Why do Class 360s not have gangway connections?

[387star]

Why didn't First Great Eastern order these with gangway connections?

They look ugly without them as well

 

[GB]

Because there is no real requirement for gangway connections on that route. 321's don't have them and neither did the 312's that the 360's replaced.

Was a 360 with gangway even an option?

 

[cj_1985]

Because there is no real requirement for gangway connections on that route. 321's don't have them and neither did the 312's that the 360's replaced.

Was a 360 with gangway even an option?

ISTR a 450 type cab being present on the original press release images. The full scale "model" had a gangway type thing, but looked to be nothing more than using the same cab module, with the gangway covered/sealed.

But off the top of my heard i can't recall if there was even any published intention to have a gangway on the real thing

 

[Fincra5]

I heard, probably from the fountain of knowledge of Wikipedia, that they weren't ordered with Gangways due to driver sighting issues (for DOO)

 

[GatwickDepress]

Here's the 360 mockup, courtesy of therailwaycentre.com. It does look a bit curvier than the 450 design to me.

 

[nxea321446]

the 360's were due to have ganyways fitted but the health and safety executive was not happy with the visibility so the gangways were not fitted

 

[GB]

Thanks for the link.

Personally I am not a fan of corridor connections on modern stock.

 

[jopsuk]

the 360's were due to have ganyways fitted but the health and safety executive was not happy with the visibility so the gangways were not fitted

almost certainly an urban legend.

 

[swt_passenger]

almost certainly an urban legend.

I agree there can't have been an HSE driven blanket ban. If it were true there'd presumably be no gangways on 350s or 450s either...

 

[starrymarkb]

IIRC it was more because of DOO mirrors. 450 and 444 units had guards - are the LM routes DOO?

 

[TEW]

I can't imagine the HSE complaining about the gangways. There's plenty of other gangwayed stock around. Drivers through the union may have complained about the poor visibility though.

 

[Monty]

IIRC it was more because of DOO mirrors. 450 and 444 units had guards - are the LM routes DOO?

No they are not, all 350s, 450s and 444s must operate with a guard when in passenger service. They also lack any form of DOO equipment such as on board cameras (space is at a premium in the cabs and I doubt they could install the equipment without a significant redesign), visibility for the driver is also pretty dire too.

 

[jopsuk]

I can't imagine the HSE complaining about the gangways.

I can't imagine the HSE itself being directly involved in the decision at all.

 

[TEW]

Exactly. If anyone complained about poor sighting it is likely to have been the unions. They are usually involved early on in the designs of new cabs so they could have raised the issue of poor visibility then.

 

[91103eastcoast]

No they are not, all 350s, 450s and 444s must operate with a guard when in passenger service. They also lack any form of DOO equipment such as on board cameras (space is at a premium in the cabs and I doubt they could install the equipment without a significant redesign), visibility for the driver is also pretty dire too.

I once looked through the window to inside a 350 cab whilst it was stopped in a station - it looked very cramped, I pity the poor driver who has to sit in an area the size of a tiny cupboard for more than one hour!

 

[colchesterken]

The cl 309 s had connections and nice curved windows, and were painted a red, the proper colour for main line stock
I liked then cos you could stand in the intermediate cab and watch the speedo
aaaaah the good old days

 

[AM9]

The cl 309 s had connections and nice curved windows, and were painted a red, the proper colour for main line stock
I liked then cos you could stand in the intermediate cab and watch the speedo
aaaaah the good old days

Ah yes, I remember the 12:00 trains on Saturdays reading 100 passing through Kelvedon and Marks Tey as well as travelling the 9.5 miles from Shenfield to Chelmsford in 8 1/2 minutes start to stop.
They were the best EMUs of their day just like the 442s 25 years later.

 

[asylumxl]

Getting back on topic, I wonder how the visibility in the 350s compares to the 377s.

 

[Wolfie]

Getting back on topic, I wonder how the visibility in the 350s compares to the 377s.

It must surely be far better - Siemens are always better than Bombardier don't you know.....

 

[asylumxl]

It must surely be far better - Siemens are always better than Bombardier don't you know.....

They have to meet certain requirements for visibility relative to the track anyway. So it can't have been that bad.

 

[Wolfie]

They have to meet certain requirements for visibility relative to the track anyway. So it can't have been that bad.

Joking apart, I know but there seems to be a Siemens = good, Bombardier = bad attitude among some at times on here

 

[91103eastcoast]

Joking apart, I know but there seems to be a Siemens = good, Bombardier = bad attitude among some at times on here

You've only got to look at the length of the 379 bashing thread to realise!

 

[cjmillsnun]

No they are not, all 350s, 450s and 444s must operate with a guard when in passenger service. They also lack any form of DOO equipment such as on board cameras (space is at a premium in the cabs and I doubt they could install the equipment without a significant redesign), visibility for the driver is also pretty dire too.

Yet 375s and 377s can operate DOO and have gangways. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Class377/5]

Yet 375s and 377s can operate DOO and have gangways. It doesn't make sense.

Do the 375 operate in DOO?

As for the 377s, they all have cameras.

 

[Monty]

Yet 375s and 377s can operate DOO and have gangways. It doesn't make sense.

They have DOO equipment installed in the cab though... (ie CCTV) the Desiros do not.

 

[Class377/5]

They have DOO equipment installed in the cab though... (ie CCTV) the Desiros do not.

The 375s don't have DOO cameras but work with a guard.

 

[Silverlinky]

And as per the earlier post there is no room for CCTV equipment in the 350 cab. There are however fitted with door controls either side of the drivers desk in addition to the controls either side of the cab backwall.
The desk controls are isolated but could be wired up to operate in a "semi-DOO" mode, like the Voyagers where the guard gives the driver the close doors signal.

 

[TEW]

The 375s don't have DOO cameras but work with a guard.

Although I'm not aware of any 375 operated services which don't have guards on board, the guards don't have any operational duties within the Metro area. The driver is in full control of the doors in those areas.

 

[david_VI]

I think gangways on the front of trains makes them look more dated than they are. EMU's seem to age better without them. A refurbed 321 won't look that much older than a 360, where as say a 317 looks quite ancient imo.

 

[306024]

Getting back on topic, I wonder how the visibility in the 350s compares to the 377s.

I'd prefer to remain off topic and reminisce how marvellous the 309s were

Some interesting guesses here, but to answer the question, after a brief discussion the directors of FGE simply agreed that the gangway was an unnecessary complication. Signal sighting could have been a potential issue, but not insurmountable. The directors were keen to have a driving cab that the drivers would actually like, rather than a telephone box. At first some drivers even used to bring in wet wipes to keep the cab clean as new.