Why were unit fronts designed this way?

[DustyBin]

And the lights.

Yes the lights are what really affect the look of the 185 and 360 front ends. They make a huge difference!

 

[alexl92]

I actually think the 377s are pretty good looking for a gangwayed unit. In my mind, if privatisation hadn't happened and BR had continued to develop sprinters, I think the 377 is probably the closest (in terms of looks) to what they'd have developed for a 3rd Gen DMU.

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

How has that been permitted? Surely such a tiny field of vision isn't safe?!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes the lights are what really affect the look of the 185 and 360 front ends. They make a huge difference!

They do, but so does the paint - the Heathrow Connect units looked much nicer than the Greater Anglia ones, simply because they made some effort with the paint, e.g. cutting out the bottom corners and rounding the windscreen. The same applies to 230s - it's a very square shape, but you can use paint to make it look less like a Space Invaders ghost.

 

[Turtle]

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

I rather like the 455, the Southern version that is. It retains a perfect mix of inherited slam door and PEP characteristics. As to the 377s, they would look better if the yellow frontage was limited to one half of the doors.

 

[DustyBin]

They do, but so does the paint - the Heathrow Connect units looked much nicer than the Greater Anglia ones, simply because they made some effort with the paint, e.g. cutting out the bottom corners and rounding the windscreen. The same applies to 230s - it's a very square shape, but you can use paint to make it look less like a Space Invaders ghost.

Yes agreed re the Heathrow units, the black under the windscreen does change the look for the better.

 

[Domh245]

I rather like the 455, the Southern version that is. It retains a perfect mix of inherited slam door and PEP characteristics. As to the 377s, they would look better if the yellow frontage was limited to one half of the doors.

The southern 455s managed to retain and even enhance their 'cyclops' look from pre-refurbishment IMO, whether that is a good thing or not is a matter of personal preference but I far prefer the 'normal' looking South Western versions.

As for the 377s - I'm not so sure they would, at least not if that were the only change. You'd also have to do something with the patch of yellow above the cab windows too if you changed the door to bring it all together. It may just be that I'm so used to 377s with the full yellow but that's the way that it looks best to my eye


(original)

 

[nlogax]

For many years I'd read the first iteration of 455 / 317 front-end designs were done 'by committee'. Pretty they ain't - but I do prefer the utilitarian look!

 

[Bletchleyite]

For many years I'd read the first iteration of 455 / 317 front-end designs were done 'by committee'. Pretty they ain't - but I do prefer the utilitarian look!

The advantage of that look is that it won't date because it's purely functional rather than tied to a particular era of design, so 455s don't look dated, whereas 319s and 321s really, really do.

 

[221101 Voyager]

The southern 455s managed to retain and even enhance their 'cyclops' look from pre-refurbishment IMO, whether that is a good thing or not is a matter of personal preference but I far prefer the 'normal' looking South Western versions.

As for the 377s - I'm not so sure they would, at least not if that were the only change. You'd also have to do something with the patch of yellow above the cab windows too if you changed the door to bring it all together. It may just be that I'm so used to 377s with the full yellow but that's the way that it looks best to my eye

View attachment 86914
(original)

The 1st one gets my vote.

 

[HSTEd]

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.

Because front gangways provide operational advantages and improve the passenger experience.

Giving the drivers a slightly less claustrophobic driving position is pretty low on the priority list.

 

[edwin_m]

The advantage of that look is that it won't date because it's purely functional rather than tied to a particular era of design, so 455s don't look dated, whereas 319s and 321s really, really do.

I think the 30-year-old 158 front end still looks reasonable, depending on how it is painted. And the Electrostar design is now around 25 years old but seems to me to have survived the test of time quite well.

 

[bramling]

The southern 455s managed to retain and even enhance their 'cyclops' look from pre-refurbishment IMO, whether that is a good thing or not is a matter of personal preference but I far prefer the 'normal' looking South Western versions.

As for the 377s - I'm not so sure they would, at least not if that were the only change. You'd also have to do something with the patch of yellow above the cab windows too if you changed the door to bring it all together. It may just be that I'm so used to 377s with the full yellow but that's the way that it looks best to my eye

View attachment 86914
(original)

Food for thought, but I have to say I think I prefer them as they are.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Dec 2020 ==

The advantage of that look is that it won't date because it's purely functional rather than tied to a particular era of design, so 455s don't look dated, whereas 319s and 321s really, really do.

319s I always thought looked absolutely awful from day one. 321s less so. They have both dated awfully.

The Networker/Turbo front looks okay except for the way nearly all of them seem to have gained features like anti-surfing or cab air conditioning, as well as having been painted in schemes which seem to have attempted to mask the original design in various days. They were quite smart in original condition.

 

[hexagon789]

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

309s as built and in original lined maroon looked amazing, as much as I generally like blue/grey on most things somehow it didn't really work on the Clacton.

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.

Personally I think the 309s were the best ever gangwayed front end, with the 442s in close second and Electrostars in a slightly distant third.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally I think the 309s were the best ever gangwayed front end, with the 442s in close second and Electrostars in a slightly distant third.

I think the LNR liveried 730 beats it to be honest. Though it looked better before they changed the gangway end to yellow, as all that does is emphasizes the ugliest bit of a train.

 

[hexagon789]

I think the LNR liveried 730 beats it to be honest. Though it looked better before they changed the gangway end to yellow, as all that does is emphasizes the ugliest bit of a train.

I tell you what - I'll be kind and slot it in 3rd place and bump Electrostars down to 4th. How's that?

