Reducing the weight of seating on trains

[northwichcat]

How much impact does reducing the weight of seating on trains have in terms of reducing costs and environmental impact?

In the airline industry Jet2 have made a big deal about the new seating they fitted to their Boeing planes significantly reducing costs and the environmental impact, but I'm not sure how much affect it has on the railways. Although, given the design of seating has changed in recent years I would imagine it's some effect not no effect.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I have no idea how much seating weighs. But the use of 185's is restricted on the Selby to Hull line because the axel weight is slightly heavier than the 170 Turbos that aren't.

 

[Ash Bridge]

How much impact does reducing the weight of seating on trains have in terms of reducing costs and environmental impact?

In the airline industry Jet2 have made a big deal about the new seating they fitted to their Boeing planes significantly reducing costs and the environmental impact, but I'm not sure how much affect it has on the railways. Although, given the design of seating has changed in recent years I would imagine it's some effect not no effect.

When BR were putting the APT-E through its paces in the early 1970s, I recall there was some development work on new lightweight net type seating and I think a small section of the experimental train was fitted with these. Iam sure others on here will know more.

 

[Greenback]

We could always remove seats completely!

 

[northwichcat]

We could always remove seats completely!

And get rid of the passengers and crew as well

More seriously LO did remove middle seats from the 150s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And get rid of the passengers and crew as well

More seriously LO did remove middle seats from the 150s.

Merseyrail did that years ago in the middle coach to create a bit where prams (the smaller ones you got in those days) and the likes could fit in. Late 1980s I think.

Neil

 

[Greenback]

And get rid of the passengers and crew as well

More seriously LO did remove middle seats from the 150s.

I don't think 3+2 seating is very effective, I wouldn't mind all of those seats being taken out. I'd rather stand than cram my portly frame into one of those!

I think that modern seats are considerably lighter than those of years ago. Which is a good thing as the weight of passengers has probably increased to compensate!

 

[AM9]

I don't think 3+2 seating is very effective, I wouldn't mind all of those seats being taken out. I'd rather stand than cram my portly frame into one of those!

I think that modern seats are considerably lighter than those of years ago. Which is a good thing as the weight of passengers has probably increased to compensate!

Would it not be better to say that the lighter seats used these days compensates for increased the average weight of passengers? I doubt that people have been eating more to keep the train down on the track.

 

[sprinterguy]

I have a recollection that a lot of thought went into the design of the seats and the materials used in order to keep the weight down when the TGV Duplex was being developed. I’d have to dig out the appropriate book to check what sort of weight saving was achieved.

 

[northwichcat]

Would it not be better to say that the lighter seats used these days compensates for increased the average weight of passengers? I doubt that people have been eating more to keep the train down on the track.

The average height of people has increased over time - people complain about the lack of leg room on a Merseytravel Pacer but there isn't any less leg room than on some vintage trams still in existence, even though today that density of seating is seen as unsuitable.

 

[Greenback]

Would it not be better to say that the lighter seats used these days compensates for increased the average weight of passengers? I doubt that people have been eating more to keep the train down on the track.

Ha ha, fair point!

I'm sure that technical developments will continue to reduce the weight of seats as it's in the interests of the manufacturers to offer products that can be sold as being more cost effective.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The average height of people has increased over time - people complain about the lack of leg room on a Merseytravel Pacer but there isn't any less leg room than on some vintage trams still in existence, even though today that density of seating is seen as unsuitable.

Though modular seating forces you into one seating position, whereas on an original bus-seated Pacer that isn't full (or an old tram or bus), a tall person can get into a comfortable seating position by sitting in the middle of the 2 side using it as a 1.

Actually, that's a big advantage of bench-style 3+2 generally - off-peak it becomes very comfortable 2+1.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Though modular seating forces you into one seating position, whereas on an original bus-seated Pacer that isn't full (or an old tram or bus), a tall person can get into a comfortable seating position by sitting in the middle of the 2 side using it as a 1.

Actually, that's a big advantage of bench-style 3+2 generally - off-peak it becomes very comfortable 2+1.

