Why are the Ironing Boards taking over?

[class387]

On the other hand, I find the Fainsa and Quantum designs of seats some of the best in the UK at the moment and would happily do Bedford to Brighton in one. I also find IC70s low and unsupportive and the refurbished seats in the 159 ('memory foam') awful. It just shows how proper moquette and padding can make someone instantly like a seat, even if it is an uncomfortable and less safe design. It will be interesting to see how the Fainsas for SWT's 707s and GWR's 387s are, as they both use moquette instead of 'astroturf' cloth.

 

[387star]

1st class in an Outer SUburban 4VEP.

Just some cosy proper seats.

oh wow this takes me back

used to love sitting in the declassified first class private compartments

Good trains they were was a bit gutted when they went but electrostars etc are better in other ways

forgot how good the window alignment was

 

[physics34]

oh wow this takes me back

used to love sitting in the declassified first class private compartments

Good trains they were was a bit gutted when they went but electrostars etc are better in other ways

forgot how good the window alignment was

small details that designers took pride in looking at. Its a different world now.! You are a lot safer now though in an electrostar, and Air Con has its big advantages sometimes.

 

[bramling]

*This has popped up on various thread but I wanted to ask on a separate thread to prevent the same question being raised over and over*

Just wondering why these Fainsa seats, aka "Ironing Boards", are popping up on new trains around London and gradually spreading across the UK? Is this a requirement for all London Suburban TOCs - is it to maximise the space within the train in terms of luggage and standing room?

The Ironing Boards are currently in place on the following:

Class 144* (Demonstrator) - Northern
Class 317* (Demonstrator) - GA
Class 387 (All units) - GTR, GWR, C2C
Class 385 (All units) - SR
Class 700 (All units) - GTR
Class 707 (All units) - SWT
Class 321 (Refurbished Units) - GA

and counting...

Allegedly they're the cheapest design that meets current standards.

Personally I find them awful. Quite simply highly uncomfortable. Just about tolerable on a short journey.

Unfortunately ever-rising passenger numbers mean the railway, especially suburban commuter routes, simply don't seem to have to provide comforts to attract passengers.

 

[richieb1971]

Wasn't the 700 class supposed to be light weight. I would imagine these seats are very light.

 

[Hadders]

What annoys me i that cars get more comfortable and luxurious but trains get 'dumbed down'. There is no need for this imo.

 

[physics34]

What annoys me i that cars get more comfortable and luxurious but trains get 'dumbed down'. There is no need for this imo.

exactly. Im not sure why seats in particular are the cheapest of the cheap, when they potentially could last 30 years.....maybe they are built with the thought to replace them midlife.

You would have thought a high quality seat that will last the distance would be a good investment.

I guess over the top fire regulations have an influence too. I assume this is an EU thing (trying to slip a dig in there at the EU )

 

[AM9]

exactly. Im not sure why seats in particular are the cheapest of the cheap, when they potentially could last 30 years.....maybe they are built with the thought to replace them midlife.

You would have thought a high quality seat that will last the distance would be a good investment.

I guess over the top fire regulations have an influence too. I assume this is an EU thing (trying to slip a dig in there at the EU )

The MKI seating didn't look like those pictures for 80% of its life. On the CIG/VEC stock, the padding would rapidly compress leaving a hard bar at the front of the squab. The seat backs were at a poor angle (for healthy travel) and the whole ride quality was at the mercy of the basic B4 or Commonwealth bogies over indifferent (often jointed) track. It's very easy to get all nostalgic and dewey eyed about the seating of yore but in practice, it could be pretty ropey. I also think that most of us were more tolerant of seating shortfalls when we were 20-30 years younger.
In terms of life, the durability of seats was no better in those days. I can clearly remember MKI seating having some of the straw type stuffing and showing and the steel stiffeners behind passengers' legs on bench seats.

 

[antharro]

Really do not like them. Don't like whatever's in standard class in the 450s either. Gimme whatever was in the 442s (see, there's a 442 reference, only 3 pages in!) and the 4VEPs that physics34 posted.

