In your opinion, what are the ugliest units/locos/liveries on the network? Interior or exterior.

[py_megapixel]

One of mine has to be the class 701, which looks squished at the front, in a way. SWR's bland, unimaginative livery doesn't help in the slightest. Of course, I'm yet to see inside one yet; that might redeem them.
Even the 455/8s - which have to be the ugliest units currently in the South Western fleet (and even more so in Southern form with the gangways removed) - have a nicer appearance to them than the 701 does.

Interior wise, class 165, no contest. I'm really glad that the days of FirstGroup colours on everything they could lay their hands on are gone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Class 230s are quirky, but not pretty inside or out.

360s are pig ugly at the front as they didn't paint a curve onto the cab like the 185 does for a near identically shaped cab.

 

[HST43257]

360s are pig ugly at the front as they didn't paint a curve onto the cab like the 185 does for a near identically shaped cab.

360s look like messed up tube stock - a horrible exterior. Their interiors are incredibly bland as well, as are the TPE Standard Mk5 ones on the inside.

 

[Aictos]

Worse interiors I think are the Southern Class 377s that have 3+2 seating with the bays of 6 seating facing each other, don't know if that was Connex or Govia but I detest using those sets.

As to the Class 230s, I think they have quite smart interiors compared to what they could have had done and yes I've used them a number of times. I wouldn't call them ugly tho as there's trains more worthy of that title.

 

[raetiamann]

I'd suggest the 385s are the ugliest, but they are good to travel on and have terrific acceleration.

 

[Domh245]

Even the 455/8s - which have to be the ugliest units currently in the South Western fleet (and even more so in Southern form with the gangways removed) - have a nicer appearance to them than the 701 does.

The 455/8s whilst not pretty aren't ugly. The 458s on the other hand have a very half-finished look to them and suffer as a result. There's potential for them to have looked alright but I think for now they take the crown as ugliest unit at SWR

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Loco wise the Class 70 for me

 

[fgwrich]

I would say on the EMU front it has to be a contest between the Southern Electrostar and the Alstom Juniper. The Electrostar has always looked pig ugly to me, be it in the form of the original style light clusters, it's over bulbous front end (the sharpness of the Desiro's look so much smarter), the corridor connection make's it look like a snout. The interiors - I really don't understand what it is about the Star family, have always felt unnecessarily claustrophobic and dated, coupled with Bombardier's infamous quality - be it easily stainable panels or broken door buttons. Add annoying little features like the doors rattling every time something fast passes them. I've never really liked them from the start - only the GW ones have an interior that makes them slightly redeemable with brighter lighting.

The Juniper fleet's have always had an air of questionability about them. The sort of "finished on a Friday" feeling. The redeeming fleet were the much sleeker to look at, and better finished internally 460s.

On the DMU front, the 165 / 166 Fleet. To me, always the runt of the Networker family, not helped by their lack of care and attention at both Reading and Bristol. At least the Chiltern unit's are better cared for.

 

[RailWonderer]

Ugliest exterior: Class 196, makes the 701 look pleasant in comparison.
Ugliest inteior: Wessex trains class 150. Leopard spots and pink, and anything in First pink. Someone please get me a sick bucket.
The 360s were originally meant to have a gangway but health and safety in the last minute ordered it be removed due to DOO sighting issues. The 360/2s and the 185s were built from the ground up to be without a gangway, and the latter carries a guard on board at all times.

 

[py_megapixel]

The 455/8s whilst not pretty aren't ugly. The 458s on the other hand have a very half-finished look to them and suffer as a result. There's potential for them to have looked alright but I think for now they take the crown as ugliest unit at SWR

I completely disagree. In fact, if anything looks half-finished it's the 455/7s where one of the carriages quite literally was taken from a different train!

Ugliest exterior: Class 196, makes the 701 look pleasant in comparison.

I agree that the 196 is a bit unpleasant (why couldn't they just have put the gangway on a flat front, like Desiros and Sprinters?) but I don't believe the 701s are any better. At least WM Trains haven't chosen branding that makes them look like the most boring company in existence...

 

[Domh245]

I completely disagree. In fact, if anything looks half-finished it's the 455/7s where one of the carriages quite literally was taken from a different train!

Also a feature of most of the 458s of course, stands out plenty on the lower numbered units! It's the complete lack of lower fairing that really makes the 458s look half done, although this stands out less now that they're no longer bright primer grey. The lights and protruding edges on the cab fronts don't help their looks either

 

[hst43102]

For me the ugliest locos are 70's and 66's. I really wish the 66 had a better exterior design like the 67.
Units - 317/5, 333, 360, 385 and 458.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the DMU front, the 165 / 166 Fleet. To me, always the runt of the Networker family, not helped by their lack of care and attention at both Reading and Bristol. At least the Chiltern unit's are better cared for.

Vastly prefer the FGW interior myself. The Chiltern red and blue is brash, harsh and unpleasant, and while lino is more practical than carpet they could have chosen something that didn't look like the marking out of a sports pitch.

It was almost like they deliberately sought out to make it look naff compared with the nice, restful "Mainline" interior.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Their interiors are incredibly bland as well, as are the TPE Standard Mk5 ones on the inside.

If you think that’s bland, you should see the TPE Standard 802s which have white panels instead of warm fake wood and no leather headrests, just the bland blue moquette on its own.

 

[TXMISTA]

Not a fan of the CAF 195s and 331s. I think they are horribly bland inside and out. I think the gangway Civity variants such as the 196 look considerably better.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Locos: the Class 67 looks like the designer went "that'll do" once he'd done it. Doesn't have the utilitarian look of the 66 or the aggressive, powerful look of the 68, just looks unfinished.

