Why doesn’t all new rolling stock have gangways

[andy33gmail]

This thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/staff-on-non-ganwayed-sets.298119/ got me thinking

I appreciate there’s rolling stock that was only purchased to run as a single set and transferred

But why are new sets being specified, purchased and operators being purchased which doesn’t have a gangway between units. For example the 755s were new for Liverpool Street-Norwich?

For example, why are people buying 376s when there are similar versions without … it’s not even like they’re more aerodynamic

 

[800301]

This thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/staff-on-non-ganwayed-sets.298119/ got me thinking

I appreciate there’s rolling stock that was only purchased to run as a single set and transferred

But why are new sets being specified, purchased and operators being purchased which doesn’t have a gangway between units. For example the 755s were new for Liverpool Street-Norwich?

For example, why are people buying 376s when there are similar versions without … it’s not even like they’re more aerodynamic

Not all trains are offered with a gangway option.

It’s also a much nicer driving experience without having a gangway

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

No gangways at 125mph, I believe.
The train builders (mainly supplying European operators) rarely offer gangways, hence they will cost more..
Full-width cabs are better for drivers and can hold more equipment, very necessary in the ETCS era.
Some gangwayed units have such limited vision out that it affects signal sighting and permitted speeds.
Cabs are expensive, so the trend is for longer non-gangwayed formations and fewer cabs.

 

[D6975]

This thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/staff-on-non-ganwayed-sets.298119/ got me thinking

But why are new sets being specified, purchased and operators being purchased which doesn’t have a gangway between units. For example the 755s were new for Liverpool Street-Norwich?

755s were Not ordered for Liv St - Norwich. They were ordered for rural routes.

 

[Failed Unit]

The 170s and the 357s were probably the biggest mistake they were not ordered with gangways. Someone will correct me if I am wrong but the modular design meant they could have used the same cab as the 375s.

The 170s were unused in multiple on most operators that had them from day 1. Chilltern, MML, Central, Anglia and Scotrail all had them in multiple. Hull trains not so many but did.

 

[Peter Wilde]

One obvious reason is some units are so long - 10 car suburbans like the 701s for example - that they will never attach to anything else in normal service.

 

[Failed Unit]

One obvious reason is some units are so long - 10 car suburbans like the 701s for example - that they will never attach to anything else in normal service.

Does the 5 car version has a gangway? I notice most of the former NSE operators (South of the river) went for gangways. The 376 was an exception, which I think is nearly always in multiple. Although the trains it replaced also didn’t have gangways (when you consider they mostly shuffled networks around)

The 360s was another on that they probably wish was ordered with Gangways. Would so many issues for EMR

 

[norbitonflyer]

It seems to go in fashions. The early Mark 3 EMUs had gangways, such as classes 455, 317 and 318. Then they went out of favour so the later classes - 319-322, 456 didnt have them. This led to the nonsense that in class 455/456 combinations eight of the cars had through gangways to allow access to facilities, but the only facility not present in all ten cars was only available in the non gangwayed 2 car unit.

 

[mmh]

This thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/staff-on-non-ganwayed-sets.298119/ got me thinking

I appreciate there’s rolling stock that was only purchased to run as a single set and transferred

But why are new sets being specified, purchased and operators being purchased which doesn’t have a gangway between units. For example the 755s were new for Liverpool Street-Norwich?

For example, why are people buying 376s when there are similar versions without … it’s not even like they’re more aerodynamic

Because we're absolutely useless at standardisation. If we weren't, you could have standards that meant every train would be able to couple and run together with another one, that they could all go everywhere on the network (places physically restricted like Merseyrail excepted).

Instead we have the ludicrous situation where basically identical trains "can't" be coupled up together because computer says no, and the drivers can't drive them because for some unknown reason we never bothered standardising controls.

 

[swt_passenger]

Does the 5 car version has a gangway?

701? No it doesn’t. Possibly follows on from the decision taken by SWT to not have a gangway on the 707.

 

[507 001]

The 170s and the 357s were probably the biggest mistake they were not ordered with gangways.

And the 331s/195s. Units that spend the vast majority of their lives coupled (331/1s aside) but don’t have gangways.

 

[SynthD]

What are the two terms for a train set with gangways between carriages but not at the ends, and gangways also at both ends? I think there's less call for the latter, as train length isn't changed as much as it used to be, including splitting in service. If there are TOCs with no splitting or narrow tunnels but end gangways, then I am wondering why.

 

[tfw756rider]

Full-width cabs... can hold more equipment, very necessary in the ETCS era.