I can only think of 2 occasions (out of thousands of journeys) when I've ever been on a 142 quiet enough to allow one passenger per bench. One being a middle of the day Lime Street-Oxford Rd service and the other being a mid-afternoon Marple to Manchester service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can only think of 2 occasions (out of thousands of journeys) when I've never been on a 142 quiet enough to allow one passenger per bench. One being a middle of the day Lime Street-Oxford Rd service and the other being a mid-afternoon Marple to Manchester service.

Ormskirk-Preston (though mostly a 153 these days) and Kirkby-Wigan?

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Kirkby-Wigan?

That's currently part of a service. Services come from Manchester Victoria and return to Todmorden.

You seemed to be implying off-peak sitting 1 to a bench was the norm, which it certainly isn't from my experience - you've got more chance of having to stand on an off-peak service than getting a bench to yourself from where you board to where you alight.

 

[ainsworth74]

I have no idea how much seating weighs. But the use of 185's is restricted on the Selby to Hull line because the axel weight is slightly heavier than the 170 Turbos that aren't.

Sort of. 185s cannot use SP differentials of which there are quite a few between Leeds and Selby but 170s are able to use them. This means that 185s cannot travel as fast as 170s (or Sprinters) between Leeds and Selby. However as 185s can accelerate like a scalded cat when compared to a 170 the actual journey time between the two is the same.

In terms of the weight of seats it'll surely come down to how heavy each individual seat is and how much of a reduction you can make? If each seat weighs 20kg and each vehicle has say 70 of them you have 1400kg of seating. If you reduce each seat to 10kg you reduce the weight to 700kg that will certainly have an impact.

But at the same time you need to consider that train vehicles (MUs anyway) are coming in around 40 tons (or 40,000kg) so reducing that by only 700kg isn't going to make that much of a difference.

It is perhaps interesting to note that 377s are about 42 tons per vehicle whilst the 378s are about 40 tons per vehicle. I wonder what difference in tack access and electricity usage that two tons makes?

 

[northwichcat]

It is perhaps interesting to note that 377s are about 42 tons per vehicle whilst the 378s are about 40 tons per vehicle. I wonder what difference in tack access and electricity usage that two tons makes?

Track access charges (including electricity consumption) are 6.07p to 6.83p per vehicle per mile for a 377, while they are 4.99p to 5.93p per vehicle per mile for a 378. Although, the lower top speed of the 378s will also have an influence in track access costs.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/using-our-network/cp5-access-charges/

 

[ExRes]

Surely the first question, which needs to be answered by qualified engineers, is exactly how light can the seat structure become while still retaining its safety, it's not much use putting forward reductions in weight if it brings reduction in crashworthiness for example

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely the first question, which needs to be answered by qualified engineers, is exactly how light can the seat structure become while still retaining its safety

And its robustness. Plane seats don't get half the beating that train seats do. It might genuinely be cheaper to pay the extra fuel, which as you're not needing to keep a train up at 35,000ft isn't going to be as much.

Neil

 

[sprinterguy]

I can only think of 2 occasions (out of thousands of journeys) when I've never been on a 142 quiet enough to allow one passenger per bench. One being a middle of the day Lime Street-Oxford Rd service and the other being a mid-afternoon Marple to Manchester service.

Should that “never” be an “ever”? Not sure it makes grammatical sense, but what you’re sort of suggesting there is that there’s only two Pacer journeys you’ve ever done where you had to share a bench!

Assuming you meant the opposite, then I confess myself surprised. Even the busiest peak time Hope Valley stoppers offer up many free benches after the New Mills stop. I, too, have extensive experience of travelling on Pacers and many is the time where I have had solo occupancy of a bench seat – The majority of evening services across the Northern are being an obvious example.

 

[northwichcat]

Should that “never” be an “ever”? Not sure it makes grammatical sense, but what you’re sort of suggesting there is that there’s only two Pacer journeys you’ve ever done where you had to share a bench!

'Ever' I started writing a post saying I'd never experienced a Pacer like this but then remembered two occasions when I have.

