Basic passenger comfort - not maximised?

[Clansman]

Just wondering what everyone else thinks on this issue. I often travel and wonder why comfort aspects of train interiors aren't utilised to maximise capacity where perfectly possible in their current configurations. By "comfort", I mean things such as the size of seat bases, types of tables and the positioning of table supports. All of which are small details which can dictate whether we have a comfortable journey or one to forget.

For example;

HSTs and 225s have seats of which the base is maximised to the point where it touches the adjacent seat. Whereas on a Pendolino or Voyager, the seat bases are small and don't allow great space on both sides for the passenger, thus feeling cramped and less spacious than its East Coast counterparts.

Another example is on Scotrail 170s (both series) where First and Standard Class seats are near identical in size, but are only differentiated between 1 central armrest in standard class, and 2 in first class, to give off the impression that they are far more superior than they actually are. The same could be said on TPE also, as well as the IEPs.

Looking further afield towards France, train seat bases on the TGV for example, expand around the sides (and the seat material on the armrests) and maximise the use of space through doing this, and utilising proper fold away tables instead of the miniature flip types. The same could be said for the old Eurostar 373s, but these too are going out of fashion as they look to downgrade their offering. TGV and Eurostar are both great examples of what can be achieved in terms of passenger comfort in both class accommodations (although the same can't be said for DB's ICE) although not many (if any) TOCs plan to follow suit and take advantage of the potential to increase the comfort.

I just don't understand why TOCs don't try and maximise the passenger comfort in both classes where possible; which I mean without the need to sacrifice seats or space in general to introduce comfort and a bit of quality. Going back to Scotrail for example, they could easy put their first class seats in standard class in 2+2 formation by simply removing the suitcase holder down the side of the interior body, and move the seats inward towards the wall (as in standard).

Little changes like that would really make a difference in overall passenger comfort but it's sad to see no one is willing to do so in this day in age. The only "proper" instance I can see in the UK where passenger comfort is utilised on our trains is on the Caledonian Sleeper (seated coach) and VTEC HSTs. I reckon the Meridians and GWR HSTs come just shy of it also with its seats too.

Apologies if this has been brought up already but it is an issue I have always had these thoughts when travelling on these types of trains which makes me question how much value for money am I really getting (not that I'm getting any in the first place!).

 

[physics34]

there is a view in this country.... and has been in the last couple of decades of..."like it or lump it".

Ive commented many a time about seat comfort and it often falls on deaf ears with many people saying "adequate" is ok, rather than.... having the best possible comfort.

 

[Clansman]

there is a view in this country.... and has been in the last couple of decades of..."like it or lump it".

Ive commented many a time about seat comfort and it often falls on deaf ears with many people saying "adequate" is ok, rather than.... having the best possible comfort.

Agree with you there. It's an attitude which in my opinion is starting to sweep into Europe as well.

Eurostar and DB ICE are perfect examples of that.

I've always admired the seats on the TGV (probably my favourite) which maximise passenger comfort whilst still being able to maximise capacity. Although I'm afraid to say but I reckon TGV aren't far behind both Eurostar and DB by adopting this attitude like ourselves.

 

[fredk]

I think the comfort of the seat won't generate enough revenue to justify the expense of extra materials required. If it really was a dealbreaker for whether people choose the train or not I think we would see a different attitude.

 

[deltic08]

I think the comfort of the seat won't generate enough revenue to justify the expense of extra materials required. If it really was a dealbreaker for whether people choose the train or not I think we would see a different attitude.

But it is a deal breaker. I was a regular on the NE-SW route but have not used train since the Mk 2s were withdrawn as everybody told me that Voyager seats were cramped in second class. Added to this, turn-up-and-go fares are now astronomical so car is competitive on both price and time door to door between Ripon and Gloucester.

 

[TrainfanBen]

Proper cushions and end to leather. Bring back compartment coaches and saloon lighting that the passenger can set to their liking. Call it old fashioned, but its not, you could come up with a really modern design that does all of this and remains compliant with legislation.

The problem is the train manufacturers are both A) Lazy and B) Scared to come up with anything other than airline 2+2 layout or high density arrangements.

 

[fredk]

But it is a deal breaker. I was a regular on the NE-SW route but have not used train since the Mk 2s were withdrawn as everybody told me that Voyager seats were cramped in second class. Added to this, turn-up-and-go fares are now astronomical so car is competitive on both price and time door to door between Ripon and Gloucester.

Yes, but the railways are already coping with more demand than they can accomodate for, so making journeys a comfortable experience is the first thing to go out of the window. The train companies have the upper hand.

