Why were unit fronts designed this way?

[Islineclear3_1]

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

Yes I am aware of that; I travelled on them from introduction to service. Just an emergency exit door

 

[rebmcr]

To me, there is no better-looking gangwayed front end than the Class 158.

For non-gangwayed flat fronts I'd choose the Class 700, and among "pointies" it's a tossup between the Class 43 and Class 90.

 

[43096]

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

I was going to say.... There was zero effort made with the CEP front end: take a standard Mark 1 coach, cut holes for windows and just add pipes/jumpers. No styling whatsoever.

 

[O L Leigh]

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.

It depends on the class.

Cl317s don't feel too bad because you sit closer to the windscreen which gives you a wider angle view than is the case with newer units where the driver sits further back. Also there is a decent amount of glass so you still get a reasonable view around the cab. For example, these units kept the glazed flyscreen over the gangway door which the Sprinter classes ditched and there is glazing in the internal screens that form part of the gangway when worked in multiple. This allows the driver a degree of peripheral vision through the secondman's windscreen and the gangway door as well as through the opposite droplight.

Cl379s are much more restricted. As mentioned already, you sit further back from the windscreen which narrows the angle of vision, a situation made worse by the CCTV and TCMS screens crowding in at each side. There is no view through the gangway and no way to see around it, so the driver is restricted to straight ahead and directly to the side through the excellent droplight. As a sop to DOO working, they have a tiny porthole window in the cab side to aid the driver in seeing car stop boards, but in reality these tend to only come into view at the very last minute having been out of view in the enormous blindspot to the driver's left. Seeing these markers on right-hand platforms is virtually impossible.

I've yet to get a chance to see how things are in the newer generation of trains that have a single large windscreen and a central driving position, but I would imagine that these give a pretty decent view all around. The closest I've got is driving Voyagers, but as these are classed as HSTs they suffer from what I call the Blinkers Effect which restricts peripheral vision due to the large pillars and a seating position very far back from the screen. From the rumblings that I have heard concerning the Cl196s, it would seem that the driver's view is deteriorating as gangways get ever larger and bulkier. Certainly the windscreen on those units look incredibly narrow.

Yes you could say that the most important view is directly ahead, but regrettably the railway is not always straight. Any bends to the right can mean that signals, PWay staff and obstructions tend only to come into view at the very last minute; something that doesn't affect non-gangwayed units so much.

 

[hexagon789]

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"

It's not too bad, but the pillar is very noticeable and spoils the aesthetics

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.

I guess we'll have to disagree on that

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.

Technically the signals are mostly to the left rather than in front of the driver and some are above, and in some places on the right if clearances or sighting affects placement - so I'd argue a good all-round view is just as important on a train as in a car.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2020 ==

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.

Tbf, that was the first I'd seen the render of the new train so I hadn't had much time to formulate an opinion

 

[DustyBin]

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

The CEPs and BEPs were functional but smart enough looking. I think the CIGs and subsequent related stock were really nice looking trains, still functional above all else but the effort put into the fibreglass(?) cab ends really worked.

 

[20atthemagnet]

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.

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.

Tell that to GTR and NR, who just spent millions of pounds replacing signals on the Moorgate line because the starting signals were now completely invisible to drivers due the gangway on 717s. Generally ganwayed units and offside signals dont mix. If a TOC finds itself in that boat then they have a very expensive problem.

On my network signal sighting is a big deal. We have had alot of modifications to stop board locations, restrictions on certain type of movements, signal repeaters installed, all down to it which has cost a lot of money. This is why 90% of new units being built have the drivers position moved centrally and unless operationally required (in the case of 717s for detrainment in the moorgate tunnels) they dont have them unless someone insists. Gangways offer very little to passenger experience in this day an age. So trains either come as built in the required length (745/345/700/717/701 etc) or just make do with coupling without gangways (710/720/some 80X).

379s are good example of a gangwayed unit that was required to be for the refreshment trolley to traverse the length of a train, but with the trolley service axed and the the trains on outer suburban duties they invariably remain locked, and most wouldnt be bothered.

 

[geoffk]

The appearance of the Danish IC3 units with prominent rubber ring around the cab may not be to everyone's liking but they have the advantage of a full-width cab which can be folded away when two or more units are coupled together, providing a gangway connection between units. The rubber diaphragms at the ends form an aerodynamic seal. The best of both worlds really. Would this design be possible within the UK loading gauge?

