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

[BlythPower]

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...

Gangwayed at both ends...

 

[4SRKT]

Gangwayed at both ends...

Yes, but you wouldn't be able to have pax walking through the above-floor engine compartment. I suspect that the gangwayed cab was put on the DMBSO because it was a prototype and it wasn't worth developing a non-gangwayed cab for. This was pre-prototype 150 don't forget.

The only production DEMUs with this bodyshell were the NIR 450 class of 1986, which had a 150-style cab on the power car, with a 455-style one on the driving trailer.

 

[Hydro]

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

Mad isn't it, different strokes for different TOC's, I'd imagine.

 

[Class172]

I wonder if LM will let passengers through the gangways on the 172s.

 

[455/8]

Mad isn't it, different strokes for different TOC's, I'd imagine.

There are or were two reasons passengers are not allowed to use the gangway corridor to walk between units on the 455's. The first reason is that the Tightlock coupler was so unreliable at coupling the units (either because it was incorrect practice or because of faulty components) as well as the operation of the door is performed solely by the Guards and they could only operate the doors from the driving cabs and if passengers were allowed to walk through the cabs it would mean that the Guards would have to keep locking and unlocking the cab doors every time they had to perform platform duties, So it was decided that it would be easier to lock the cab ends out of use to passengers (except in an emergency) to prevent any passengers falling out of the train if the couplers did indeed fail and so that Guards could safely operate the doors. I think another deciding factor was that the screens used to seal off the equipment on the non driving side of the cab were lost or damaged if I recall and no replacements were sort because of the coupler issue and working of the trains in multiple.

When the units were refurbished the reliability of the couplers was vastly improved and extra door operating panels were installed in the vestibules to allow Guards to walk the trains and operate the doors from any carriage but as it was common practice not to allow passengers in that intermediate cab area as Guards used it as an office, the decision was made that the intermediate cabs would remain OOU to passenger except for emergency's.

 

[Helvellyn]

Another reason is that when the Guard puts the key on in the cab of a 455 unit, the two door control panels in the crew vestibule immediately behind become active. If you allowed through passenger access it would mean the door control panel operation would have had to be changed and that the door control panels themselves would have had to be altered for them to be covered over so passengers didn't have access.

If I recall, it was planned that the Class 455 units were to operate DOO. However, in part due to the problems alluded to by 455/8 they had to be modified to allow Guard operation, which I think included the basic door operation panel in what became the crew vestibule. In this vestibule it can be seen that single door could have been originally used by passengers - there remains a recess where a passcom cable was provided, and passenger door control buttons are plated over on both the interior and exterior!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Yes, but you wouldn't be able to have pax walking through the above-floor engine compartment. I suspect that the gangwayed cab was put on the DMBSO because it was a prototype and it wasn't worth developing a non-gangwayed cab for.

I did get to walk through a 210 full length once; the engine bay was actually offset slightly and there was a proper corridor down the side of it, similar in width and materials style and colour to that in a Mk3 Sleeper, so no issues at all about access to the engine bay - it just wasn't possible.

 

[jopsuk]

How was it for noise though? Hell, how was the passenger saloon of the power car for noise, and the driving cab?

 

[sprinterguy]

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.

The 395s are hardly representative of a typical commuter train though: They're 140mph capable, essentially regional, units. Heck, they're better than the so called "Intercity" units that operate on Crosscountry!

I would personally choose functionality over aesthetics: Fancy streamlined nose cones waste so much space that could better be used for seating (and they're bad news for passenger throughflow in multiple working as well) and would be absolutely ridiculous on a 75mph two or three car unit.

 

[ainsworth74]

I would personally choose functionality over aesthetics: Fancy streamlined nose cones waste so much space that could better be used for seating (and they're bad news for passenger throughflow in multiple working as well) and would be absolutely ridiculous on a 75mph two or three car unit.

It depends though, if you're streamlining a unit that goes at say 125mph then it isn't really wasting all that much space as you would lose a 1/3 of the vehicle end to non-passenger accommodation anyway. Though I do agree on commuter units it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[sprinterguy]

It depends though, if you're streamlining a unit that goes at say 125mph then it isn't really wasting all that much space as you would lose a 1/3 of the vehicle end to non-passenger accommodation anyway. Though I do agree on commuter units it makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes of course: A streamlined nose cone on a 125mph train is aerodynamically functional, and you would hope that a 125mph capable unit would have sufficient carriages (As it would almost certainly be an Intercity type of train) that the 1/3 of each driving carriage lost to crashworthiness standards would make up a negligible proportion of the total train length (Sadly, as we all well know, this has not been the case in recent years ). I was only referring to the absurdity of streamlining commuter units.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

How was it for noise though? Hell, how was the passenger saloon of the power car for noise, and the driving cab?

It was a quieter than a Southern DEMU; about half as loud in perceived noise terms.

I rode both units; can't remember without digging up my notebooks ( which will take too long right now ) which one I walked full length. From memory both had similar noise levels.

And I can actually answer your third query because the reason I was walking through the engine area corridor was that I had been invited through by the crew ( those were the days! ) as soon as we left Reading and I had, shall we say, the best view in the house all the way to Newbury!

My answer will be that the noise insulation at the sharp end was extremely good.

 

[lookingforit35]

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.

I will admit to infrequent use of the secondmans side commuting on packed 421s and 423s from the 1990s up until their withdrawal. A nice unoccupied seat, often with a heated plate for my tootsies! oh, and an opening window all of my own so no arguments of the "open", "no, closed" variety.

A sneaky unhooking and one could be in without difficulty.......... (as said the actress to the bishop).

 

[4SRKT]

I did get to walk through a 210 full length once; the engine bay was actually offset slightly and there was a proper corridor down the side of it, similar in width and materials style and colour to that in a Mk3 Sleeper, so no issues at all about access to the engine bay - it just wasn't possible.

What I meant was pax wouldn't be allowed to walk through it, not that they physically couldn't.

 

[Smudger105e]

I believe they were so they could work in multiple with the older slam-door units and locomotives used in the SR.

The 455's were not compatible with the slammers. The brakes on a 455 work on an energise to release system (therefore fail safe in the case of a breakaway), the EP brake on the slammers was energise to apply (therefore not fail safe), but they had westinghouse brake fitted to make them fail safe.

It always seemed strange to me that the Southern got rid of the 1936 stock 4-SUBs (which were not 27 way jumper fitted) and the everything was compatible (EMU-wise) then introduced the 455s which were non compatible!!

The JBs and 33/1s were also compatible with EMUs and the JAs were EMU and DEMU compatible (except one that had a cab replaced after a collision, 73005 was it?)

 

[Peter Mugridge]

What I meant was pax wouldn't be allowed to walk through it, not that they physically couldn't.

It wasn't marked "no admission" or anything; it would have been open had the two run in multiple.