I will admit that it's a much better design that some of the right munters we've had among gangwayed units of late.

 

[Sod]

I would support the purposeful 309s as a real looker, especially with the original curved glazing for the front windows and in lined maroon; perhaps the similar glazing is why the 442s are equally pleasing? For a flat-fronted unit, the 158s / 159s look as if someone has actually bothered to think about design, particularly as the lighting was carefully concealed behind the windows. I fear that, in many cases nowadays, some funky-looking headlights (= expensive to replace?) are used to create a 'modern' design. Why do the people responsible for the front ends of current multiple units and locomotives (I am avoiding using the word 'designer') feel that they have to reference the design cues on modern cars? Does a train not make a sufficiently strong design statement of its own right? As in everything pertaining to design, 'less is more'.

 

[hexagon789]

I would support the purposeful 309s as a real looker, especially with the original curved glazing for the front windows and in lined maroon; perhaps the similar glazing is why the 442s are equally pleasing?

I would agree with that reasoning, the only criticism is the window pillar present in the 442s though you can understand why it has them of course but it does detract from the design a little

 

[Bletchleyite]

I tell you what - I'll be kind and slot it in 3rd place and bump Electrostars down to 4th. How's that?

Yeah that's fair The Electrostar isn't bad looking (and is better looking than the Turbostar or non-gangwayed Electrostar front which looks a bit "toytown" to me) but is looking very slightly dated now. I'm with you on the 309 and Wessie.

 

[Wolfie]

Because front gangways provide operational advantages and improve the passenger experience.

Giving the drivers a slightly less claustrophobic driving position is pretty low on the priority list.

Claustrophobic l agree. Impacting driver's sightlines and visibility though...

 

[ashkeba]

How has that been permitted? Surely such a tiny field of vision isn't safe?!

The photographer appears to be standing behind the driving position. I'm sure the 385 windscreens have been discussed on here before.

 

[Nym]

I would agree with that reasoning, the only criticism is the window pillar present in the 442s though you can understand why it has them of course but it does detract from the design a little

The designers really wanted the expensive wrap around window. But the engineers needed the structure. It's a compromise... Looks worse than just having two windows, but it's what happens when people start caring too much about single focuses on aesthetics, rather than "Make it a decent unit"

 

[bramling]

The designers really wanted the expensive wrap around window. But the engineers needed the structure. It's a compromise... Looks worse than just having two windows, but it's what happens when people start caring too much about single focuses on aesthetics, rather than "Make it a decent unit"

If the designers ever thought they were designing an attractive front for the 442s then they were on a loser. IMO the 442 front is pretty ugly, and can be added to the list of fronts which have dated appallingly badly.

Perhaps the only benefit is it may have enhanced the driver’s view slightly.

 

[DustyBin]

The advantage of that look is that it won't date because it's purely functional rather than tied to a particular era of design, so 455s don't look dated, whereas 319s and 321s really, really do.

I agree about 317s and 455s, there’s a timeless utilitarianism about both versions of their cab fronts. The same as 150s and 156s, although the latter is better looking in my opinion. I’d place the 319 in the same category, there’s so little styling attempt it hasn’t really aged IMO. The 321s are definitely styled and very late 80s but have aged well I think. They remind me of my Ford Granada (Cosworth engined variant!) which whilst obviously dated remains rather sleek and purposeful looking.

I always thought the 158s and 159s were really nice looking units, unfortunately they’ve been ruined by the addition of too much yellow around the lights or, even worse, the Scotrail treatment which is awful!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Claustrophobic l agree. Impacting driver's sightlines and visibility though...

Does it in practice, though? When driving a car you need all round vision, including sideways and behind you. When driving a train you need to be able to see the signals, which are positioned in front of you.

 

[Nym]

If the designers ever thought they were designing an attractive front for the 442s then they were on a loser. IMO the 442 front is pretty ugly, and can be added to the list of fronts which have dated appallingly badly.

Perhaps the only benefit is it may have enhanced the driver’s view slightly.

It actually doesn't, because of the massive structural member that needs to run through the cab to make up for it not being part of the vehicle structure in that location it's worse than in other units with more squared off front ends and multiple (much cheaper) windows.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Personally, for aesthetic design with respect to the cab ends the 309 wins whilst the 385 is bottom. The 4 Ceps weren't that bad either and made good use of existing designs at the time

 

[Mikey C]

I personally think the 319 front still looks smart. Like the 378s, to me the emergency door gives it more character than on the related stock without such a door (321s and 376s)

It's interesting that under NSE, other than the "inter city" 442s (and "inherited" 159s) none of its new trains had end gangways, whether Mk3 based (319, 321), Networkers or Turbos

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Personally, I liked the front end of the 319's and the compromise with the end gangways. Made a nice clean break from the "protrusion" of end gangways of earlier stock

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally, I liked the front end of the 319's and the compromise with the end gangways. Made a nice clean break from the "protrusion" of end gangways of earlier stock

It's not a gangway as such, just an exit door for the Thameslink tunnels. A bit like 507s and 508s have.

 

[Domh245]

The 4 Ceps weren't that bad either and made good use of existing designs at the time

The CEPs (and similar early units) are definitely not the prettiest to my eye - the later VEPs and CIGs with the rounded edges, recessed panels for the jumpers and brake pipes, and less visually imposing gangway are far better looking IMO

Personally, I liked the front end of the 319's and the compromise with the end gangways. Made a nice clean break from the "protrusion" of end gangways of earlier stock

The 319s also offer a good example of the importance of the yellow panel in the shape of the train. Still quite baffled about Orion's choice with that