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

[ushawk]

I quite like how the 455's and 456's look, they look rather unique by having the stuff on the front, think the SWT 455's look better than their SN counterparts though.

 

[4SRKT]

Nobody thinks jumper cables look out of place on any of the following; 50s, 33/1s, 56s, SR mk I based EMUs/DEMUs, NIR DEMUs.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

A few 455's (455/9's?) also have chopper control, experimentally fitted IIRC?

There were six thus fitted - 5912 and 5916 to 5920; I think they removed the equipment and put the standard 455 stuff in when they were refurbished. From memory the last five were built with it from new but 5912 was fitted after having been used as a Christmas Tree for a long time and was practically rebuilt mechanically / electrically.

 

[507 001]

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!

whats wrong with a class 507?
I do think that the new lights on the 315's are awful, they seem to bee too high up to me.

 

[4SRKT]

whats wrong with a class 507?
I do think that the new lights on the 315's are awful, they seem to bee too high up to me.

Nothing wrong with 507s at all IMHO. I think all PEP derived stock looks remarkably modern considering how old it actually is. The flatter cab fronts actually look better than the prototype PEP cabs, although the combination of the PEP slightly sloping front with a mk IIb bodyshell in the NIR 80 class DEMU power cars also works very well.

 

[Temple Meads]

Although the 456's are pretty bad, there is something worse, the front end of a 458 Juniper...

 

[SouthEastern-465]

whats wrong with a class 507?
I do think that the new lights on the 315's are awful, they seem to bee too high up to me.

I've no problems with the 507s, its just the lights on the 317/7s look bad (personally) they don't look as bad on the 507s I think it made them look younger, the livery also hepled make them look more modern than they actually are!

 

[trainspotter]

Although the 456's are pretty bad, there is something worse, the front end of a 458 Juniper...

What!!!!!!!!


Rubbish man!


Yes i agree it slab fronted, but it looks like nothing else on the network!

 

[455/8]

There were six thus fitted - 5912 and 5916 to 5920; I think they removed the equipment and put the standard 455 stuff in when they were refurbished. From memory the last five were built with it from new but 5912 was fitted after having been used as a Christmas Tree for a long time and was practically rebuilt mechanically / electrically.

You are correct, there were five units fitted with the chopper traction units but when swt refurbished the fleet they removed these traction packages in favour of the older camshaft control system to keep the fleet universal or standardised. Four units out of the five were fitted with Chopper traction built by GE and one unit (5912) had a different type of chopper traction system fitted which was built by Brush and as such parts were hard to come by for 5912 and it spent most of its life sat around at wimbledon park depot waiting for spares.

Personally I like the look of the 455's, I don't like what southern have done with their units removing the gangway door to install cab air cooling but the 455's as built and refurbished by swt I think look quite nice. The 456's looked nice in newly repainted southern colours but not since the paint work has faded but then again a lot of people say I have a strange taste in trains.

 

[Temple Meads]

What!!!!!!!!


Rubbish man!


Yes i agree it slab fronted, but it looks like nothing else on the network!

I'm not saying I don't like them, they've got a certain appeal, they just look bad at the front

 

[Helvellyn]

At least with the 456s a decent housing was designed for the multiple working cables and air-pipes. If it had been retrofitted to the Class 455 units they would look quite good.

 

[lookingforit35]

455s were from an era where design wasnt really a priority. And the original BR colour scheme for 455/8s involved using as much yellow paint as they could at each end, extending for one or two feet down the carriage side.

But NSE repaints and latter refurbs lessened the rather "brutal" early look. However, I'd hazard a comment that that latest SN refurb looks pretty dismal.

456s? I recall seeing them stored at Clapham Junction for a few weeks when new. And even then I felt they were a look only a mother could appreciate!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I'd suggest the 455s looked a lot better when they were in blue and grey when new ( and yes, I remember them being introduced ).

 

[SouthEastern-465]

I've seen a lot of people hate 456s? I'll be honest I like them, I feel there unique in there own way.

 

[jopsuk]

I appreciate the Southern have since plated over the 455 corridor connector (would have been nice if this was done the same way as the 318s if they really had to do it) but I don't unserstand why the 456s (or the 321, 320s, 319s etc) didn't get corridor connectors? After all, SWT still use theirs, at least for staff access, and on 317s the connector is open to passengers to allow people to move down the train.

 

[Schnellzug]

I've seen a lot of people hate 456s? I'll be honest I like them, I feel there unique in there own way.

That is without a doubt true.
Fortunately.

 

[507 001]

I've no problems with the 507s, its just the lights on the 317/7s look bad (personally) they don't look as bad on the 507s I think it made them look younger, the livery also hepled make them look more modern than they actually are!

I agree entirely, I'm not a particular fan of the 317 lights. Interestingly the prototype refurbished 508 had the same lights as the 317's and looked just as bad!

The merseyrail livery atm is awful, it looked nice when first applied but rather quickly begins to look tired and tatty.