21 of the 197s have both gangway connection doors and ETCS.

 

[mmh]

21 of the 197s have both gangway connection doors and ETCS.

And so do every 158 with ETCS.

Computers aren't huge any more, they fit in your pocket.

 

[43096]

What are the two terms for a train set with gangways between carriages but not at the ends, and gangways also at both ends? I think there's less call for the latter, as train length isn't changed as much as it used to be, including splitting in service. If there are TOCs with no splitting or narrow tunnels but end gangways, then I am wondering why.

Gangwayed within set/units and gangwayed throughout?

 

[tfw756rider]

And so do every 158 with ETCS.

The Transport for Wales 158s have their internal ETCS equipment in a huge cabinet in one of the original luggage rack locations though, whereas on the ETCS-fitted 197s it's in a small compartment in the cab, that still manages to have gangway connection doors (all 197s have that compartment, even the non-ETCS ones).

Computers aren't huge any more, they fit in your pocket.

Exactly, hence why the (10-year-newer) equipment is much shrunk and hidden on the 197s.

 

[Failed Unit]

The 717s also have ETCS - but not full width cabs. For those they needed a solution of course for the Moorgate - Drayton park tunnels

 

[norbitonflyer]

What are the two terms for a train set with gangways between carriages but not at the ends, and gangways also at both ends? I think there's less call for the latter, as train length isn't changed as much as it used to be, including splitting in service. If there are TOCs with no splitting or narrow tunnels but end gangways, then I am wondering why.

Gangwayed within set, and gangwayed throughout. The latter was first introduced on a large scale for the porstmout electrifiaction, as the trains were made up of 3x4-car units, with only the middle one having any catering facilities (4COR/4BUF/4COR), unlike the earler 6PUL/6PAN units which had a catering vehicle in both uniots of a 12-car train. Throughout the slam door era, the only emu's to have end gangways were the ones that had, or were expected to work with units that had, buffet cars. (4CEP/BEP; 4CIG/BIG, 4REP/TC, 4VEP, and class 309)

Likewise, the only 1st generation DMUs to have end gangways were the two Inter City classes (124, 126), and for the same reason.

 

[stadler]

What i always wonder is why SWT chose to order the 707s with no gangway on them when the option for a gangway was available and advertised at the time they ordered.

Desiro City came in three end versions with either no gangway or an emergency end door or a full proper passenger gangway.



The trains that the 707s were replacing or running alongside almost all had gangways so you would think ordering them with gangways would be the most logical option.

 

[43096]

What i always wonder is why SWT chose to order the 707s with no gangway on them when the option for a gangway was available and advertised at the time they ordered.

Cost. A gangwayed cab is going to cost more than non-gangwayed.

The need for between unit gangways on suburban/inner suburban stock is massively over-rated and of dubious value.

 

[stadler]

What is the reasoning behind NIR building their 450s with a gangway only at one end of the unit? I think these must be the only units in the world like this? Did they intend that the gangway ends of two units would always be coupled when they ran in multiple?

 

[birchesgreen]

What is the reasoning behind NIR building their 450s with a gangway only at one end of the unit? I think these must be the only units in the world like this? Did they intend that the gangway ends of two units would always be coupled when they ran in multiple?

Class 126 also had gangways at one end i believe

 

[CarrotPie]

755s were Not ordered for Liv St - Norwich. They were ordered for rural routes.

745s were ordered for Liverpool Street - Norwich, but 755s also operate some services on the route, as planned. Neither fleet has gangways because the FLIRT doesn't offer them.

The 170s and the 357s were probably the biggest mistake they were not ordered with gangways. Someone will correct me if I am wrong but the modular design meant they could have used the same cab as the 375s.

The 375 cab hadn't been developed at the time the 357s were ordered, which is why they used the 170 cab. That had just been developed from the Clubman cab, which was, in turn, a modernisation of the Networker Turbo (165/166) cab. This is also why the 357s use Tightlock couplers even though all other Electrostars use Dellner 12s: because the 357s were ordered so early on. Class 172/1s 172/2s and 172/3s use a slightly modified 375-style cab, so it can be done.

The 376 was an exception, which I think is nearly always in multiple. Although the trains it replaced also didn’t have gangways (when you consider they mostly shuffled networks around)

I believe the reason for this was to avoid "train-surfing" (people riding on the backs of trains) in the area of suburban London where they operate, hence their cab is not just gangway-free but as smooth as they could possibly make it, so try and eliminate any possible foot-/handholds for the yobbos.

Gangwayed within set/units and gangwayed throughout?

