The future of seating on UK rail network

[hwl]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned wooden chairs for future rolling stocks.

BYO seating? - as there will be far fewer seats on SE metro services in the future...

 

[physics34]

I know that the industry is aware of the seat comfort issue and the RSSB are currently starting up a research project into how this can be improved whilst also meeting the stringent fire safety and other appropriate regulations which have led to such thin seats.

Don't ask me for details as there aren't any as of yet but hopefully this should lead to things getting better in future!

Thats good to hear.

We all understand fire regulations are important but its not too often train carriages are alight and passengers are injured and killed because of furnishings. If you are stuck in a train carriage and all the seat cushions are alight then id say you are pretty much a gonna anyway. Common sense. The aviation industry needs to be a different and higher spec, that is understandable... but to have specs so high that they affect the basic comfort for mid to long distance travel is not a happy medium.

 

[365fenman]

Here's a solution for providing comfortable, easy-to clean seats: leather seats. Learn from the Continent.

As regard to the ironing board seats on classes 387 and 700, what really doesn't help is that the seats are SO upright (basically 90 degrees).

After using the former two trains a lot, I travelled on a 365 from London to Cambridge for the first time in a while. I remember sitting down and thinking "wow, that is a comfortable seat!" These seats are those are much more inclined, so you feel like you can actually relax, as opposed to the other two where you feel like you're back at school waiting for a rollocking from the headmaster.

 

[yorksrob]

Please, no more leather !

 

[cambsy]

I find leather seats nice, can to my eye, add an air of quality, make first class look a definite upgrade from standard, unlike the Pendolino first class which while still nice doesn’t have the impact of leather seats, in my opinion, Maybe there are cheap leather seats in standard on some foreign trains but I’ve never on one so cant comment, In terms of standard seats , I like reasonably high back, bit of padding, like Pendolino or Voyager, but ironing board ok, been on 700’s for good couple hours, no problem, IC70 low back seats not keen on.

 

[prod_pep]

To clarify an earlier point, the seat type found in Southern's older 377s, 313s and Merseyrail's 507/8s were also sometimes nicknamed 'ironing boards'. These are considerably more comfortable than the later generation and are fine for suburban services.

 

[physics34]

To clarify an earlier point, the seat type found in Southern's older 377s, 313s and Merseyrail's 507/8s were also sometimes nicknamed 'ironing boards'. These are considerably more comfortable than the later generation and are fine for suburban services.

But the fainsa seats in 700s, 387s and 377/6s & 7s are literally Ironing board shaped.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Please, no more leather !

I find that moquette seating with leather headrests is a good balance.

I don’t see why the fire regulations would require thin seats. Sofas have to be fire retardant.

 

[satisnek]

I would say that there's more to it than simple hardness - the front to back measurement of the seat is also significant. I seem to remember that the aforementioned 'hard' seats in Phase 2 CIGs (and the 3+2 variant in VEPs for that matter) were quite generous in that respect and offered good thigh support. Today's seats, whether hard or soft, are just big enough to accommodate your bum and not much else.

 

[yorksrob]

I find leather seats nice, can to my eye, add an air of quality, make first class look a definite upgrade from standard, unlike the Pendolino first class which while still nice doesn’t have the impact of leather seats, in my opinion, Maybe there are cheap leather seats in standard on some foreign trains but I’ve never on one so cant comment, In terms of standard seats , I like reasonably high back, bit of padding, like Pendolino or Voyager, but ironing board ok, been on 700’s for good couple hours, no problem, IC70 low back seats not keen on.

To my eye, they add an air of mid-life crisis to the railway.

 

[yorksrob]

I find that moquette seating with leather headrests is a good balance.

I don’t see why the fire regulations would require thin seats. Sofas have to be fire retardant.

Yes, the leather headrests on the EMT HST are very pleasant and quite enough leather.

 

[greyman42]

Here's a solution for providing comfortable, easy-to clean seats: leather seats. Learn from the Continent.

As regard to the ironing board seats on classes 387 and 700, what really doesn't help is that the seats are SO upright (basically 90 degrees).

