The Sunday Times: 'Ironing board' seats

[physics34]

Have you ever been on one?

The aisle being over a metre wide makes it far easier for people to move around a very crowded train, and thus means they can alight quicker. They are also less averse to "moving down the train" as there is more to do so.

It really works, and it's not new - the Class 319s had the third seat of 3+2 removed for exactly the same reason.

When i complained to the DfT by email about the seats this is what the reply was. They wanted the aisles as wide as possible.

 

[physics34]

I certainly won't dispute that fact, all I am saying is that whenever anyone critises any aspect of this train it is always "if we did that we would ruin the dwell times"

The 4 main problems.
1. Lack of seat back tables (ruin dwell time and add wieght) - now they are retrofitting.
2. Lack of Comfort - (If the seats are comfortable people will stay in them and not want to get out of them as soon as the trian approaches so therefore increase dwell times)
3. Lack of armrests - Increase dwell times as peoples bags get caught on them. Seat will become too wide for the train.
4. Heating duct - If the seats were designed to have more distance between train side and seat. Then the dwell time would increase and Thameslink would be unwrokable. People don't sit at strange angles with knees in the isle - photos in newspapers showing this are photoshopped.

Sort of can see the point in 3&4.

Your 4th point is wrong. They do have to sit at strange angles especially when tall. Your 2nd point also doesnt make sense

 

[hwl]

Your 4th point is wrong. They do have to sit at strange angles especially when tall. Your 2nd point also doesnt make sense

On point 2. I think he means the result would be the passengers lined up by the doors like paratroopers waiting to jump before they get to the station as they they would be looking forward to standing up

 

[hwl]

The dwell time requirement would be met by any 3+2-width seat in 2+2 formation, including the E3000.

Almost certainly not - have you actually read the rolling stock spec?

50% churn at full load in 27s in service recovery mode (equivalent to 30tph)

 

[hwl]

But who are the majority of passengers?

If it is they have still got it wrong and should have gone for longitudinal seats?

The rolling stock contract specifies that seats must be easily interchangeable for longitudinal so be very very careful what you wish for!

 

[Failed Unit]

The rolling stock contract specifies that seats must be easily interchangeable for longitudinal so be very very careful what you wish for!

On the I am alright jack. I will never get a seat anyway so it doesn’t matter. . But I suspect further north they will be wanting me to keep quiet.

 

[Failed Unit]

On point 2. I think he means the result would be the passengers lined up by the doors like paratroopers waiting to jump before they get to the station as they they would be looking forward to standing up

Yes. I was.

 

[hwl]

Yes. I was.

Well they need to be but I don't think that was the intention with seating padding, the lack of armrest was definitely dwell time minimisation.

 

[sefton]

Ah, so we're at the 'I'm not in a hurry so why should I be inconvenienced by everybody else' position. If you are going to Kings Cross, the disembarkation time is largely irrelevant at the moment as there are just enough platform slots to accommodate the stragglers.

If you think I am going to join the hoards pushing and shoving to first off the train or one of the idiots who stand up long before the train arrives, then you can think again.

As for efficient exiit of customers being necessary, nonsense.

I am sat on a 700 at the moment (in the reletive comfort of the declassified rear) having just got on at St Pancras.

I have just watched the incredibly slow departure of the previous train where as usual the amount of time customers took to get off was irrelevant.

The train was sat at St Pancras for several minutes whilst people tried, and failed, to get on. The only way to have speeded up departure would have been for all the seats to have been removed and Japanese tube pushers employed.

 

[physics34]

The rolling stock contract specifies that seats must be easily interchangeable for longitudinal so be very very careful what you wish for!

In an earlier conversation on this thread i agreed with someone that maybe the outer 3 cars of a FLU (each end) should be high spec seating and the middle 6 cars should be longitudinal. Kinda makes sense..i think..

 

[mushroomchow]

I think it's telling that I now find the seats on older tube stock amongst the most comfortable I've travelled on away from a heritage railway.

