Why do different regions favour walkthrough cabs/gangway connections?

[david_VI]

One of those thoughts while at work..

Where I live (in my lifetime) has always had traction without a gangway connection at each end, (Ignoring the 156/153,315,317s,309, okay maybe I didn't think about this?), The 321, 360, 312 etc.

However the Southern region seems to favour gangway connections more so than East Anglia with their Desiros having a door at the front.

I was just wondering if there was anything to this? History maybe? What is the reason for still making stock with a connection if it limits vision and other regions are having versions without?


David

 

[TheGrew]

I suspect it will be simply because there is more multiple unit working with trains being split between peaks.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Could platform lengths have anything to do with it? If the front five coaches are rammed, someone could sit in the sixth and then goto the rear door of the fifth when the train approaches their stop

 

[edwin_m]

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any inner-suburban MUs that had gangways between units (for service use rather than emergency end doors) from the earliest electrifications up until the advent of the 455s around 1980. And not very many afterwards either!

 

[Strathclyder]

The Class 318s (built 1986-1987) originally had corridor connections, for their use on the Ayrshire Coast Line. They were removed during their 2005-2007 refurbishment.

 

[jopsuk]

One of the weird bit is that whilst the Great Eastern favours units without corridor connections, the "West Anglia" (at least, beyond the inner suburban) has gone for EMUs with them (317 & 379)

 

[edwin_m]

The Class 318s (built 1986-1987) originally had corridor connections, for their use on the Ayrshire Coast Line. They were removed during their 2005-2007 refurbishment.

True, but they're not really inner-suburban units, or at least weren't built as such.

 

[badassunicorn]

317's don't use it in service on the WA anymore, and 379's either have corridor connection so the catering trolley can get through or because of the tunnel at Stansted Airport. Stock looks much better without connections, not to mention increased driver visibility!

One of the weird bit is that whilst the Great Eastern favours units without corridor connections, the "West Anglia" (at least, beyond the inner suburban) has gone for EMUs with them (317 & 379)

 

[3141]

Looking at this historically, no LNER/Eastern Region EMUs had gangways within or between units, apart from class 309 which obviously were intended to appear as express units and certainly weren’t suburban,

When newer BR units arrived – class 315 in the early 1980s and class 321 later in the decade – they continued the tradition of not having gangways between units.

On the SR/Southern Region, the only pre-war EMUs with inter-unit gangways were the 4CORs and related units on the Portsmouth line. After the war, gangways between units appeared on the 4CEPs for the Kent Coast electrification in the later 1950s, and then on 4CIGs and related units in the 1960s. Suburban units such as 4SUB and 4EPB didn’t have any gangways.

Class 455 had internal gangways but the end doors weren’t for regular passenger use.

I suppose the most likely reason why modern EMUs like classes 375, 377 and 450 have inter-unit gangways is that they replaced medium and longer-distance slam door stock which already had them.

Class 377/6 don’t altogether fit the pattern (insofar as there is one) because they work many inner suburban services. But being equipped with end gangways they can more readily be used on any other service on which Electrostars might appear.

That leaves class 379s as an exception on the former Eastern Region. Perhaps National Express East Anglia, who ordered them, realised the advantages of having inter-unit connections.

Where does all that leave us? Probably all that can be said is that there is no clear answer to the OP’s question.

Finally, a related issue is why class 317s on Bedford – St. Pancras services, which had inter-unit connections, were replaced after only a few years by 319s which don’t. Whatever the answer, it probably confirms that there is no consistent reason why some units have end gangways and others do not.

 

[jopsuk]

the 319s are an oddity- quite a bit of the disadvantages of a corridor design (potential for leaks/drafts, compromised driving position, yet none of the advantages!

The 379s were introduced to replace and supplement 317s

 

[edwin_m]

the 319s are an oddity- quite a bit of the disadvantages of a corridor design (potential for leaks/drafts, compromised driving position, yet none of the advantages!

The 379s were introduced to replace and supplement 317s

319s had to have end doors because some of their operating routes were in tunnels too narrow to allow emergency evacuation via the side doors. I think this was on the Farringdon-Moorgate section because the 700s don't have gangways.

Network Southeast seems to have standardised on no unit end gangways. Of the units they specified only the 442 had them, but this was the "Ford Scorpio" top of the range unit rather like the 309 in an earlier era.

 

[jopsuk]

The never built class 471 would have end gangways

 

[edwin_m]

The never built class 471 would have end gangways

Thanks for that link, from which I see that the 471 would have been the Kent Coast replacement stock. This suggests that NSE would have specified gangwayed units for their longest distance services, but apart from the 442 never got the chance (remembering that long-distance workings in the NSE area beyond the third rail network were either NSE loco-hauled or provided by Intercity).