Exactly this. Wikipedia also refers to the term "walk-through heads", meaning the gangways at the ends of trains, which I assume is an American term, as I've never heard it before.

701? No it doesn’t. Possibly follows on from the decision taken by SWT to not have a gangway on the 707.

Isn't it just so that all the 701s have the same cab design? Also, because the 701 cab is a special smushed (=flatter) version of the normal Aventra cab, I imagine the 730's cab probably wouldn't have fitted within the space/smushiness requirements?

 

[tfw756rider]

Class 172/1s use a slightly modified 375-style cab

The 172/1s are the 4 ex-Chiltern 2-car 172s (2011) and, along with the 172/0s (2010, the 8 ex-London Overground 2-car 172s), use non-gangwayed cabs that resemble the last 168/170/171 cabs with the "[late 2002] to 2005" newer/bigger lights.

The 172s with the gangwayed cabs (presumably the slightly modified 375-style cab you refer to?) and the "378 lights", are the ex-London Midland 172s (2011, the 12 2-car 172/2s and the 15 3-car 172/3s).

 

[CarrotPie]

The 172/1s are the 4 ex-Chiltern 2-car 172s and, along with the 172/0s (the 8 ex-London Overground 2-car 172s), use non-gangwayed cabs that resemble the last 168/170/171 cabs with the "[late 2002] to 2005" newer/bigger lights.

The 172s with the gangwayed cabs and "378 lights" are the 12 ex-London Midland 172/2s (2-car) and the 15 172/3s (3-car).

Ah, I always forget there are more subclasses than I can remember! Thank you for the correction!

 

[43096]

This is also why the 357s use Tightlock couplers even though all other Electrostars use Dellner 12s: because the 357s were ordered so early on.

The early builds of 375s were also delivered with Tightlocks, and were changed to Dellners early on. The contemporary Alstom 334s and 458s also received Tightlocks from new; they have also been changed subsequently.

 

[tfw756rider]

Ah, I always forget there are more subclasses than I can remember! Thank you for the correction!

You're welcome I actually like using the gangways - you get to see into the cabs, and:

• On 153s and 350s, the speedometers still work, (but on 197s, they don't and just say 0mph)
• On 350s, you can actually see the lights of the coupled unit through the cab windows and then the windscreen (but can't on 197s)

I did it on 172s for the first time the other day (two ex-London Midland 172s coupled, obviously) and I actually liked how it had a cool sort-of "older than it actually is" feel about it.

Unfortunately though, the driver's desk (driving controls, speedometer etc.) isn't visible on them, even though you can see into the driver's cab "at all" (unlike on 158s, or at least the Transport for Wales ones, where you can only see into the secondman's side for some reason).

After I (finally) had my first ride on a 350/3 in 2022 (after having had my first rides on 350/1 in 2006 and 350/2 in 2008/2009), what turned out to my first 350/4 ridden on (which was off the platform at Rugeley Trent Valley) was actually "boarded" at speed, by me using the gangway connection to move from the 350/2 to what turned out to be the 350/4

Possibly an oversight - when a "Standard Plus" 3-car 197 is coupled (at the "Standard Plus" end) to another 197 (a 2-car, a "non-SP" 3-car or even the "non-SP" end of another "Standard Plus" 3-car), your little compartment sort-of kind-of (ish) becomes shared with a big "normal" saloon (although the gangway connection does sort-of "separate" it a little bit). This is because the 197s don't have internal saloon to vehicle gangway connection doors like the 196s have.

 

[andy33gmail]

On 153s and 350s, the speedometers still work, (but on 197s, they don't and just say 0mph)

I’ve always wondered if it would be technically possible to drive them from the middle cab.

 

[Russel]

The 360s was another on that they probably wish was ordered with Gangways. Would so many issues for EMR

I believe they were initially ordered, or at least planned to be ordered, with a gangway, but from memory, driver view was a concern hence we have what we have now.

Does open a can of worms over why every other 1st generation Desiro manages to have a gangway though.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Possibly an oversight - when a "Standard Plus" 3-car 197 is coupled (at the "Standard Plus" end) to another 197 (a 2-car, a "non-SP" 3-car or even the "non-SP" end of another "Standard Plus" 3-car), your little compartment sort-of kind-of (ish) becomes shared with a big "normal" saloon (although the gangway connection does sort-of "separate" it a little bit). This is because the 197s don't have internal saloon to vehicle gangway connection doors like the 196s have.

That's actually very interesting, I've never noticed that. Shame, as the gangways let a lot more outside noise in, and the doors block that out.