Over the last 5 years or so we have seen new luxury buses, with new double deckers fitted with high backed leather seats, wifi, sockets, air conditioning, tables, and finished in an executive style. This came about because the bus operators in these areas were losing business to the comforts available in the modern car, so they did this to get people who would otherwise drive onto their buses.

The railway has no need to do this at present. Capacity is the most important factor because anything above acceptable levels of comfort is not going to benefit them financially when there will be a high demand for trains regardless.

Proper cushions and end to leather. Bring back compartment coaches and saloon lighting that the passenger can set to their liking. Call it old fashioned, but its not, you could come up with a really modern design that does all of this and remains compliant with legislation.

The problem is the train manufacturers are both A) Lazy and B) Scared to come up with anything other than airline 2+2 layout or high density arrangements.

I think this would be superb and it is something that would be nice to see. Perhaps there is a place for it on the network somewhere.

 

[racyrich]

I'd like to know just what the difference in price is between the most basic seats and padded leather business class seats.
And then think about how much difference it would make when a carriage costs around £1.25m anyway.

 

[physics34]

I'd like to know just what the difference in price is between the most basic seats and padded leather business class seats.
And then think about how much difference it would make when a carriage costs around £1.25m anyway.

exactly... and considering the seating can be used til at least mid-life refurbishment, the cost arent huge.

In many cases all that is needed is extra cushioning/sprung seats... surely not a huge cost in comparison to the overall cost of the carriage.

I think one of this issues being that the DfT, transport groups and the train companies dont really have anyone/any departments whose job is dealing with passenger comfort.

I think this needs to be created.

 

[Deepgreen]

Much though we would all like comfort to be maximised, it is the case that TOCs have to optimise their designs around maintainability, so even if the difference in cost per seat appears to be small compared with a more comfortable alternative, the cumulative cost of better seats and other facilities will probably lead to significantly greater whole-life costs, when space usage for the 'average' passenger and the statistical 'outliers' and is taken into account. Essentially, given the very low elasticity of the market, the minimum will suffice from an economics viewpoint.

 

[Great_Western]

It is often the small things that can make a difference to comfort. I've often wondered why stock such as the Mersyrail 507/8's or ATW pacers dont have armrests since the spaces and fixtures are already in place. Same goes for tables not being fitted in most Turbo's on Chiltern and GWR. Light settings could also be easily changed to be that bit dimmer at night.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think you're blaming the wrong people. The manufacturers and even operators I'm sure would be quite happy to provide less dense seating layouts and the increased comfort that would allow.

However they will continue to cram in more and more seats until the DfT decides to use a different metric in measuring capacity than 'total seats provided' and/or 'standing space per square meter' as that is what they are contractually judged on by the DfT. However, as politicians love to be able to announce things like 'we're providing x,000 extra seats in the morning peak' don't expect that to change any time soon!

 

[deltic]

Dont Chiltern market themselves as having more comfortable rolling stock than Virgin - I certainly use them to travel to Birmingham when I have the time as its easier to work. I agree that compared to some bus/coach operators rail has gone backwards rather than forwards.

However some of the changes are due to anti-social behaviour and safety - hence the reason for getting rid of compartments and loose cushions on trains - always amazed at how many use to the litter southern railway embankments in the days of drop windows.

Agree with racyrich and deepgreen it would be useful to know what the differences in costs is between the different quality of layout/materials is

 

[AM9]

Given that most rail services are limited in capacity by the infrastructure available to them, anything that reduces the maximum capacity of each train will reduce their ability to deliver transport to the population.
It's fine for a few lightly-used routes where infrequent, (maybe short) trains can provide the capacity, but if that same rolling stock is also required to do crowd-busting duty in the peak, those seats will fill very quickly. Any passengers unfortunate enough to board the train after the best seats have been taken will then need to squeeze into a reduced standing space or even be unable to board at all.
The choice of seating is a finely balanced decision embodying compromises in a number of conflicting requirements:

acquisition and through-life cost, (determined by fare revenue)
durability, (should match actual usage with maintenance cycles)
safety, (i.e. compliant with legal requirements)
space available, (part of the capacity management of the vehicles, - also has an impact on fares)
compatibility with vehicle, (mounting arrangements)
acceptable comfort for maximum number of users,
visual (aesthetic) attractiveness ...
​

The choice of actual seat type is presumably a task for the RoSCo and/or the TOC. Of necessity, the passenger's view of what seats should be like takes place some way down the list, - and even if there was a universal seat type that all passengers wanted (which from these forums there clearly isn't), it would probably result in a need to raise the fares to pay for it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interestingly Chiltern used to mix it up - high backed seats without "wings" in the end sections and lower-backed ones with "wings" in the centre sections. The 165s are also a mix-up of 2+2 and 3+2.