 

[47271]

The MKI seating didn't look like those pictures for 80% of its life. On the CIG/VEC stock, the padding would rapidly compress leaving a hard bar at the front of the squab. The seat backs were at a poor angle (for healthy travel) and the whole ride quality was at the mercy of the basic B4 or Commonwealth bogies over indifferent (often jointed) track. It's very easy to get all nostalgic and dewey eyed about the seating of yore but in practice, it could be pretty ropey. I also think that most of us were more tolerant of seating shortfalls when we were 20-30 years younger.
In terms of life, the durability of seats was no better in those days. I can clearly remember MKI seating having some of the straw type stuffing and showing and the steel stiffeners behind passengers' legs on bench seats.

Yes, this is pretty much my recollection of the comforts provided by those trains in the 1990s.

The photo of the Standard Class carriage is particularly evocative of two other things in my mind - a smell of damp and sensation of freezing cold draughts blowing around me!

 

[AM9]

Yes, this is pretty much my recollection of the comforts provided by those trains in the 1990s.

The photo of the Standard Class carriage is particularly evocative of two other things in my mind - a smell of damp and sensation of freezing cold draughts blowing around me!

Ah but the summers were better then, all trains were running to time and they never broke down.

As was said:

“Remembrance of things past is not necessarily the remembrance of things as they were.”
― Marcel Proust

 

[43096]

It will be interesting to see how the Fainsas for SWT's 707s and GWR's 387s are, as they both use moquette instead of 'astroturf' cloth.

If the GWR 387s have the same material as the refurbished 150s, then it's flat cloth not moquette. Once again an operator going for the cheap option that will cost more in the long run. That said, think they're better than the Southern astroturf.

 

[edwin_m]

The MKI seating didn't look like those pictures for 80% of its life. On the CIG/VEC stock, the padding would rapidly compress leaving a hard bar at the front of the squab. The seat backs were at a poor angle (for healthy travel) and the whole ride quality was at the mercy of the basic B4 or Commonwealth bogies over indifferent (often jointed) track. It's very easy to get all nostalgic and dewey eyed about the seating of yore but in practice, it could be pretty ropey. I also think that most of us were more tolerant of seating shortfalls when we were 20-30 years younger.
In terms of life, the durability of seats was no better in those days. I can clearly remember MKI seating having some of the straw type stuffing and showing and the steel stiffeners behind passengers' legs on bench seats.

Anyone remember the huge cloud of dust that usually issued forth if you walloped one of those seats hard enough?

 

[westv]

What is "healthy travel"?

 

[AM9]

What is "healthy travel"?

I for me it means seating giving the most appropriate posture for the largest proportion of users. It also means seating that will continue to provide such benefit consistently for the longest period. Just ask a physiotherpist what matter in seating for periods upward of 1 hour at a time.
As edwin_m highlights the dust problem, that is another good reason for moving on from the old style upholstery. Although I've never suffered from asthma or other respiratory ailments, I can't understand anybody supporting something just for their own personal comforts that could make life worse for those that do suffer.

 

[randompixel]

Anyone remember the huge cloud of dust that usually issued forth if you walloped one of those seats hard enough?

http://now-here-this.timeout.com/2014/10/28/how-clean-is-the-tube-we-found-out/

 

[physics34]

The MKI seating didn't look like those pictures for 80% of its life. On the CIG/VEC stock, the padding would rapidly compress leaving a hard bar at the front of the squab. The seat backs were at a poor angle (for healthy travel) and the whole ride quality was at the mercy of the basic B4 or Commonwealth bogies over indifferent (often jointed) track. It's very easy to get all nostalgic and dewey eyed about the seating of yore but in practice, it could be pretty ropey. I also think that most of us were more tolerant of seating shortfalls when we were 20-30 years younger.
In terms of life, the durability of seats was no better in those days. I can clearly remember MKI seating having some of the straw type stuffing and showing and the steel stiffeners behind passengers' legs on bench seats.

Ha ha we disagree again. I only have good memories of this mk1 seating. I do remember a few of them.being a bit warn but I'm not sure it was a frequent event to have the filling coming out and the metal bar behind the legs being a problem. Working the Connex south Central complaints department for a short time I don't remember any complaints about the seating.

I suppose I remember feeling the springs though the cushioning a bit, but I saw that as an advantage as the springs helped, being a secondary suspension.