 

[Philip C]

Thanks for that link, from which I see that the 471 would have been the Kent Coast replacement stock. This suggests that NSE would have specified gangwayed units for their longest distance services, but apart from the 442 never got the chance (remembering that long-distance workings in the NSE area beyond the third rail network were either NSE loco-hauled or provided by Intercity).

I understood that the single bore of tunnels between Folkestone and Dover was a major factor in the provision of gangway connections in the Electrostar family of trains. When the Javelins came to be built some acceptable alternative method of emergency detrainment was devised.

 

[edwin_m]

I understood that the single bore of tunnels between Folkestone and Dover was a major factor in the provision of gangway connections in the Electrostar family of trains. When the Javelins came to be built some acceptable alternative method of emergency detrainment was devised.

Yes that was certainly the case and may explain the gangways proposed on the 471. As the 357 Electrostars were supplied without gangways this must have been an option available from Adtranz/Bombardier but all their other customers for outer-suburban units have opted for gangways despite not having similar tunnel constraints. Certainly very useful to be able to walk through a long train, particularly on Southern's various splitters.

 

[satisnek]

From what I can remember reading in Modern Railways back in the 1980s it's all to do with aesthetics. After the front end (non) design of the 455s, 317s etc received heavy criticism - most notably from Alan Williams - the BR Design Panel recruited a lady called Jane Priestman (who refused to have her photo taken!) to address this issue. Apparently she was of the opinion that you can't have an attractive front end with gangways, hence Classes 319, 321 etc. It seems that the pendulum has swung the other way since then.

 

[O L Leigh]

Methods of DOO operation have something to do with it too. I'm given to understand that the location of DOO monitors and mirrors relative to unit stopping points on the Great Eastern precludes the use of units with gangways such as Cl317s because of the sightlines. However, they are suitable for the West Anglia routes because the monitors are set up differently. Therefore the Cl321s that were introduced first onto West Anglia were quickly moved over to Great Eastern routes where they've stayed ever since.

I wasn't aware that GA had stopped making up the gangways on Cl317s working in multiple. To me that seems a very retrograde step.

O L Leigh

 

[NSEFAN]

Don't gangway connections pose problems for new units trying to meet crash-worthiness regulations?

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, as there are plenty of new units on the way with gangways.

 

[hurricanemk1c]

In Ireland, the Class 27/2800 were built with gangways and then removed. The Class 2600 (on Cork Commuter diagrams) still have their gangways

 

[bigdelboy]

Probably one of the biggest contrasts is how SWT have southern have treated their 455's.

Southern have plated over their 455 front gangways (very ugly). .... SWT have retained them. While the SWT guard/manager can reach any section of his unit with going outside ... the southern guard cannot.

Where there is a gangway present it allows for some flexibilities:
- Better for train manager to access his train.
- Better if there are catering facilities present.
- Sometimes a train may be boarded at a sub-optimal place for various reasons ranging from late passenger arranging, location of platform entrance/shelter ... or just plain randonness.
-- Some opportunities for passengers to re-distribute on a crowded train.
-- Some opportunities for passengers to move to a better location to for exit at their destination.
-- Some opportunities for passengers to move to correct portion of a train if it is being split.
- Possibly better opportunities for passenger to locate working toilets.
- More options to exit the train in an emergency

When a gangways is present:
- Reduce driver visibility
- Make driver ergonomics more difficult to achieve satisfactorily.
- It may increase possibility of draughts.
- Require more maintenance
- Possibly be harder to achieve safe level of crashworthiness for the driver.

Of course any driving cab in the middle of a train is inefficient in terms of reducing passenger space (but getting rid of it might lead to other operational issues or flexibility).

Voyagers are perhaps interesting as they leading to catering compomises ( I quite frankly don't know how they organise it or not on a train comprised f two units). Classes where there have been end gangway changes or issues include 455/458/460/126/150

The recently acquired non end gangwayed class 456 recently acquired by SWT cannot randomly be added to the end of 8 car trains due to possible short platform reasons (among other reasons).

Many of these points have been raised above.

 

[3141]

Probably one of the biggest contrasts is how SWT have southern have treated their 455's.

Southern have plated over their 455 front gangways (very ugly)....
When a gangways is present:
- It may increase possibility of draughts.

I think I've read somewhere that Southern installed air conditioning in the cabs of their 455s and that's why they sealed the end door. Would absolutely fit with what you've said.

 

[hassaanhc]

Probably one of the biggest contrasts is how SWT have southern have treated their 455's.

Southern have plated over their 455 front gangways (very ugly). .... SWT have retained them. While the SWT guard/manager can reach any section of his unit with going outside ... the southern guard cannot.

