Why did early stock look so damn ugly?

[Bayum]

Looking at videos of some of the old slam door stock - 308s, 456s etc -it got me thinking - why do they look so damn ugly? Was it design constraint? Price? Lack of vision?

 

[py_megapixel]

456s have sliding doors

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I totally agree, the 319s are especially hideous with their squashed faces

 

[DarloRich]

I would say time, cost, strategy, equipment, manufacturing techniques and quality standards of the day.

 

[BenW390Fan]

I hate the look of the 421's and whatever old slam door EMU's there is, hate them. Might be slightly unfair as I've never actually seen one in real life but still

 

[The_Train]

Looking at videos of some of the old slam door stock - 308s, 456s etc -it got me thinking - why do they look so damn ugly? Was it design constraint? Price? Lack of vision?

What, in your opinion, makes the older stock 'so damn ugly?

 

[JonathanH]

Looking at videos of some of the old slam door stock - 308s, 456s etc -it got me thinking - why do they look so damn ugly? Was it design constraint? Price? Lack of vision?

308s got a raked back window panel. That was an improvement on the front of the 302 and Southern region units. That was a design decision to make them look more attractive.

I think if you look at transport films of the time, you can imagine how they might have been seen as attractive when they were new. The addition of jumper cables didn't help with any of these units, which wasn't dealt with until the mid-1970s and the use of an auto-coupler.

Essentially, until the 1980s units were designed to be functional, as the value of front end design was not recognised. 319 / 321 and then Networker changed that as style became more important.

 

[py_megapixel]

What, in your opinion, makes the older stock 'so damn ugly?

I would say (I'm not OP but I agree with the first post) that it's the criss-cross of tubes and pipes at the front, along with the oddly shaped nose which makes the 308s look rather angry...

 

[WestRiding]

Now we have Nice looking trains, ruined by Grafiti/Toy Box colours.

 

[30907]

Sorry, when you said early stock I was thinking Liverpool and Manchester... 308s weren't even built when I was little

 

[randyrippley]

Looking at videos of some of the old slam door stock - 308s, 456s etc -it got me thinking - why do they look so damn ugly? Was it design constraint? Price? Lack of vision?

Until the BRB Design Panel came along in the late 1950s to resolve this very issue, little thought seems to have been given to form, just function.
Compare the class 44, designed before the Design Panel was formed, with the class 47 and Hymek which both came from the same Design Panel brief. Another comparison is between the pre-panel Warships, and the panel approved Westerns. The mkII coach was cleaned up by the Design Panel as well to avoid the ugliness and random-box look of the mkI

Other examples - the class 70 vs the 73
or the Woodhead locos vs the 8x AC locos

 

[yorksrob]

I found the 308's rather beautiful in their way. Certainly had a more attractive front end than a CEP.

 

[WestRiding]

I found the 308's rather beautiful in their way. Certainly had a more attractive front end than a CEP.

Well, they worked. And they could be coupled to other stuff with buffers, chain and a hook. Emphasis really should have been put on a universal coupling rather than looks.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, they worked. And they could be coupled to other stuff with buffers, chain and a hook. Emphasis really should have been put on a universal coupling rather than looks.

Well, on the Southern, all the second gen electrics could couple with all the others, regardless of how beautiful - same for the first gen ones as well I think !

(Point of order, they were all beautiful).

 

[py_megapixel]

Well, on the Southern, all the second gen electrics could couple with all the others, regardless of how beautiful - same for the first gen ones as well I think !

Those units are much older than me! - all I can say is that's a long way from the modern situation where new trains are almost exclusively specced with within-class-only multiple working...

 

[yorksrob]

Those units are much older than me! - all I can say is that's a long way from the modern situation where new trains are almost exclusively specced with within-class-only multiple working...

The last VEP's were only a few years older than me !

But I agree - units should be joinable.

And to be fair, I've just watched a 170 go by, coupled to a 150, so that's in the right spirit !

 

[tbtc]

The OP references 308s - worth remembering that these were 1950s trains (built closer in time to the Second World War than Punk), so maybe more comparable to 1950s cars than to modern trains - the kind of bulky/practical look was as good as it got back then - the idea of "Design" attracting people to use the railways might have seemed fanciful.