I don't believe the suspension on modern stock is worthy of removing spring seats. Saying that, the 700s have a superior ride quality to the electrostars.

 

[47271]

And remember this stuff in the 1980s? It never wore out because of its highly abrasive qualities on the passenger's clothing

The upholstery shown in the carriage interiors upthread was a feather bed by comparison.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't believe the suspension on modern stock is worthy of removing spring seats. Saying that, the 700s have a superior ride quality to the electrostars.

So far as I am concerned nothing other than the overweight Class 221 ever matched the superb ride quality of the Class 158, and nothing in the UK has ever surpassed it.

 

[crehld]

I like them, though not as much as the GWR "tombstones". Both seats are good for tall people in that it is possible to rest your head on the headrest.

I actually quite like the ironing boards too, and I'm by comparison quite short.

 

[AM9]

Ha ha we disagree again. I only have good memories of this mk1 seating. I do remember a few of them.being a bit warn but I'm not sure it was a frequent event to have the filling coming out and the metal bar behind the legs being a problem. Working the Connex south Central complaints department for a short time I don't remember any complaints about the seating.

I suppose I remember feeling the springs though the cushioning a bit, but I saw that as an advantage as the springs helped, being a secondary suspension.

I don't believe the suspension on modern stock is worthy of removing spring seats. Saying that, the 700s have a superior ride quality to the electrostars.

My MKI stock experiences were mainly on the GEML on:

all of the non-corridor slam-door stock, (those 6-a-side bench seats were clearly necessary with the Gresley-style single bolster bogies) and heavily used jointed track
the 306s which were quite a bouncy ride and the suspension sometimes seemed to bottom
the 309s were fine most of the time but by the mid-late seventies, the Commonwealth bogies definitely had a rougher ride at speeds over 70mph.​

My SWML travels were in the late '60s mainly:

in 4-SUBs as far as Wimbledon, once again the bench seats were terrible and on 4-CORs from Waterloo to Havant. That was a lively ride where bouncy seats were really needed soujth of Guildford.
In the late '70s and '80s it was mainly thumpers from Portsmouth to Fareham, when 60mph was the maximum preactical speed and CIGs/VECs up to Waterloo. All of theose plush looking seats were quite tiring with little lateral support and as I said above, the padding was definitely unfit for purpose for most of its life on the most used stock
The only breath of fresh air was the 442s when they were new. The seating was refreshing change but I moved away in the early nineties so only had a short experience of them.​

The MML is not an easy line for suspensions, especially the fasts between West Hampstead and The Elstree Tunnel, but the better support in the Electrostars, (especially the 387s) makes it bearable despite the uneasy ride of those trains. The 700s however seem to eat the bumps and the seats are quite compatible with both comfort and (hopefully) durability. Far better than the soggy pseudo-luxury of the 377/2s.

 

[physics34]

My MKI stock experiences were mainly on the GEML on:

all of the non-corridor slam-door stock, (those 6-a-side bench seats were clearly necessary with the Gresley-style single bolster bogies) and heavily used jointed track
the 306s which were quite a bouncy ride and the suspension sometimes seemed to bottom
the 309s were fine most of the time but by the mid-late seventies, the Commonwealth bogies definitely had a rougher ride at speeds over 70mph.​

My SWML travels were in the late '60s mainly:

in 4-SUBs as far as Wimbledon, once again the bench seats were terrible and on 4-CORs from Waterloo to Havant. That was a lively ride where bouncy seats were really needed soujth of Guildford.
In the late '70s and '80s it was mainly thumpers from Portsmouth to Fareham, when 60mph was the maximum preactical speed and CIGs/VECs up to Waterloo. All of theose plush looking seats were quite tiring with little lateral support and as I said above, the padding was definitely unfit for purpose for most of its life on the most used stock
The only breath of fresh air was the 442s when they were new. The seating was refreshing change but I moved away in the early nineties so only had a short experience of them.​

The MML is not an easy line for suspensions, especially the fasts between West Hampstead and The Elstree Tunnel, but the better support in the Electrostars, (especially the 387s) makes it bearable despite the uneasy ride of those trains. The 700s however seem to eat the bumps and the seats are quite compatible with both comfort and (hopefully) durability. Far better than the soggy pseudo-luxury of the 377/2s.