Where there is a gangway present it allows for some flexibilities:
- Better for train manager to access his train.
- Better if there are catering facilities present.
- Sometimes a train may be boarded at a sub-optimal place for various reasons ranging from late passenger arranging, location of platform entrance/shelter ... or just plain randonness.
-- Some opportunities for passengers to re-distribute on a crowded train.
-- Some opportunities for passengers to move to a better location to for exit at their destination.
-- Some opportunities for passengers to move to correct portion of a train if it is being split.
- Possibly better opportunities for passenger to locate working toilets.
- More options to exit the train in an emergency

When a gangways is present:
- Reduce driver visibility
- Make driver ergonomics more difficult to achieve satisfactorily.
- It may increase possibility of draughts.
- Require more maintenance
- Possibly be harder to achieve safe level of crashworthiness for the driver.

Of course any driving cab in the middle of a train is inefficient in terms of reducing passenger space (but getting rid of it might lead to other operational issues or flexibility).

Voyagers are perhaps interesting as they leading to catering compomises ( I quite frankly don't know how they organise it or not on a train comprised f two units). Classes where there have been end gangway changes or issues include 455/458/460/126/150

The recently acquired non end gangwayed class 456 recently acquired by SWT cannot randomly be added to the end of 8 car trains due to possible short platform reasons (among other reasons).

Many of these points have been raised above.

On the SWT 455s, the gangway is not available for passenger use. And as they have no SDO whatsoever, if the platform is not long enough then doors cannot be released. Therefore it shouldn't make a difference where the 456 turns up.
That is why 10 cars of those will not be used to Reading, Windsor, Weybridge via Staines and Hounslow Circulars (short stations are Syon Lane, Isleworth, Hounslow, Feltham, Wraysbury, Sunnymeads, Datchet, Egham, Virginia Water, Chertsey, Addlestone, and anything towards Reading from Virginia Water.

 

[Goldfish62]

Probably one of the biggest contrasts is how SWT have southern have treated their 455's.

Southern have plated over their 455 front gangways (very ugly). .... SWT have retained them. While the SWT guard/manager can reach any section of his unit with going outside ... the southern guard cannot.

Classes where there have been end gangway changes or issues include 455/458/460/126/150

Southern 455s are DOO only, AFAIK.

The Class 458 gangways have an interesting history. From what I've been told they were telescopic to improve driver visibility as the trains were meant to be DOO. When delivered it was found that the operation was so complex that it was not feasible for them to be regular deployed and stowed, and they weren't suitable for regular passenger use. Thus, they remained closed off for the first few years. Due to Reading line trains not splitting during the day, they were then regularly deployed from about 2007 onwards, but only for crew use (not even RPIs could use them). I did once use the gangways when due to an emergency evacuation from a stranded train near Longcross we were transferred across to another train (another good reason to have end gangways).

With the 458/5 rebuild conventional gangways are being fitted, with the saloon-cab door being released to allow passengers to walk through in normal service.

I have a particular gripe with Scotrail keeping the end gangway doors locked to passengers on their 156s. On a long trip to Oban / Fort William this means passengers effectively only have access to one toilet, which may be engaged/out of use.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Last time I went on the West Highland the gangways were open to passengers.

 

[Strathclyder]

I have a particular gripe with Scotrail keeping the end gangway doors locked to passengers on their 156s. On a long trip to Oban / Fort William this means passengers effectively only have access to one toilet, which may be engaged/out of use.

The last time I used a pair of 156s on the W.H.L, the gangway was open.

 

[Goldfish62]

The last time I used a pair of 156s on the W.H.L, the gangway was open.

Oh - perhaps it's changed. It was about three years when I travelled.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Voyagers are perhaps interesting as they leading to catering compomises ( I quite frankly don't know how they organise it or not on a train comprised f two units).

I think they normally staff both shops. Though I think it isn't unknown for the full First Class service to be provided only in the half nearest the barriers at Euston.

Neil

 

[acmw421]

I think they normally staff both shops. Though I think it isn't unknown for the full First Class service to be provided only in the half nearest the barriers at Euston.

Neil

The irony (if it can be so called) is that I seem to remember this was precisely one of the reasons the SR introduced end corridor connections in the first place: the original Brighton and Eastbourne mainline electric stock (the 6Puls and 6Pans) did not have end gangways, but I believe the SR thought it was not cost-effective to have to provide catering facilities in both parts of the train. The provision of gangways on the Portsmouth electric stock (4Cor/4Res/4Buf) meant that only one catering facility was necessary in a 12 coach formation.

 

[Clip]

They have them in the SE so that when you approach faversham you can run through when you realise you're sat in the wrong bloody portion