 

[jopsuk]

how good a view do the IC3 and similar Belgian AM96 have? Whilst the window is central, it isn't huge, and it recessed quite far back- and the ab side windows are a long way back!

 

[geoffk]

Gangways offer very little to passenger experience in this day an age. So trains either come as built in the required length (745/345/700/717/701 etc) or just make do with coupling without gangways (710/720/some 80X).

But they do of course improve revenue protection, unless you duplicate the staff, likewise with refreshments (referring to coupled Voyagers and IETs).

 

[jopsuk]

So trains either come as built in the required length (745/345/700/717/701 etc) or just make do with coupling without gangways (710/720/some 80X).

West Midlands Railway are getting brand new 81 class 730 and 26 Class 196 all with end gangways, whilst TfW are getting 77 brand new class 197 also with gangways Clearly the end gangway isn't dead on new trains quite yet

 

[GLC]

Given that modern units typically have atleast one monitor for CCTV images or other TMS information, would regulations permit something like the digital wing mirrors that some new cars have, and show a picture of what the driver cannot see due to structural blind spots?

 

[Nym]

Technology is not the answer to poor human factors design.

 

[20atthemagnet]

West Midlands Railway are getting brand new 81 class 730 and 26 Class 196 all with end gangways, whilst TfW are getting 77 brand new class 197 also with gangways Clearly the end gangway isn't dead on new trains quite yet

But they do of course improve revenue protection, unless you duplicate the staff, likewise with refreshments (referring to coupled Voyagers and IETs).

As I said. Unless “operationally required”. Both your points tie into each other nicely. Those operators most likely decided gangways (most likely) for the points above was necessary. However, the intial point was about the customer experience. If a train doesnt need one, it wont have one anymore, whereas many trains before trains had them for the sake of standard design. Moving a driver centrally is also good for safety as usually you can move the driving position further from the front. Trains even rated for 75mph are starting to look very “intercity” as a result. The units I drive fall into this category. The fronts are pretty angled and you sit relatively far back compared to what they replaced, very little of it is for aerodynamic benefit. Before the units we drove pretty much had your face against the front window and to the left..

 

[edwin_m]

As I said. Unless “operationally required”. Both your points tie into each other nicely. Those operators most likely decided gangways (most likely) for the points above was necessary. However, the intial point was about the customer experience. If a train doesnt need one, it wont have one anymore, whereas many trains before trains had them for the sake of standard design. Moving a driver centrally is also good for safety as usually you can move the driving position further from the front. Trains even rated for 75mph are starting to look very “intercity” as a result. The units I drive fall into this category. The fronts are pretty angled and you sit relatively far back compared to what they replaced, very little of it is for aerodynamic benefit. Before the units we drove pretty much had your face against the front window and to the left..

A lot of that is due to recent changes to structural standards, which now require energy absorbing material in front of the driver. Wouldn't make a shred of difference in a train-to-train collision much above walking pace, but could be significant if for example striking a HGV at a level crossing. The extra protection provided by a projecting gangway hitting such an obstacle first probably isn't taken into account.

There was also the fatality at Tyseley last year where a driver about to couple two 172s couldn't see another driver who was walking between them.

 

[Snow1964]

Here is a short video of some of the early electric trains, seems to be on Kingston loop in 1915. Compare front end styles from 105 years ago (Still basically couple of windows). Also is the driver standing up to drive ?

 

[hexagon789]

Also is the driver standing up to drive ?

I think so, many still do.

Probably little more than a basic seat/perch and it might have been more comfortable to stand

 

[bengley]

It's probably worth mentioning that the 376 cab is basically just a 377/375 cab sans gangway.

 

[Fincra5]

As someone who drives 377s, I can't say I find them cramped at all. Infact, as a gangway unit they feel quite spacious in the cab and the window offers a fairly good view. Of course there's a blind spot on the right hand side but you get used to it.. A 171 doesn't have a gangway get the cab actually feels more cramped...

I've seen some newer gangway units and the view does look atrocious, 385s for example.

 

[Domh245]

I've seen some newer gangway units and the view does look atrocious, 385s for example.