After using the former two trains a lot, I travelled on a 365 from London to Cambridge for the first time in a while. I remember sitting down and thinking "wow, that is a comfortable seat!" These seats are those are much more inclined, so you feel like you can actually relax, as opposed to the other two where you feel like you're back at school waiting for a rollocking from the headmaster.

Yes the 365,despite being an older train, do have comfortable seats. As you note, it is due to the incline of the seat and a decent foam base. It is a pity modern units don't have the same seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would say that there's more to it than simple hardness - the front to back measurement of the seat is also significant. I seem to remember that the aforementioned 'hard' seats in Phase 2 CIGs (and the 3+2 variant in VEPs for that matter) were quite generous in that respect and offered good thigh support. Today's seats, whether hard or soft, are just big enough to accommodate your bum and not much else.

The new Eurostar seats actually have fold out underthigh support for taller people.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Please, no more leather !

Leather can work if used correctly.

 

[satisnek]

The new Eurostar seats actually have fold out underthigh support for taller people.

Sounds good, I wonder if it will catch on?

 

[Dave1987]

I do rather get the feeling that the attitude towards seats is, 'hard rock seats are here to stay so you have better get used to them'.

 

[brel york]

Just to get back to fire regs , leather still has to meet stringent fire regs especially in the aviation industry and as for the railway even cable ties have to be low smoke etc
Most things burn , it’s the toxic smoke that comes from the fire that’s the issue .
Tyne and Wear wanted to use black window rubber to blend in with the black window panel , their fire regs are more stringent than the real railway and they had to use the dark grey coloured type as the black compound didn’t meet the regs , every new item now fitted has to meet strict fire regs

 

[physics34]

I do rather get the feeling that the attitude towards seats is, 'hard rock seats are here to stay so you have better get used to them'.

Until there is some kind of protest or study by a passenger group..or something to whip up a debate about it in the media then i think you are right

 

[Mikey C]

Short haul plane seats seem to be going the same way. They're all "slimline" now so extra seats can be crammed in, so thin and slippery with no "give"

 

[AM9]

Until there is some kind of protest or study by a passenger group..or something to whip up a debate about it in the media then i think you are right

The time and cost of replacing all the upholstery on a class of train to satisfy some of those who might get to sit on it would not be accepted by the railway, the DfT and especially the Treasury. Creating what would be a precedent of effectively appeasing a protest from a passenger pressure group, I imagine that there would be extreme resistance to changing 'cosmetic' aspects of delivered rolling stock. Just consider the situation, if the class 700s are presumed (by some here), to be the most likely to stir up a protest, that's taking 1140 vehicles out of service before the costs are reckoned. So if they are done, the next thing would be the class 707s, - another 150 vehicles. Then the me too avalanche would start - probably with 630 class 345, the class 710, 717 and what seems a candidate for protest, the AGA replacement units. There's little chance of any government, - even with a few commuter's champions baying about it, sanctioning an expensive and logistically embarassing programme of change to relatively new trains. Add to that the fact that all the clamour seems to be about trains in London and the south-east and the issue becomes politically incendiary.

 

[brel york]

Well said , be grateful you have a seat

 

[43096]

Well said , be grateful you have a seat

And there we have, in one sentence, the fundamental problem with the railway industry. The industry as a whole doesn’t give a damn about its customers.

 

[brel york]

Are you only just realising this
People ask me at Work who pays for all the nonsense we witness regarding rolling stock and the money that’s wasted and I just point out of the office window at the customers on Doncaster station and say “them “

 

[Parallel]

I'd like to see the seats in the 180s and 175s make a comeback. Very comfortable in shape and leg room, despite being fairly thin!

 

[physics34]

Well said , be grateful you have a seat

totally the wrong attitude. We should all strive for BETTER.