Most steam was pretty blunt/basic too, if we're being honest - other than the sleek A4s, there weren't many locomotives that would have caught the eye in their own right.

Plus, I guess, when you have a nationalised monopoly, they are going to specify something "functional" rather than any eye catching gimmicks - maybe that's no bad thing - I guess some would argue that modern trains can be a bit too flashy at times

 

[bramling]

Looking at videos of some of the old slam door stock - 308s, 456s etc -it got me thinking - why do they look so damn ugly? Was it design constraint? Price? Lack of vision?

Matter of personal opinion. Personally I thought something like a 308 was quite attractive. Things like yellow fronts spoiled them a little.

 

[WesternLancer]

Interesting to think about the impact of the Design Panel on the otherwise 'utilitarian' stock, esp multiple Units. Did they do work on the better looking examples of the period? - which I would class as the Glasgow Blue Train, Clacton Units and Transpenine DMUs, all with the wrap round windows presumably in an effort to improve the look of the front of the train as it were.

Comments above on their impact on deisel loco design are interesting to read.

 

[181]

Sorry, when you said early stock I was thinking Liverpool and Manchester... 308s weren't even built when I was little

I'm significantly younger than you (born while the 4-VEPs were being built) and I read the thread title the same way.

Most steam was pretty blunt/basic too, if we're being honest - other than the sleek A4s, there weren't many locomotives that would have caught the eye in their own right.

Some steam locomotives are quite elegant. Arguably they became less so over time, as it became too expensive to employ people to polish all that Victorian brasswork and boilers grew to the maximum size that would fit the loading gauge.

 

[Helvellyn]

Don't forget that liveries have an impact as well. Some stock when you see it in the original livery is of its time but the design overall works. Slap BR blue and grey on it and suddenly...

• Class 304 in overall blue
• Class 305 in unlined green
• Class 304 in blue and grey

• Class 303 in overall blue
• Class 303 in blue and grey

• Class 310 in overall blue
• Class 310 in blue and grey

• Class 309 in lined maroon
• Class 309 in blue and grey

 

[Jozhua]

The last VEP's were only a few years older than me !

But I agree - units should be joinable.

And to be fair, I've just watched a 170 go by, coupled to a 150, so that's in the right spirit !

Clearly it has utility then! We should spec all trains for some level of inter-unit compatability. Especially if the 170's can hook up to units 10+ years their elder.

Interesting to think about the impact of the Design Panel on the otherwise 'utilitarian' stock, esp multiple Units. Did they do work on the better looking examples of the period? - which I would class as the Glasgow Blue Train, Clacton Units and Transpenine DMUs, all with the wrap round windows presumably in an effort to improve the look of the front of the train as it were.

Comments above on their impact on deisel loco design are interesting to read.

I like the utilitarian look, the middle door and middle finger to aerodynamics. By far my favourite is when they have the sloped cabs with the doors in the middle, Iike the 450's.

My least favourite look has to be the pathetic snouts of a 185 or 170, like they had a choice between interoperability or aerodynamics and they chose neither. Probably not as bad as the 150 units with no doors though, although again, 150's don't travel at 100mph.

Probably the ugliest old stock has to be the Pacer, it truly is a piece of work. 1st gen DMUs are probably on a par with most 2nd gens in terms of looks.

Newer stock looks kind of boring tbh, but the 80X's are quite nice. I like the profile of the carriages, with the screens and power cables, looks kinda futuristic.

 

[AM9]

Interesting to think about the impact of the Design Panel on the otherwise 'utilitarian' stock, esp multiple Units. Did they do work on the better looking examples of the period? - which I would class as the Glasgow Blue Train, Clacton Units and Transpenine DMUs, all with the wrap round windows presumably in an effort to improve the look of the front of the train as it were.

Comments above on their impact on deisel loco design are interesting to read.

The wrap around windows were removed and replaced with tougher flat types which seemed to better resist the bricks thrown at them in some areas.

