Why were unit fronts designed this way?

[The DJ]

Class 377. Rather ugly front in my opinion but also offering only a very limited view to the right for the driver whereas other types of DMU/EMU offer a full field of vision from the front window. Surely the cab width, less than half the width of the train is rather claustrophobic.

 

[Domh245]

There's only so much room available for the cab when you put a gangway on the front of the train...

 

[py_megapixel]

It's to allow there to be a gangway so that staff and passengers can walk between units coupled in multiple.

The Class 357 is as close as it gets to a 377 without the gangway, and you'll notice that here the driver's cab is larger and appears to offer a better view.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

When I think of ugly train fronts the 377 does not spring to mind. I think it looks rather nice alongside some other recent units which look awful. The Class 730 has to be the ugliest train I’ve ever seen.

 

[Energy]

The Class 357 is as close as it gets to a 377 without the gangway

Class 376?

 

[py_megapixel]

Class 376?

I thought the 376s had a gangway, but it seems that they actually don't.

The 357 still seems a little closer, in my opinion, but regardless, the point still stands that the gangway-less electrostars have a better view for the driver as the gangway isn't posing an obstruction.

 

[edwin_m]

If you think the 377 is ugly I wonder if you've ever seen a 317 or a 455...

 

[supervc-10]

It seems weird to me that Bombardier went to the bother of designing the 376 front when they had the 'Turbostar' front available and designed already. Is it to make the driver's desk closer to that of the 377?

 

[py_megapixel]

It seems weird to me that Bombardier went to the bother of designing the 376 front when they had the 'Turbostar' front available and designed already. Is it to make the driver's desk closer to that of the 377?

I heard that it was to deter the lunatics who like to attempt to sit/stand on the front of moving trains and "surf" them; that might be incorrect however. The 376 front is completely vertical at the front; the slope of the turbostar front might make it still possible to perch on.

 

[edwin_m]

It seems weird to me that Bombardier went to the bother of designing the 376 front when they had the 'Turbostar' front available and designed already. Is it to make the driver's desk closer to that of the 377?

A Turbostar is a bit narrower than an Electrostar so it wouldn't fit. But they could have used the 357 front.

 

[jopsuk]

Pictures I can find of the 376 cab have the drivers desk very much over to one side- is it really just a 375/377 cab end but without the corridor? Made for an easy design adaptation for the 378, which required an escape door (but not a corridor connection).

As to why some lines have historically tended to have units with corridor connectors, and others not, and some a mix? Many complex factors

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Dec 2020 ==

I heard that it was to deter the lunatics who like to attempt to sit/stand on the front of moving trains and "surf" them; that might be incorrect however. The 376 front is completely vertical at the front; the slope of the turbostar front might make it still possible to perch on.

with the wiper blades, coupler and emergency lamp bracket there's plenty for the aspiring idiot to get a far too-tenuous hold on.

 

[Domh245]

with the wiper blades, coupler and emergency lamp bracket there's plenty for the aspiring idiot to get a far too-tenuous hold on.

Critically nothing to put your foot (hence weight) on

 

[colchesterken]

309s in original form (curved windows) had a connections but still looked very smart

 

[Wolfie]

The pre-refurb 458s were right up there in the ugly stakes. They looked rather like they had had a collision and had the front pushed in.

 

[py_megapixel]

The pre-refurb 458s were right up there in the ugly stakes. They looked rather like they had had a collision and had the front pushed in.

Yes, especially with the gangways retracted.

 

[Wolfie]

Yes, especially with the gangways retracted.

Exactly.

 

[LOL The Irony]

309s in original form (curved windows) had a connections but still looked very smart

They were also built before modern crash regulations and our current understanding of aerodynamics.

 

[AM9]

They were also built before modern crash regulations and our current understanding of aerodynamics.

Similarly, the 442 was a fair attempt to improve the look, (and the aerodynamics) of a through-corridored EMU, although on a clunky 750VDC powered train, any end-streamlining makes a negligible difference to the energy efficiency.