 

[fgwrich]

Going back to the original point of the thread, there does seem to be some sort of plan to reduce the weight of rolling stock through better seating - I am in no doubt that we will see more use of things like 'Smart Materials' over the next few coming years as the drive for technology and weight savings in the Automotive industry will spill out across Transport and other areas such as interior designs.

This excerpt is from Roger Fords September 'Informed Sources' and an interview from ATD - The Coventry based firm already supplying the Ironing Board seats to the Desiro City, New 377/379/387 Fleets and soon to be Hitachi AT200s.

Inside the mock-ups, British seat designer ATD had a field day. A relative newcomer to rail, ATD has already gained a reputation for getting a new seat designed and approved very quickly.

I had a long chat with ATD Managing Director Brett Townsend on the engineering hidden inside the seats for the AT100. These are cantilevered from the body side and weigh only 16kg each. I tried very hard to get Brett to take the cushions out so that I could show readers the elegant engineering underneath, but he declined.

 

[DarloRich]

Surely any light weight seating would have to be fitted with anchor points and a support shell that meet the crash worthiness requirements of modern stock. If it can meet those standards AND it is comfortable then why not introduce it.

We could always remove seats completely!

Ryantrain!

 

[Dennis]

Having perused the 'Reading Chronicle', it would seem that FGW have gone a long way towards saving the weight of seating.

There are regular complaints in that paper about not being able to find any seats on the Paddington trains.

 

[w1bbl3]

Surely the first question, which needs to be answered by qualified engineers, is exactly how light can the seat structure become while still retaining its safety, it's not much use putting forward reductions in weight if it brings reduction in crashworthiness for example

This is one of those how long is a piece of string type questions as there are too many parameters for there to be a single correct answer.

Are you for example assuming the seat remains of metallic construction using relatively "simple" rollings, pressings and extrusions or are complex profiles allowable?
Could modern high strength steels and innovative alloys be used?

More radically could composites be considered in answering the question and could/should these be built up assemblies or monolithic?

How about hybrid construction combining composite and metallic elements.

Seat weight reduction is something the aerospace industry has focused on for the past few years a typical "economy" seat of the early 00's was approx 35kg. The lightest seat now in commercial production is 12kg and typical new seats are 20kg. A 4kg hybrid composite seat has been demonstrated including passing all crashworthyness standards. These ultra light seats are targeted at the short haul economy sector, budget airlines basically so will have to be highly robust.

Similar designs could be adapted for rail use if the operators/owners demanded such ultra-lightweight units.

 

[jopsuk]

With the drive for more composite interiors (for trains, planes, cars as well) one of the important factors isn't just crashworthniness but fireproofing. Self-extinguishing and low smoke structural materials are something being intensely worked on at the moment

 

[krus_aragon]

How much impact does reducing the weight of seating on trains have in terms of reducing costs and environmental impact?

Probably as much impact as a "weight weenie" cyclist buying a carbon fibre seatpost that weighs 30g less than the standard one, rather than skipping the muffin wit their morning coffee. The passenger is the more significant mass.

I don't think 3+2 seating is very effective, I wouldn't mind all of those seats being taken out. I'd rather stand than cram my portly frame into one of those!

Surely no self-respecting citizen would expect a well-dressed toad with a cane to standon the train?

 

[northwichcat]

The passenger is the more significant mass.

The seats are always there even for ECS and training.

 

[LexyBoy]

Funnily enough I was wondering this morning why trains are so heavy - AFAIK most coaches are of steel construction throughout. If a significant proportion could be made from aluminium or composites, perhaps a coach could be brought from ~40 tonnes to ~30.

Obviously this would increase the production cost significantly, but if it's possible wouldn't it more than pay for itself over the lifetime of the vehicle in energy and track access?

 

[Ash Bridge]

Funnily enough I was wondering this morning why trains are so heavy - AFAIK most coaches are of steel construction throughout. If a significant proportion could be made from aluminium or composites, perhaps a coach could be brought from ~40 tonnes to ~30.

Obviously this would increase the production cost significantly, but if it's possible wouldn't it more than pay for itself over the lifetime of the vehicle in energy and track access?

Already been done I think in the shape of Mk4s & Class 158s for starters.