 

[Dr_Intoxicated]

I think the change from 3+2 to 2+2 yields the wider aisle and this would still apply if the remaining seats were given a 1 to 2" spacing. I think this would be a good compromise between a comfortable seat and easy movement down the carriage. As some have said at the moment people sitting in the aisle seats overhang the seats or even sit sidewards or at a diagonal taking up aisle apace anyway out of necessity

 

[bramling]

As some have said at the moment people sitting in the aisle seats overhang the seats or even sit sidewards or at a diagonal taking up aisle apace anyway out of necessity

Yes - this is exactly what happens. Meanwhile, don't think longitudinal seating is immune from this issue either - try walking through an S stock and it's guaranteed outstretched legs will be intruding into the aisle.

 

[Failed Unit]

Yes - this is exactly what happens. Meanwhile, don't think longitudinal seating is immune from this issue either - try walking through an S stock and it's guaranteed outstretched legs will be intruding into the aisle.

But at least it is comfortable.

 

[bramling]

Peak? Well we know from your posts you have nothing but contempt for them because of their subsidised season tickets.

Nail on head. We also know that he uses the declassified section of the class 700s where possible, maybe because the seats are more widely spaced so there's more room for all the shoulder chips?

 

[bramling]

Eventually, the noise will die down and everybody will just get on with their lives. Those who still can't do that will make alternative arrangements, some of them token gestures like switching to driving to LU railheads etc., best of luck with that. Many of them will later decide that maybe queueing in traffic isn't that much fun, however comfortable their little cell is and crawl back onto the trains. Either way, the railway will still be there to carry them, - we won't see any collapse in passenger recipts however much some might wish for it.

How unreliable do you think the service would have to get before something might have to give? So far many of the preview services have picked up quite a bit of delay (despite running under class 9 reporting numbers which some on here seem to think is the answer to all problems), which has only been masked by unreal amounts of stand time at various locations around the core, which the final timetable simply won't and can't have.

So far, we've already seen an acknowledgement from the industry that the plan is fragile - indeed evidently too fragile for the originally proposed service to be implemented this coming May. Even a handful of preview services can't be made to run right time throughout. Meanwhile elements of the train are so unpopular that the issue has reached national as well as local news. Money has had to be spent amending the design to include tables - which some people said would never happen until a mid-life refit if at all. Amusingly even defenders of the design have stated on here that they find the seating cramped now the tables have been added. This is definitely not a project I'd be wanting on my CV.

As has been posted before, some of this nonsense might be viable for the 20-minute St Albans to London journey, with at least 4 fast trains per hour and at least 8 tph in total. Other places don't have this luxurious level of service.

 

[AM9]

But who are the majority of passengers? ...

In the case of GTR north of London and in the context of my post, it is easier to first identify the minority, who as I said above are those who don't want their travel arrangements to change. Given the need for change, I suspect that there is little consideration for all other passenger's needs so all those other passengers are in the majority.

... Peak? Well we know from your posts you have nothing but contempt for them because of their subsidised season tickets. You have stated in previous posts that treating the captive market badly is acceptable as they have no alternative. Unfortunately this fact is true. Making the journey uncomfortable will not lose many of these. Pricing them off if the only solution.

You should read what I actually say about season ticket pricing. My irritation is that despite most of the annual season tickets being valid for Anytime travel over 480 journeys per year, there are still many who complain that they are paying £3000, £5000 etc., (insert whatever fare it is) per year, when they are in fact paying below off-peak ticket prices, yet they still insist that they are essential for the railway's commercial functioning.
In reality, much of the infrastructure and rolling stock investment is there purely to provide services for two hours am and another two pm, and that is for passengers who pay less than a leisure traveller who voluntarily restricts their access to off-peak services when there is normally plenty of underused capacity. The conclusion therefore is that season ticket travel is heavily subsidised, which is fine by me, but those benefitting from the subsidy should stop whingeing and be grateful that other passengers/public funds are carrying the cost of their travel. In effect, they are in a captive market because they are heavily subsidised.

... Off-Peak? Well these passengers in normal service get a seat most of the time. Even on great northern overcrowding will be resolved by the fact trains are 8 coaches. We may see an increase in passengers as a result. However Thameslink also wants to attract Cambridge- Gatwick off peak travellers. They can drive - congestion isn’t horrendous off peak. They can go by coach. Comfortable environment compared to the train. Or use Thameslink. The spartan interior won’t attrack off-peak travellers.

