Why are class 455s and 465s so darn ugly?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
2,117
Location
Leeds
I don't understand why they look so awful?


Was it a design 'thing' of the time to have wires hanging out the front of the train?



Why do these classes (amongst others) look like they've had a few bits and pieces pulled out of them and just left to hang there?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
22,750
465's don't have any major wiring system on the front/back.
Perhaps he's thinking of 456s?

Anyway, the various cables and hoses are there to make the units work in multiple, because in the days they were designed having an auto coupler with all the through connections mounted above or below it wasn't yet normal practice.

They are duplicated on the left and right of the unit so that either side can be connected, this allowed the shunter to connect up from the platform, or away from the third rail as necesssary, (ie when joining or splitting units at stations).
 

MK Tom

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
2,356
Location
Milton Keynes
I think when you said 465s you meant 456s. 456s are essentially third rail 321s... if I understand correctly the cabling enables them and the 455s to operate in multiple (but I may not understand correctly). To call 455s ugly is a perfectly valid opinion but you have to think the same of 317s and 318s too because they're exactly the same body design! The 456s have always looked weird to me because it's like somebody just took the middle two carriages out of a 321 and then forgot to repaint it for ten years.

EDIT: the person above me has just given a much better reply but I'll leave this here anyway :p
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
I think when you said 465s you meant 456s. 456s are essentially third rail 321s... if I understand correctly the cabling enables them and the 455s to operate in multiple (but I may not understand correctly). To call 455s ugly is a perfectly valid opinion but you have to think the same of 317s and 318s too because they're exactly the same body design! The 456s have always looked weird to me because it's like somebody just took the middle two carriages out of a 321 and then forgot to repaint it for ten years.

EDIT: the person above me has just given a much better reply but I'll leave this here anyway :p
456s are the ugliest unit ever. Even moire than class 140. The problem with them was that they used the class 321 etc bodyshell, but had the old SR style multiple working system as used on the 455s, making a rather hideous hybrid. And 455s similarly were derived from the 317s, (which were no oil painting), with all the cables & things stuck on.
 

SouthEastern-465

Established Member
Joined
24 May 2009
Messages
1,631
Location
South East London
Its all down to personal opinion.

Class 465s don't have 'plumbing' on the front ends. 465/2s (same with 465/9s as these are ex-465/2s) and 466s are the Met Cam units that have distinctive air conditiong ventilators mounted on the top of the cab.

The BREL and ABB units (465/0s and 465/1s) have a smoother appearance, and no plumbing either and no air conditioning ventilators.

I feel the 465s are handsome smooth looking units.
 

MK Tom

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
2,356
Location
Milton Keynes
+1 for this motion. And that was without thinking of them as 3rd rail 321s! Never had I made that connection before now.
Compare...

...with...


Maybe I just made the connection because I grew up around 321s but to me they seem nearly identical, and I consider the 320/321/322 cab design quite attractive next to the 317/319 ones that it was contemporary with. I've always wondered since I was very young if the fact the 321s and 456s are both in numerical order was an intentional in-joke by someone...
 
Last edited:

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,325
snc1/8325_289355610033_841240033_9162826_647627_n.jpg[/IMG]

Maybe I just made the connection because I grew up around 321s but to me they seem nearly identical, and I consider the 320/321/322 cab design quite attractive next to the 317/319 ones that it was contemporary with. I've always wondered since I was very young if the fact the 321s and 456s are both in numerical order was an intentional in-joke by someone...
It is possible- but then there's also the 320- the three car version. 456 is the "correct" number under the system that the Southern region used- 45x for a 1980s design, 4x6 for a two or three car inner suburban unit (only the Southern ever used this system. They only ever used this for the 3rd rail units as 4xx was entirely theirs unlike 2xx.
 

TDK

Established Member
Joined
19 Apr 2008
Messages
4,126
Location
Wrexham
I believe they were so they could work in multiple with the older slam-door units and locomotives used in the SR.
They couldn't work in multiple in service with the slam door stock as the couplings are different. 455/456 have tightlock and the slam doors have buckeyes, only compatible with an emergency coupling etc. The pipes on the 455's were there so originally they could work in multiple with other 455's, 456's were introduced later and were also designed to work in multiple with 455's although they have a different traction package system, the 456's are chopper and the 455's uses CLR, the 456's had to have a lul in their accelleration to be compatible, if you are ever on one you can feel this lul in accelleration at about 25mph
 

4SRKT

Established Member
Joined
9 Jan 2009
Messages
4,409
I remember this point being made when 317s/210s/455s were all new, that the front end was pretty ugly, and not particular because of the MW jumpers and waist level air pipes (which 317s and 210s don't/didn't have anyway). I think the feeling was that in comparison to the previous PEP-derived stock very little effort had gone into making the cabs look well-designed. They certainly looked clunky in comparison not only to PEP stock, but to such handsome units as 303s/310s/312s, most 1st generation DMUS, and even with totally workaday things such as EPBs.

The revised front end adopted for the second batch of 455s, subsequently appearing in modified form on 150/2s and NIR 450 class DEMUs, was a big improvement IMHO. The butchering of the front end of Southern 455 units removes the utlity of the interconnecting gangway while (remarkably) managing to make them look uglier. Usually the absence of a gangway makes a unit look better IMHO.
 

SprinterMan

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2010
Messages
2,340
Location
Hertford
Nah they remind me of Merseyrail Class 507s like that for some odd reason.

Its the same with the Class 315s, they look great as they are and someone decided to give one 'Electrostar' style headlights!


4 of the 315's have the 376-style headlights - FGE installed them during a refurbishment in an attempt to modernise the units, but it was deemed unnecessary in the end (I think). I have a soft spot for them :P

The units with the new headlights are:
315804
315806
315809
315812

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=43799
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/315804_D_Enfield_Town.JPG
 

SouthEastern-465

Established Member
Joined
24 May 2009
Messages
1,631
Location
South East London
4 of the 315's have the 376-style headlights - FGE installed them during a refurbishment in an attempt to modernise the units, but it was deemed unnecessary in the end (I think). I have a soft spot for them :P

The units with the new headlights are:
315804
315806
315809
315812

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=43799
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/315804_D_Enfield_Town.JPG
I think they look awful like that!

Although another case I can think of that had the opposite effect was the face lift of the Class 365s (for the air conditioning) that made them look younger and 10 times better.

 

MK Tom

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
2,356
Location
Milton Keynes
The 365s with the air con look hideous in my opinion! It looks like a horrifically forced smile, I actually find it borderline disturbing... I love the look of normal networkers, especially the 165/166s.
 

4SRKT

Established Member
Joined
9 Jan 2009
Messages
4,409
The 365s with the air con look hideous in my opinion! It looks like a horrifically forced smile, I actually find it borderline disturbing... I love the look of normal networkers, especially the 165/166s.
Much as think the hangdog and bulbous front end of a Pendolino has the look of a particularly dimwitted cow.
 

Electrostar

Member
Joined
18 May 2009
Messages
310
The NSE paintwork on the 456s were in a terrible state until Southern refurbished them. Even now the green livery has faded faster than their counterpart 455s. Did the 320/321/322s share this problem?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top