 

[delt1c]

The early BR units EPB’s 302’s etc were designed and built at a time when Britain was still trying to recover from WWII and cash and materials were still limited. Therefore where ever possible it was one size fits all. The EPB’s etc were basically electric powered suburban coaches with a drivers cab and windows. As has been mentioned earlier design did evolve and the 303 and 309’s prove the point. Then things went backwards with the 317/1’s.

 

[alxndr]

A matter of preference perhaps. I find a utilitarian look much more appealing, I want something to look like it'll be functional and robust.

 

[BayPaul]

I think the clutter on the sides also doesn't help the look of slam door trains, especially those with doors at each bay - door handles, some of the droplights open, various safety rails etc. Compared to modern trains with smooth sides they tend to automatically look old, similar to already described for the front of the trains.
Old trains without gangway connections always seemed to have large areas of flat yellow paint on the fronts - like between the windows on the 308s - which gave some of the styling impression of a soviet-era car. Now, either they have a gangway, or wrap-round windscreen, or some shaping to minimise this effect.

 

[randyrippley]

Interesting to think about the impact of the Design Panel on the otherwise 'utilitarian' stock, esp multiple Units. Did they do work on the better looking examples of the period? - which I would class as the Glasgow Blue Train, Clacton Units and Transpenine DMUs, all with the wrap round windows presumably in an effort to improve the look of the front of the train as it were.

Comments above on their impact on deisel loco design are interesting to read.

I believe they were responsible for the cleaned-up look of those models

 

[WesternLancer]

The wrap around windows were removed and replaced with tougher flat types which seemed to better resist the bricks thrown at them in some areas.

Indeed - a matter the designers were presumably not breifed on, or vandalism became more fashionable (sadly) - as I think it probably did...

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I would say time, cost, strategy, equipment, manufacturing techniques and quality standards of the day.

Add to that: prevailing designs at the time, ease and speed of build - especially on existing and (then) proven designs.

Going further back, there were war restrictions on steel (which held up production) and the Southern had an ingenious method of reusing old underframes and building new steel bodies on top.

Of course, all of this "ugliness" is subjective. The AM4's/304's, AM5's/305's and 504's done away with flat "slab-sided" fronts and introduced raked back fronts; the AM10 (310's) and 312's were Mk 2 designs far superior than the Southern CIGs/VEPs/REP's/TC's of the day.

But you can't beat the "classic" Mark 1 design that reached all parts of the railway; the Glasgow Blue Trains (303's) and the Clacton 309's

 

[Taunton]

The first BR designs in the early 1950s just put two small driving windows in a standard Mk1 vehicle end. The initial Tilbury emus or 4-CEP as examples. Following criticism of the look, the raked-back front of the next batches, for the GE line etc, came along. Then the newly-formed BR Design Panel, which included Ian Allan author and journalist Brian Haresnape, reacted to further criticism and came up with the curved front of the Blue Trains/ Clacton units.

As standards for resistance of windscreens increased, particularly driven by advances in what the glass industry was capable of doing (you can't require better resistance if the industry can't make it), new normal flat screens got progressively replaced to the new standard. The curved glass was more difficult, it wasn't just the impact resistance but also the sheer cost of the replacement curved screens when broken, so the modification was introduced. It helped that the outer skin of the wrap-around cab was glass fibre. Impact resistance at speed was a significant part of why the prototype HST and APT had such small windscreens.

Cars of the late 1950s didn't have much glass impact resistance, and broken windscreens were way more common than nowadays. Same for trains. In the early diesel days one of the issues for Taunton shed to deal with was Warships (especially) having to come off expresses with broken windscreens. Assisting steam locomotives in front, whether as a pilot up hills or because the diesel had failed, were an early issue, where coal lumps from the tender would fall off and blow back and smash the windscreen of the diesel behind. Eventually steam locos ahead were banned, they had to be put inside. And I heard Warship drivers, if they passed a steam hauled express coming the other way on Creech watertroughs just east of the town, would duck down in case overflowing water from the tender was washing coal lumps off - rather as WR steam drivers on the right hand side had always done, though that was to avoid getting wet as well.