I've read in the past that the cab at one end of a 153 is exceptional small, due to the units not being designed as single cars and as such only having 1 cab per car originally. Therefore this is a bit of a special case.
Can also be looked at as a dangerous trade off the other way, what if you couple 2x 2-car units together and have to stop at a very short platform? The practice of pulling in twice seems to have been abandoned outside preserved railways. Similarly, with somthing like a 158 you can join 2 units from different start points A and B together, run through stations C and D and then split them to 2 destonations E and F, meaning passengers do not need to disembark to change trains to get from A or B to either E or F, they can just walk through into the appropriate unit. With the high preferances for direct trains over changing, this is probablly quite a useful feature.
completely agree with you
It is well noted. The new 380s help with that somewhat - the reclined gangway connection and semi-streamlined nose give a far greater field of view than any of the current stock with protruding gangway equipment, and give greater crash protection for the driver.
Cubby holes have been around for a while, and feature on some of the most successful modern classes; the 375s, 377s, 379s, 350s, 444s, 450s, 442s, 458s, as well as the old BR DMUs such as 156s that feature narrow width cabs to accommodate the gangway.
Drivers have managed fine for years with them, so I'm sure all the new drivers will cope fine with the 172s after they've stopped moaning
I can't comment on the latest Desiro's or Electro/Turbostars, but up to and including all Sprinters, no one has yet been able to design a leak and draught free gangway door no matter what new seals they've tried to put in. Sounds like an inherent problem to me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
He's lucky, he doesn't have to as his Co got all the 170's
Just want a bit more oomph from them then ill be 