I think that's more down to Hitachi screwing up than a fundamental restriction caused by modern requirements. The 717s are similar in that they seem to have a restricted view but the design hasn't really accommodated the gangway, they've just blocked out the central third of a gangwayless unit and called it a good day's work

The gangwayed CAF units look like they should have a good view with a reasonably large flat window (plus, any view where you can't see the front of those units is a good one ) Similarly, it'll be interesting to see how the view in the 730s is - they've got a reasonably flat, large window so should have a decent view too

 

[py_megapixel]

I think that's more down to Hitachi screwing up than a fundamental restriction caused by modern requirements. The 717s are similar in that they seem to have a restricted view but the design hasn't really accommodated the gangway, they've just blocked out the central third of a gangwayless unit and called it a good day's work

The 717s don't actually have gangways, just escape doors. This is an important distinction, as gangways need to protrude forward, while simple doors don't.

 

[Fincra5]

I think that's more down to Hitachi screwing up than a fundamental restriction caused by modern requirements. The 717s are similar in that they seem to have a restricted view but the design hasn't really accommodated the gangway, they've just blocked out the central third of a gangwayless unit and called it a good day's work

The gangwayed CAF units look like they should have a good view with a reasonably large flat window (plus, any view where you can't see the front of those units is a good one ) Similarly, it'll be interesting to see how the view in the 730s is - they've got a reasonably flat, large window so should have a decent view too

Yeah both the CAF units and the Gangway fitted aventra's appear to be quite good for view, considering, so hopefully they will be. I can imagine the Aventra stuff taking the best elements from the Electrostar.

 

[edwin_m]

The 717s don't actually have gangways, just escape doors. This is an important distinction, as gangways need to protrude forward, while simple doors don't.

I've just found this photo of the cab of a 717, which I choose to believe despite it being on the Daily Mail website: 10786318-6790547-image-a-4_1552167753471.jpg (634×424) (dailymail.co.uk). There's a large partition carrying various control panels, which must be hinged so it can be swung towards the driver's seat to allow access to the emergency door. Can someone say whether it is in swung away from the seat when the train is being driven, in which case it would make more room for the driver though not increase the field of view?

It seems very different from the arrangement in other unit types where there is a fixed partition between the driver's desk and the gangway area, and various means of closing off the gap between it and the back wall of the cab when the units are coupled so passengers can't access the controls (and there won't be a driver there). Even with this open to connect the driving area to the rest of the cab, that arrangement seems much more cramped.

 

[Domh245]

The 717s don't actually have gangways, just escape doors. This is an important distinction, as gangways need to protrude forward, while simple doors don't.

True, although I gather that the main sighting complaint (or at least the one that required moving signals) is the view downards and to the left - which isn't affected by the presence (or lack thereof) of a gangway. My post was more about the variation in approach to non-full width cabs by the manufacturers - Hitachi and Siemens largely seemed to retain other body shells with large pillars and curved fronts - Bombardier and CAF have flattened the fronts off and pushed the windows out as far to the edges as possible.

I've just found this photo of the cab of a 717, which I choose to believe despite it being on the Daily Mail website: 10786318-6790547-image-a-4_1552167753471.jpg (634×424) (dailymail.co.uk). There's a large partition carrying various control panels, which must be hinged so it can be swung towards the driver's seat to allow access to the emergency door. Can someone say whether it is in swung away from the seat when the train is being driven, in which case it would make more room for the driver though not increase the field of view?

It seems very different from the arrangement in other unit types where there is a fixed partition between the driver's desk and the gangway area, and various means of closing off the gap between it and the back wall of the cab when the units are coupled so passengers can't access the controls (and there won't be a driver there). Even with this open to connect the driving area to the rest of the cab, that arrangement seems much more cramped.

It is swung out whilst driving yes, believe electrostars have a similar arrangement where the whole side panel is hinged out, I think the last trains to have the rigid wall there were the first gen desiros as the 380 also has a swinging wall. I think the field of view in the photo doesn't help with the sensation of crampedness - this photo for example makes it seem positively roomy! The 378s did this very well - they have a similar amount of equipment on the middle side wall to the 717s which is usually swung out whilst the train is driven to maximise space for the driver, but rather than a complete wall, it's just enough plastic fascia to connect the screens and radios to maximise the sense of space - you can sort of see it in this photo as the evacuation steps are visible under the emergency plunger

 

[20atthemagnet]

Electrostars have the same hinged arrangement and as fincra5 says they look like they ought to be pretty terrible but never felt cramped at all because The offside panel containing the DOO monitors and radio swang away from you quite far.

