Why were unit fronts designed this way?

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't the Electrostar/Turbostar design pretty heavily inspired by the BR Networkers?

It is indeed, the 168 in particular (which has a different nose from other Turbostars[1]) was intended to look like "son of 165/166" for Chiltern.

[1] Though there are units numbered 168xxx which have the newer Turbostar cab.

 

[swt_passenger]

It is indeed, the 168 in particular (which has a different nose from other Turbostars[1]) was intended to look like "son of 165/166" for Chiltern.

[1] Though there are units numbered 168xxx which have the newer Turbostar cab.

AIUI there are just the 5 x 168/0 with Networker cabs, all the other 23 have “Turbostar style” cabs, including the 9 x 168/3 which were converted from 170s.

It is just as likely that they were not actually ‘intended’ to look like 165/6, but were fitted with the interim existing design because the eventual cab design wasn't ready yet...

 

[edwin_m]

AIUI there are just the 5 x 168/0 with Networker cabs, all the other 23 have “Turbostar style” cabs, including the 9 x 168/3 which were converted from 170s.

It is just as likely that they were not actually ‘intended’ to look like 165/6, but were fitted with the interim existing design because the eventual cab design wasn't ready yet...

I'm pretty sure that originally ADtranz (as it then was) offered customers a choice of front end, but nobody except Chiltern took it up. The 357s were supplied with non-gangwayed ends about the same time but subsequent deliveries all had the gangwayed end until much later. The ROSCOs may have had something to do with this, wanting standardisation so they could transfer trains between operators and not wanting to pay extra for non-standard features.

 

[Energy]

I'm pretty sure that originally ADtranz (as it then was) offered customers a choice of front end, but nobody except Chiltern took it up

You could have basically any cab you wanted, not suprised that only Chiltern took it as it is far uglier than the 170 front end.