309s in original form (curved windows) had a connections but still looked very smart

The 309 ends were modified to take flat armoured glass because the standard was changed following some incidents where rocks etc were thrown at moving trains, - (it was the 303s I believe).

 

[Bletchleyite]

They were also built before modern crash regulations and our current understanding of aerodynamics.

True, but personally I think Desiros don't look bad (a non-gangway Desiro looks awful by comparison), and the new LNR Aventras look really smart.

 

[43096]

True, but personally I think Desiros don't look bad (a non-gangway Desiro looks awful by comparison)

It is somewhat bizarre, but the 350s and 450s do look rather better than the 360s. The 360s are something of an aberration, as Siemens is usually quite good at the styling (thinking of Taurus and Vectron locos in particular).

 

[scotraildriver]

That's pretty good compared to the abomination of a cab that is the class 385. Visibility is utterly appalling.

 

[Ash Bridge]

If you think the 377 is ugly I wonder if you've ever seen a 317 or a 455...

And especially so regarding the earlier variants of these units!

 

[Domh245]

It is somewhat bizarre, but the 350s and 450s do look rather better than the 360s. The 360s are something of an aberration, as Siemens is usually quite good at the styling (thinking of Taurus and Vectron locos in particular).

There's the (possibly) old wives tail about the 360s originally being intended to have gangways, but having these removed after construction had started. It's quite possible that had they been developed as fully gangwayless units from the start they'd have been a bit rounder, like the 185s which might have helped their looks. Come to think of it, a slightly more sympathetic paint scheme would have helped too

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's the (possibly) old wives tail about the 360s originally being intended to have gangways, but having these removed after construction had started. It's quite possible that had they been developed as fully gangwayless units from the start they'd have been a bit rounder, like the 185s which might have helped their looks. Come to think of it, a slightly more sympathetic paint scheme would have helped too

The 185 is basically the same shape. It's just the paint scheme that avoids it looking awful.

 

[bramling]

When I think of ugly train fronts the 377 does not spring to mind. I think it looks rather nice alongside some other recent units which look awful. The Class 730 has to be the ugliest train I’ve ever seen.

The Electrostar front probably represents the best ever front end which incorporates a gangway, at least in terms of appearance. The 350/450/444 front isn't bad either.

 

[northernbelle]

There's the (possibly) old wives tail about the 360s originally being intended to have gangways, but having these removed after construction had started. It's quite possible that had they been developed as fully gangwayless units from the start they'd have been a bit rounder, like the 185s which might have helped their looks. Come to think of it, a slightly more sympathetic paint scheme would have helped too

That's true I think. I remember seeing this image (not mine - Internet save!) of the 360s in build - they seem to have evidence of having initially had a gangway included, so your point about them being reverse engineered to non-gangwayed units probably rings true.

I seem to remember the 'barbie' liveried pre-production mock up of the 360s having a gangway too.

 

[Domh245]

The 185 is basically the same shape. It's just the paint scheme that avoids it looking awful.

Ah so they do - I guess that does show the importance of the paint scheme

 

[Energy]

That's true I think. I remember seeing this image (not mine - Internet save!) of the 360s in build - they seem to have evidence of having initially had a gangway included, so your point about them being reverse engineered to non-gangwayed units probably rings true.

I seem to remember the 'barbie' liveried pre-production mock up of the 360s having a gangway too.


View attachment 86901

These are the 360/2s for Heathrow Connect. They were made from 350s from an Angel speculative order so they definetly did originally have a gangway.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The 185 is basically the same shape. It's just the paint scheme that avoids it looking awful.

And the lights.

 

[Killingworth]

That's pretty good compared to the abomination of a cab that is the class 385. Visibility is utterly appalling.

The 385s must be top, certainly in top 3, for front end ugliness.

They also look awfully claustrophobic for driving. Nearly as bad as the old Tyneside electrics may have been. The port hole type windows were to protect drivers from glare, or stones!