My biggest two issues with them were when you were training on them it feels like the instructor is in his/her own world on the other side looking through his/her porthole. The newer units with the centralised positions have a much better overview of everything that person under instruction is doing.

The other thing was getting the train to go from gangwayed to single and vice versa. It was a maze of panels that would only latch in a particular way and spring-loaded doors ready to take your finger off if you wasn’t paying attention

 

[Fincra5]

Electrostars have the same hinged arrangement and as fincra5 says they look like they ought to be pretty terrible but never felt cramped at all because The offside panel containing the DOO monitors and radio swang away from you quite far.

My biggest two issues with them were when you were training on them it feels like the instructor is in his/her own world on the other side looking through his/her porthole. The newer units with the centralised positions have a much better overview of everything that person under instruction is doing.

The other thing was getting the train to go from gangwayed to single and vice versa. It was a maze of panels that would only latch in a particular way and spring-loaded doors ready to take your finger off if you wasn’t paying attention

700s have a lovely bank of monitors in the view from the 2nd-Mans Seat though!

 

[edwin_m]

I guess that swinging wall is the closest we'll get to the DSB units mentioned upthread where the entire cab front swings back to create a wide gangway.

 

[colchesterken]

The best part about the first generation of gangway stock 309/42xx on southern, was that you could stand by the cab and see the speedo
I used the 309s in later years when they were neglected and never saw one get to 100 up to Colchester
In the early days you could see the speedo on the Watford trains but they now have fixed some sort of box that ruins the view, could it be new communication gear

 

[hexagon789]

The best part about the first generation of gangway stock 309/42xx on southern, was that you could stand by the cab and see the speedo
I used the 309s in later years when they were neglected and never saw one get to 100 up to Colchester
In the early days you could see the speedo on the Watford trains but they now have fixed some sort of box that ruins the view, could it be new communication gear

While designed for 100mph, a normal four car set wouldn't quite balance to that speed on level tangent track with nominal diameter wheels. On new wheels it was quite possible to get to well over 100mph though, I think 109 might be the highest recorded. The SR classes are similar, the nominal balancing speed is 88mph despite their 90mph top speed, though the "Greyhounds" and 4-REPs are a different matter; for 3-car Thumpers the balancing speed is ~72mph.

Also, worth noting that in spite of being specified with a 100mph design speed, the GEML was 90 max until 1970.

 

[AM9]

While designed for 100mph, a normal four car set wouldn't quite balance to that speed on level tangent track with nominal diameter wheels. On new wheels it was quite possible to get to well over 100mph though, I think 109 might be the highest recorded. The SR classes are similar, the nominal balancing speed is 88mph despite their 90mph top speed, though the "Greyhounds" and 4-REPs are a different matter; for 3-car Thumpers the balancing speed is ~72mph.

Also, worth noting that in spite of being specified with a 100mph design speed, the GEML was 90 max until 1970.

The 109mph record was achieved during a test run with a streamlined front end fitted. The test was part of a series run on a stretch of the WCML between Tring and Cheddington as a precursor to 110mph running on some inter-city services. There were also some tests with a rake of LHCS hauled by a similarly streamlined class 86, (someone has recently posted a picture of this modified front end). There was even a run with the '86 hauling the '309 unit which (obviously went faster than the 109mph record).
Most of my experience of them was between 1970 and 1975. 100mph was regularly indicated on Saturdays on down trains between Chelmsford and Colchester, and occasionally even on the run down through Ingatestone, (which was necessary to make their 8 1/4 minute start to stop timing between Shenfield and Chelmsford possible). In the weekday evening peak the first stop Colchester Clactons trains would sometimes get queued behind the preceding Norwich ICs (class 47+ 11 MKI/IIs) once the 309 was released from the sequence of Southend Victoria services at Shenfield.
All quite tame by modern higher-powered EMU standards, but certainly the best short mainline run that I experienced until the Electrostars arrived to bolster Thameslink services in the naughties. They were much more lively than any of the SR units on the Portsmouth direct or SWML, which I regularly used. Apologies for the off-topic detail here but it may be of interest to some here.