They don't have any doors between carriages either do they?
I recall sitting near the corridor connection on a 197 just after they entered service and could hear the auto-announcements were out of sync by a second or two in each carriage!
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why doesn’t all new rolling stock have gangways
- Thread starter andy33gmail
- Start date
- Status
They don't have any doors between carriages either do they?
I recall sitting near the corridor connection on a 197 just after they entered service and could hear the auto-announcements were out of sync by a second or two in each carriage!
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
TT-ONR-NRN
Veteran Member
No, but (sadly in my opinion), that's become the new normal for short distance trains. I don't like that myself.
I'm pleased to say the 196s DO have internal doors, unlike 195 and 197.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 18,897
I thought it was due to visibility of platform DOO monitors and mirrors, which obviously does not apply to the South Western Desiro fleet.
bramling
Veteran Member
Is it really a big issue on LTS? The trains are DOO so no issue with guards getting through. Nearby on GN we had corridor connections on 317s but not on 321s and 365s and it didn’t seem to make much difference, in fact those on the 317s spent periods out of use and no one seemed to bat an eyelid.
One presumes the 357s weren’t specified with them because their predecessors didn’t have them either, and presumably the better visibility worked better with DOO monitors.
I agree the Turbostar fleet would have probably worked better with them though.
norbitonflyer
Established Member
The shorter cab is precisely so that 2x701/5 is the same length as 1x 701/0, and thus the door positions are the same. The standard cab makes the end cars longer than the intermediate ones, meaning that 2x701/5 would be longer (having four cabs) than a 701/0 (with only two)
Greater Anglia solved this conundrum the other way, by changing the order to have all 5-car sets instead of a mix as originally planned.
Failed Unit
Established Member
I would say we put up with it rather then it didn’t make much difference.
I am sure many on the trains that split on route would have rather walked through the train while it was moving between Hatfield and WGC rather then transfer on the platform.
Likewise I am one of the rare beasts that walks forward when a train is full. I often do this on the 387s to get a the front of the train if I haven’t managed to board there. It is a long way to the front of a 12 coach train and if you are cutting it close then getting on the first door when they blow the whistle is good. I not sure at Cambridge if people walk through from the coaches getting left behind.
FrontSideBus
On Moderation
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2025
- Messages
- 451
I must admit I did wonder why Northern ordered their Civities without end gangways when they run multiple units daily.
Especially since when they run two 331/0's, only a single coach of the rear unit fits onto the majority of platforms!
End gangways would be easier for the guard to do his duty anyway surely.
Especially since when they run two 331/0's, only a single coach of the rear unit fits onto the majority of platforms!
End gangways would be easier for the guard to do his duty anyway surely.
BN 91119
Member
The NIR 450s are DEMUs so you have an engine blocking the way through, which is why one end doesn't have a gangway. Still though very unique!
andy33gmail
Member
I prefer the class 775’s “hold my beer” approach to engine layout 
norbitonflyer
Established Member
Not unique, as Class 126 had the same arrangement - gangwayed at one end of the unit only, as seen here.
The 210s solved that problem by having a narrow engine that left room for a gangway.
Pedant alert: uniqueness is a binary thing - there are not degrees of uniqueness: something either is unique or it isn't (albeit it might be very rare). Just as you can't be slightly dead.
Last edited:
Deepgreen
Established Member
There are, as far as I can tell, two advantages with gangwayed sets - 1) they allow passengers to spread out along the train, and; 2) they allow staff to do the same, e.g.for ticket checking. However, both these things can happen at intermediste stops if need be. It depends on the service pattern on which they are employed and whether, say, four or five car units are expected to run together normally, such as the 450s, etc. Longer units (nine or ten cars) are all very well, but don't give the flexibility to run shorter trains when/where demand is lower.
Another point is that the distinction between peak and off-peak usage is far less these days than it was a few decades ago, when eight car (two four car units) trains would be peak formations and four cars off-peak (on the southern region especially).
Whether manufacturers should drive the market by simply offering 'take it or leave it' designs is an interesting point - some would say that purchasers should be able to specify stuff like this on what can be multi-billion pound orders.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Another point is that the distinction between peak and off-peak usage is far less these days than it was a few decades ago, when eight car (two four car units) trains would be peak formations and four cars off-peak (on the southern region especially).
Whether manufacturers should drive the market by simply offering 'take it or leave it' designs is an interesting point - some would say that purchasers should be able to specify stuff like this on what can be multi-billion pound orders.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Fascinating - I had never realised that the 126s were 'single-ended'! An interesting idea where there is no chance of units being turned.The 210s solved that problem.
And not unique, as Class 126 had the same arrangement - gangwayed at one end of the unit only, as seen here.
tfw756rider
On Moderation
755, right?I prefer the class 775’s “hold my beer” approach to engine layout
norbitonflyer
Established Member
Units could be turned, for example using the Edinburgh "Sub".
In practice, when used on the Edinburgh Glasgow route, they were usually marshelled as 6-car units, but with the gangwayed power cars at positions 2 and 5 rather than 3 and 4, thus putting the buffet car near the middle of the train. When they moved to the Ayrshire lines, they were used as 3-car sets, either singly or in pairs, but there seemed to be no particular plan to couple the gangwayed ends together - although I understand the drivers preferred the full width cabs not only for the space but the lack of draughts. Eventually the gangways were removed anyway.
For a few years, classes 123 and 124 worked alongside each other on the South transpennie route (Hull - Sheffield - Manchester) and mixed formations were quite common (eg two class 123 power cars with a 124 trailer, or vice versa).
andy33gmail
Member
GilfachFargoed
Member
It looks to me like short term cost savings (in train acquisition, accepting that some or all of that may be spread via leasing costs over a very long time period), over the longer term risks of missed revenue protection (where conductors or RPI are stuck in one unit for some or all of a train's journey), customer dissatisfaction from crowding in one part of the train, and potential IR costs where a union pops up and starts campaigning for a member of staff with particular skills each unit. The crowding issue can be seen regularly with 2x 80x sets where customers boarding from the rear in London walk through busy services to the front of the rear unit, but can not then get into the front (and generally quieter) unit.
I have wondered in the past if 125mph would be feasible in the UK with an end gangway. It goes something like - DBAG Class 101 locos run in service at c.125mph (and were designed to go faster) with a front end profile that is not dis-similar to a UK Class 380 EMU, ergo we shouldn't be a million miles away from achieving an outcome of both an end gangway and 125mph. It would be interesting to understand if that 101 front end detracts from energy efficiency compared to something 'a bit more pointed' - perhaps the production HST nose cone was more about the 'wow factor', as the prototype had a less aerodynamic front end.
I have wondered in the past if 125mph would be feasible in the UK with an end gangway. It goes something like - DBAG Class 101 locos run in service at c.125mph (and were designed to go faster) with a front end profile that is not dis-similar to a UK Class 380 EMU, ergo we shouldn't be a million miles away from achieving an outcome of both an end gangway and 125mph. It would be interesting to understand if that 101 front end detracts from energy efficiency compared to something 'a bit more pointed' - perhaps the production HST nose cone was more about the 'wow factor', as the prototype had a less aerodynamic front end.
They also lessen the chance of half a train having to be locked out of use either because it won’t fit the platform or because there’s no one to staff it.
Last edited:
tfw756rider
On Moderation
What do you mean by it won't fit the inform?
How I hate predictive text (especially on a wobbly train!): Platform!
tfw756rider
On Moderation
I did wonder if it was platform but didn't want to assume! Thanks.
norbitonflyer
Established Member
- Status