 

[fgwrich]

Vastly prefer the FGW interior myself. The Chiltern red and blue is brash, harsh and unpleasant, and while lino is more practical than carpet they could have chosen something that didn't look like the marking out of a sports pitch.

It was almost like they deliberately sought out to make it look naff compared with the nice, restful "Mainline" interior.

For the 165's, I do agree. I like the FGW Interiors, just not how they're looking after several years of hard use and neglect. It doesn't help that the rebrand over to GWR has left the 165s with a rather bodged layout with mismatched colours the former FC compartments. But the Chiltern unit's have always felt better cared for inside, always clean and presentable, even with their primary colour interior scheme.

The 166s on the other hand looked excellent in FGW when refurbished, but look tired and a mess now with their GWR Green carpet & tired and somewhat battered FGW blue interior.

 

[hst43102]

Locos: the Class 67 looks like the designer went "that'll do" once he'd done it. Doesn't have the utilitarian look of the 66 or the aggressive, powerful look of the 68, just looks unfinished.

I disagree. The 67 looks a lot better than the 66, but the 68 looks amazing.

 

[py_megapixel]

I disagree. The 67 looks a lot better than the 66, but the 68 looks amazing.

My opinions:
The 66 has an industrial, rough-and-ready appearance which I happen to really like. Pity it sounds boring as hell, and I've heard they don't perform all that well either...
The 67s just look like a box. Very functional, but nothing special about them.
The 68s are rather impressive and have a feeling of speed and power about them.

My favourite-looking locos are the 47s and 57s (they are near-identical externally). I can't really put my finger on why...

 

[hst43102]

My favourite-looking locos are the 47s and 57s (they are near-identical externally). I can't really put my finger on why...

I love the design of the 47 too. Clean, dynamic and yet somehow utilitarian - only the basics of design are there, with the bodysides being nice and clutter-free. I think this makes them look great in any livery.

 

[superalbs]

Interior wise, class 165, no contest. I'm really glad that the days of FirstGroup colours on everything they could lay their hands on are gone.

At least they're in better condition than they used to be, there were so many completely vapourised carpets.

 

[Neptune]

The 360/2s and the 185s were built from the ground up to be without a gangway.

The first four 360/2’s were actually built with a gangway and numbered 350001 - 004. They were a speculative order by Siemens. They had the cab rebuilt when they were converted into 360’s.

 

[py_megapixel]

Another thought - in my opinion anything ever built by Bombardier for mainline UK railways either looks incredibly bland and boring, or has a TOPS number beginning with "22"...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another thought - in my opinion anything ever built by Bombardier for mainline UK railways either looks incredibly bland and boring, or has a TOPS number beginning with "22"...

I wouldn't say Voyagers look nice, they look a bit narrow and "I'm not a proper InterCity train" from the outside. 222s look OK though.

 

[py_megapixel]

I wouldn't say Voyagers look nice, they look a bit narrow and "I'm not a proper InterCity train" from the outside. 222s look OK though.

No, but they don't look boring in the same way as everything else Bombardier makes. There is at least something unique about their appearance.

As much as I like the 444s, they do have a sort of "not a proper InterCity" feeling to them... I don't really see it in the Voyagers (though I agree they still don't look great)

 

[Mex I can]

Add me to the list who dislike the class 70, it looks like a train that Homer Simpson would design if he got an episode as a train designer. I don’t mind the 67, but agree that the design doesn’t look quite finished.

 

[KendalKing]

Loco wise the Class 70 for me

Same for me.

 

[northernbelle]

For me, one of the most handsome designs has to be the Class 158/9 family, which is no mean feat given the presence of the corridor connection. I think the way the lines all match up (door windows matching the saloon windows, for example) help this, albeit at the expense of some practicality.

I tend towards liking vehicles that are anthropomorphic and have an almost human look to them. Cl170s always look quite happy to me with a broad smile, while the angled windscreen tops make a 158 look 'concerned' about what it's doing.

The Class 180s in their original 'barbie' and also the Grand Central liveries always looked smart, too.

At the other end of the spectrum has to be the 456, which already struggling because it is based on the uninspiring Cl321 design and has the added ignominy of having those jumper cables crudely fitted to the front and any styling around the light clusters missing. The 'Networker' family is also a rather uninspiring style and seemed to take in a lot of visual cues from buses around the same era, such as the pantograph style windscreen wipers, destination displays integrated into the windscreen glass and rather a lot of rubber insert in the panel gaps.

 

[AverageTD]

For locos, unpopular opinion but all of the large chinned BR era locos such as the 37s, 45s etc look dead ugly imo. At least compared to the flat fronted units of the time like the 86. As for units, I've never thought much of the dust bins or Southern 455s. However the 345s and 701s trump the lot. The front end of a 345 looks like it was built in the 90s whereas the 701s look like a toy train that was upscaled and had a car wiper slapped on the front.

 

[RichardKing]

Worse interiors I think are the Southern Class 377s that have 3+2 seating with the bays of 6 seating facing each other, don't know if that was Connex or Govia but I detest using those sets.

Connex ordered the first batch of 377s (377 101-139) and it's 377 120-139 with the type of seating you're referring to (with the exception of the more padded seating at the inner-ends of each coach, as well as first class). However, the ironing board seating also features in the two intermediate cars in units 377 140-165 as well as the 377/2s and /4s, so Govia followed the uncomfortable trend.