 

[physics34]

The time and cost of replacing all the upholstery on a class of train to satisfy some of those who might get to sit on it would not be accepted by the railway, the DfT and especially the Treasury. Creating what would be a precedent of effectively appeasing a protest from a passenger pressure group, I imagine that there would be extreme resistance to changing 'cosmetic' aspects of delivered rolling stock. Just consider the situation, if the class 700s are presumed (by some here), to be the most likely to stir up a protest, that's taking 1140 vehicles out of service before the costs are reckoned. So if they are done, the next thing would be the class 707s, - another 150 vehicles. Then the me too avalanche would start - probably with 630 class 345, the class 710, 717 and what seems a candidate for protest, the AGA replacement units. There's little chance of any government, - even with a few commuter's champions baying about it, sanctioning an expensive and logistically embarassing programme of change to relatively new trains. Add to that the fact that all the clamour seems to be about trains in London and the south-east and the issue becomes politically incendiary.

Why would they take a whole fleet out of use?! Changes could be made as overhauls are due. Anyway, all this wouldnt had been an issue if initial criticisms regarding the seats were taken into account during the exhibition process.(design changes for the units yet to be built couldve taken place...although it is assumed all parts had been ordered or maybe even made, which would then make that an issue). The user groups should be involved at the design stage. We know that these trains were designed by pen-pushers at the DfT...and im sure not a single one of them has sat on a 700 for a Bedford to Brighton full run yet.

 

[brel york]

Private industry at its finest , owners and shareholders pockets will always come before the comfort of your arse , please tell me you don’t actually believe the railway is been run for the benefit of the customer /user

 

[AM9]

Why would they take a whole fleet out of use?! Changes could be made as overhauls are due.

So every overhaul over a (say) five year period would be extended by a couple of days. That would probably add a couple of units to the overall service requirement or there would just be missing diagrams.

Anyway, all this wouldnt had been an issue if initial criticisms regarding the seats were taken into account during the exhibition process.(design changes for the units yet to be built couldve taken place...although it is assumed all parts had been ordered or maybe even made, which would then make that an issue). The user groups should be involved at the design stage.

As a £1.5bn element in a £6.5bn scheme to make major routes into London cope with projected demand, the focus was predominately on safe carriage of the maximum number of passengers in safety giving the shortest practicable journey times. The trains also needed maximum availability which involved physical durability both inside and out, and with designs that permitted rapid cleaning & servicing. All of this needed to be acheived using public funds, - which has a myriad of other demands on it such as roads, hospitals, benefits etc., - much of which isn't in the south-east. They (regrettably) are the political realities of the procurement of public transport that we all must acknowledge.

We know that these trains were designed by pen-pushers at the DfT...and im sure not a single one of them has sat on a 700 for a Bedford to Brighton full run yet.

That really does sound petulent, - and it is inaccurate. The trains were specified in terms of their capabilities and the infrastructure that they woud be deployed in by the DfT. I doubt whether those you describe as 'pen-pushers' are ever required to design trains, - that's best left to engineering teams, most of whom work in research centres and/or manufacturers. Their role in specifying the interiors of the trains probably stopped at mandating approved seating that met established standards of safety, durability, and posture ergonomics. Hence even Siemens don't design seats, they subcontracted Fainsa to provide compliant seats that fitted the available space and price. Obviously, individuals have differing ideas as to what constitutes an acceptable seat and no one design could possibly satisfy all. I am sure that the hundreds of passengers who daily would have to let a couple of overloaded trains leave without them are happy to get on the first train and in many cases, even get a seat. That's the price that commuters have to pay for their reduced fares, but it has just got a bit better with the class 700s.

 

[physics34]

So every overhaul over a (say) five year period would be extended by a couple of days. That would probably add a couple of units to the overall service requirement or there would just be missing diagrams.



As a £1.5bn element in a £6.5bn scheme to make major routes into London cope with projected demand, the focus was predominately on safe carriage of the maximum number of passengers in safety giving the shortest practicable journey times. The trains also needed maximum availability which involved physical durability both inside and out, and with designs that permitted rapid cleaning & servicing. All of this needed to be acheived using public funds, - which has a myriad of other demands on it such as roads, hospitals, benefits etc., - much of which isn't in the south-east. They (regrettably) are the political realities of the procurement of public transport that we all must acknowledge.



