However, I don't see how the rail traveler benefits from a train that allegedly looks good, let alone apparently makes a "visual statement". Who is that visual statement aimed at? That "visual statement" will not attract new customers to the railways so I really don't understand why people choose to focus on it. How do you as an individual benefit from a train that you perceive to look good If the class 180 didn't look good or made what you describe as a visual (I assume positive) statement would you avoid it and wait for the next train?
Good looking trains will attract new customers for two reasons :-
1) Marketing - new, attractive trains help with promoting a modern, reliable, easy-to-use rail infrastructure. If the appearance of the trains didn't matter, no TOC would bother removing graffiti.
2) Percieved safety - people don't like using things that don't fit their preconceptions of what is safe (and reliable). Yes, there's no reason you couldn't have trains running around with huge boxes, grilles and random missing panels - where it doesn't affect the operation of the vehicle - but people won't want to use something that looks like the only attention it's had in the last 10 years is from a dodgy scrap man.
The public constantly complain about the ancient trains we have up north. They're not complaining about the actual age of those trains (they don't know how old they are) - they're complaining that they look old, decrepid and unreliable. Nobody is going to use a 142 as their base for a new design of vehicle, not because it's not suitable for use, but because the travelling public associates that look with horrible journeys. So yes, the look of a train can affect how many people want to use them.
[Oh, and yes, up here where we have a choice between many different trains for the same journey - e.g. 142/158/185/220 between Sheffield and Doncaster - many people do chose not to travel on the 142's simply by sight]