I was too young to remember SUB seats and EPB seats really (EPBs were withdrawn when I was 14.) The closest comparison were the Thumpers, which didn't seem to bad, they certainly didn't seem worn out. I can't comment on your 306s etc unfortunately (although I would've loved to have ridden them.

Agree with the original 442 seats. Great units in this guise.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Working the Connex south Central complaints department for a short time I don't remember any complaints about the seating.

I suspect no one bothered about the seating because that was the least of the problems with Connex. They were more worried about if the trains actually ran.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agree with the original 442 seats. Great units in this guise.

All thread lead to...

I agree, though. They were (before GTR ruined them) everything the Mk3 coach *should* have been.

 

[APTnerd\Effwon]

*This has popped up on various thread but I wanted to ask on a separate thread to prevent the same question being raised over and over*

Just wondering why these Fainsa seats, aka "Ironing Boards", are popping up on new trains around London and gradually spreading across the UK? Is this a requirement for all London Suburban TOCs - is it to maximise the space within the train in terms of luggage and standing room?

Well they are cheap, do not take up much space, and are easy to clean around.
I prefer london overground style seats though.

 

[Philip C]

My MKI stock experiences were mainly on the GEML on:

all of the non-corridor slam-door stock, (those 6-a-side bench seats were clearly necessary with the Gresley-style single bolster bogies) and heavily used jointed track
the 306s which were quite a bouncy ride and the suspension sometimes seemed to bottom
the 309s were fine most of the time but by the mid-late seventies, the Commonwealth bogies definitely had a rougher ride at speeds over 70mph.​

My SWML travels were in the late '60s mainly:

in 4-SUBs as far as Wimbledon, once again the bench seats were terrible and on 4-CORs from Waterloo to Havant. That was a lively ride where bouncy seats were really needed soujth of Guildford.
In the late '70s and '80s it was mainly thumpers from Portsmouth to Fareham, when 60mph was the maximum preactical speed and CIGs/VECs up to Waterloo. All of theose plush looking seats were quite tiring with little lateral support and as I said above, the padding was definitely unfit for purpose for most of its life on the most used stock
The only breath of fresh air was the 442s when they were new. The seating was refreshing change but I moved away in the early nineties so only had a short experience of them.​

The MML is not an easy line for suspensions, especially the fasts between West Hampstead and The Elstree Tunnel, but the better support in the Electrostars, (especially the 387s) makes it bearable despite the uneasy ride of those trains. The 700s however seem to eat the bumps and the seats are quite compatible with both comfort and (hopefully) durability. Far better than the soggy pseudo-luxury of the 377/2s.

Travelling between London and the Sussex Coast on a daily basis for a total of 27 years (in two spells : both Central & SE Divisions) I can honestly say that the standard of seating was vastly better that that currently on offer. I retired soon after the Electrostars had taken over and their seating is and remains inferior. The latest seating to afflict the Central Division is a further massive step backwards.

I will accept that towards the end of CIGs/CEPs and VEPs maintenance of seating (and more generally) took the edge off the travel experience; but when Brighton Depot was properly taking a pride in its work in the 70s and 80s the quality of seating was very good. I regret the loss of cushioned wings to head rests, upholstered wall panels, curtains at windows, fresh air in summer, windows and seats in alignment and arm-rests that really rested the arms: all of which featured in the earlier built CIG/BIGs of the period IN SECOND CLASS too!

I suppose it is possible that there are those who prefer modern seating, but it really isn't an out-pouring of nostalgia that motivates my opinion that, at least in this the old days were better!

 

[spargazer]

What are the rules on sideways seating, is there a maximum speed.? They use similar seats on trams.

 

[DasLunatic]

What are the rules on sideways seating, is there a maximum speed.? They use similar seats on trams.

The AGA 321s have it and they frequently do 100, so I'd imagine the limit is probably 100 or 110.

 

[AM9]

The AGA 321s have it and they frequently do 100, so I'd imagine the limit is probably 100 or 110.

So did some of the 319s.

 

[swt_passenger]

So did some of the 319s.

Then there's flip down side seats in multipurpose bike spaces such as on the 350s and 450s.

I'd hazard a guess that there are no speed restrictions at all, and it is just luck that there are none running about faster than 110 mph yet.