That really does sound petulent, - and it is inaccurate. The trains were specified in terms of their capabilities and the infrastructure that they woud be deployed in by the DfT. I doubt whether those you describe as 'pen-pushers' are ever required to design trains, - that's best left to engineering teams, most of whom work in research centres and/or manufacturers. Their role in specifying the interiors of the trains probably stopped at mandating approved seating that met established standards of safety, durability, and posture ergonomics. Hence even Siemens don't design seats, they subcontracted Fainsa to provide compliant seats that fitted the available space and price. Obviously, individuals have differing ideas as to what constitutes an acceptable seat and no one design could possibly satisfy all. I am sure that the hundreds of passengers who daily would have to let a couple of overloaded trains leave without them are happy to get on the first train and in many cases, even get a seat. That's the price that commuters have to pay for their reduced fares, but it has just got a bit better with the class 700s.

we are going round and round again with the same arguments as previously. You are coming from a business point of view , Iam coming from a passenger experience point of view. Your points are all valid, but, improving the design wouldnt have COST much. We are talking, armrests (which also answer the issue of the seat being too close to the side wall/trunking), more legroom, tables and more cushioning. Research on what the passengers want (not the DfT "people") wouldve resulted in better accommodation.

People a journey of up to, say, 45mins.....all they want is to get on a train. Longer than that ..UP TO 2HOURS they would expect a seat. The longer the journey the more they would expect a table, space and comfort. This is not what you get in a 700...and on top of that it WAS what they got on previous stock.

I wrote to the DfT a while back and the answer to my question regarding the seating being tight and pushed up against the sidewall and their answer was to "make the aisles as wide as possible to allow the maximum standees". All well and good, but once again not what passengers on longer journeys want.

 

[AM9]

we are going round and round again with the same arguments as previously. You are coming from a business point of view , Iam coming from a passenger experience point of view.

Your problem is that the railway is a commercial business, - albeit a pseudo privatised business. If you travel in the south-east on the busiest lines in the country where the nature of that business is moving the maximum number of passengers possible safely on Victorian infrastructure that itself would have prohibitive costs to fix. You are coming from some passengers point of view. The railway is a public transport system.

Your points are all valid, but, improving the design wouldnt have COST much. We are talking, armrests (which also answer the issue of the seat being too close to the side wall/trunking), more legroom, tables and more cushioning. Research on what the passengers want (not the DfT "people") wouldve resulted in better accommodation.

As I said, it is a business where the customers are captive and the objective is to deliver the capacity at the minimum cost/maximum profit. It's not the relatively small cost of adding armrests, tables and cushioning, it's the cost and performance implications of them being there. The addition of armrests would either make the seats too narrow for some or narrow the gangway, more legroom would reduce the number of seats, tables (apparently proven in tests) increase dwell times, more cushioning is not necessarily what everybody wants, - those who do could bring additional cushioning with them whereas those who need a firm supportive seat couldn't remove any fitted cushions.

People a journey of up to, say, 45mins.....all they want is to get on a train. Longer than that ..UP TO 2HOURS they would expect a seat. The longer the journey the more they would expect a table, space and comfort. This is not what you get in a 700...and on top of that it WAS what they got on previous stock.

Passengers are travelling in class 700s for an average of 25mins. Those travelling for 1hr+ are in the minority and a lot of them are making journeys less than 25mins. So the trains have been specified to carry the maximum numbers for the duration that most passengers actually do. The dwells are also part of the requirement as they have an impact on the line capacity. The previous stock was becoming seriously inadequate for the volume of traffic on the line. Passengers along the route were unable to board trains. The trains couldn't get longer so something had to give. Those lucky enough to board at the start of the journey have always had seats. With the new trains, those travelling from mid route stations at least now have a chance of boarding, so they can stand (and look at the luckier passengers who have filled all the seats). They now have better, safer standing space.

I wrote to the DfT a while back and the answer to my question regarding the seating being tight and pushed up against the sidewall and their answer was to "make the aisles as wide as possible to allow the maximum standees". All well and good, but once again not what passengers on longer journeys want.

See above, - passengers on longer journeys are in a minority.