nothing but your own bias and stubborn unwillingness to admit you might be wrong.
For the record it is worth noting you admit that you haven't traveled on these units, wont travel on them and know nothing about how they are performing yet are certain of the essential rightness of your views. That should allow posters to grade your views and asses them versus people who use these trains on a daily basis and those who have experience of introducing new rolling stock to service.
assuming of course they hadn't already cancelled it due to the technical issues we've seen.
What technical issues do you refer to?
You do seem, like some other posters here, to have a real "cob on" for these trains. What is the problem? Is it that to admit that they might not be all bad is to admit that the central concept of your argument is invalid and that you might have to admit you made a mistake. I have admitted I made a mistake about these trains. It is illustrative you cant or wont.