I've never particularly liked the 455's, they look a bit cumbersome compared to the PEP derived stock.

 

[Norman]

Just out of interest and slightly off topic, but what was used before the 455s on the lines where the 455s came into service?

 

[455/8]

Just out of interest and slightly off topic, but what was used before the 455s on the lines where the 455s came into service?

class 508's were mostly used before 455's as 4 car sets and before that it was EPB's, CIG's or VEP's I believe.

 

[starrymarkb]

class 508's were mostly used before 455's as 4 car sets and before that it was EPB's, CIG's or VEP's I believe.

It was 4-SUBs - some of which were pre-war... Hence 508s covering until 455s on stream

 

[d5509]

I recalll the first time I saw a 317 when they were introduced - "wow it's a big box!". BR specified an EMU with a Mk3 bodyshell: sliding doors and somewhere for the passengers to sit.
The 411 was an EMU with a MK1 mainline bodyshell as was the 309 but what a difference in front ends!

 

[Schnellzug]

On a sort of tangentally related note, who else regrets that they didn't put the class 210 into series production? They looked quite interesting things; Basically a DEMU version of 317, with a power car at one end, and I think one had half a Valenta and one an MTU engine. I suppose it would have been much quieter than underfloor engines, although I suppose it took up more space.

 

[d5509]

I sort of regretted they hadn't developed the 210 on my first ride above a 156's engines. 210s might have provided interesting dual power opportunities on Exeter - Waterloo and East Anglia coast - Liverpool St.

 

[jopsuk]

210s were more equivalent to a 150 mind- in terms of layout. Of course, that wouldn't have ruled out a "211" or whatever- same layout as a 156 with the engine at one end.

Of course, the 210 arrangement suffers the "train length" issue of LHCS a bit. And unless they were coupled "back to back" access between two units would be, um, limited...

 

[lookingforit35]

I appreciate the Southern have since plated over the 455 corridor connector (would have been nice if this was done the same way as the 318s if they really had to do it) but I don't unserstand why the 456s (or the 321, 320s, 319s etc) didn't get corridor connectors? After all, SWT still use theirs, at least for staff access, and on 317s the connector is open to passengers to allow people to move down the train.

Interesting point which I recall pondering some years ago when I used the Windsor line every day. I never once saw the SWT 455s have the corridor connector open for passenger use which on refelction was odd, given that most other types that have this facility allow it to be used.

Seems a bit of a waste to specify it if it was not going to be used. Can anyone shed any light on this?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

On a sort of tangentally related note, who else regrets that they didn't put the class 210 into series production? They looked quite interesting things; Basically a DEMU version of 317, with a power car at one end, and I think one had half a Valenta and one an MTU engine. I suppose it would have been much quieter than underfloor engines, although I suppose it took up more space.

210 001 had a Paxman 6RP200.

210 002 had an MTU 12V396TC11.

No idea how similar that Paxman was to the Valenta, though! But the serial number suggests it was a half size ( 6 cylinder ) version?

 

[Hydro]

Interesting point which I recall pondering some years ago when I used the Windsor line every day. I never once saw the SWT 455s have the corridor connector open for passenger use which on refelction was odd, given that most other types that have this facility allow it to be used.

Seems a bit of a waste to specify it if it was not going to be used. Can anyone shed any light on this?

It's not used because IIRC, the way the connection works means that people passing through actually have access to part of the drivers cab. I presume this is the secondmans side; the old slammers used to have the drivers part closed and locked by the partition door that closed off the access to the drivers door vestibule. The secondmans side with the handbrake merely had the front corridor door hooked against it, you could easily get into the secondmans side of the cab. In fact, they became unhooked easily and passengers passing through had to reopen the front connecting door themselves to gain access to the next unit sometimes. I think the 455's have a similar arrangement, cab wise.

Back in the day, this wasn't seen as a problem.

 

[RichW1]

This one's easy....because when trains are ordered in the UK the last thing they think about is the looks of the cab ends. No attention at all in most cases. There's a few exceptions and the Javelin's are exceptional. Why can't units all have such appeal on commuter trains as these do?! It's a real bugbare of mine.

 

[Lampshade]

Although the 456's are pretty bad, there is something worse, the front end of a 458 Juniper...

NO WAY

 

[jopsuk]

It's not used because IIRC, the way the connection works means that people passing through actually have access to part of the drivers cab. I presume this is the secondmans side; the old slammers used to have the drivers part closed and locked by the partition door that closed off the access to the drivers door vestibule. The secondmans side with the handbrake merely had the front corridor door hooked against it, you could easily get into the secondmans side of the cab. In fact, they became unhooked easily and passengers passing through had to reopen the front connecting door themselves to gain access to the next unit sometimes. I think the 455's have a similar arrangement, cab wise.

Back in the day, this wasn't seen as a problem.

Yet in the (related) 317s passengers are free to walk through the connector.