Cross-London travel from Herts. to Gatwick, (and the reverse from Surrey/Sussex to Luton) has been available via the MML/BML for almost thirty years. It has continued to grow (including since the introduction of class700 stock) and for many is a viable means of trouble-free travel to and from holiday airports. The service runs through the night (one of the few in the south-east) but the M1/M25/M23 either self-drive or coach are alternatives so travellers can make their choice. I would put money on there being a sizeable trade in passengers travelling down the ECML and Cambridge lines within a year of the full service starting. The fact that some might prefer softer seats won't make that much difference to the volume of travellers. Being able to get on a spacious train with more luggage than can be taken on a flight and no requirement to change will ensure that for most, plusses and minuses are weighed up.

The train is designed of crush loading of peak passengers with no thought of comfort to attract more off-peak. Would a decent seat really be too much to ask? So who is the majority? The captive market of subsidised season ticket holders you seem to dislike so much? If it is they have still got it wrong and should have gone for longitudinal seats?
Do you work for GTR?

The train is specified to do a variety of jobs. It would seem that commuters get the preferential treatment because of the absolute need to deliver peak capacity, (see above re. season ticket holders being the cause of much railway investment). I am not a commuter (it's over 30 years since I did any rail commuting, - over 40 years in the London area) but the investment cannot just fail to meet that level of demand. Now as I have said, public funds for rail investment are of necessity limited which means that it isn't possible to have 'commuter rolling stock' that runs for just four hours per day to be put away in sidings and replaced with more luxurious trains between the peaks. Most passengers understand this and is does not discourage the majority of leisure travellers from using the commuter friendly trains in the off-peak. If some more extreme predictions of become reality, it may indeed be necessary to have some longitudonal seating put in rather that do nothing for decades whilst politicians haggle over the budget for additional lines. The alternative for commuters is that they won't be able to board trains at all, - just like on Thameslink 10 years ago. After all, The current Thameslink enhancements have taken nearly 30 years to materialise, Crossrail was originally identified as a need over 50 years ago.
Oh and by the way, I don't work for anybody, nor have I ever had any employment in any part of the railway industry let alone GTR.

 

[sefton]

You should read what I actually say about season ticket pricing. My irritation is that despite most of the annual season tickets being valid for Anytime travel over 480 journeys per year, there are still many who complain that they are paying £3000, £5000 etc., (insert whatever fare it is) per year, when they are in fact paying below off-peak ticket prices, yet they still insist that they are essential for the railway's commercial functioning.
In reality, much of the infrastructure and rolling stock investment is there purely to provide services for two hours am and another two pm, and that is for passengers who pay less than a leisure traveller who voluntarily restricts their access to off-peak services when there is normally plenty of underused capacity. The conclusion therefore is that season ticket travel is heavily subsidised, which is fine by me, but those benefitting from the subsidy should stop whingeing and be grateful that other passengers/public funds are carrying the cost of their travel. In effect, they are in a captive market because they are heavily subsidised.

That isn't a sensible argument.

I would argue that a ticket should be priced based on the cost of *that* train divided by the number of people on *that* train.

Lots of commuters rammed into a peak service should mean they pay much less than they do.

Meanwhile the passengers on this empty 700 I am currently using (one of the test Horsham to Peterborough) should pay an absolute fortune as there seems to be about 10 people on a 12 car train.

 

[Failed Unit]

In the case of GTR north of London and in the context of my post, it is easier to first identify the minority, who as I said above are those who don't want their travel arrangements to change. Given the need for change, I suspect that there is little consideration for all other passenger's needs so all those other passengers are in the majority.



You should read what I actually say about season ticket pricing. My irritation is that despite most of the annual season tickets being valid for Anytime travel over 480 journeys per year, there are still many who complain that they are paying £3000, £5000 etc., (insert whatever fare it is) per year, when they are in fact paying below off-peak ticket prices, yet they still insist that they are essential for the railway's commercial functioning.
In reality, much of the infrastructure and rolling stock investment is there purely to provide services for two hours am and another two pm, and that is for passengers who pay less than a leisure traveller who voluntarily restricts their access to off-peak services when there is normally plenty of underused capacity. The conclusion therefore is that season ticket travel is heavily subsidised, which is fine by me, but those benefitting from the subsidy should stop whingeing and be grateful that other passengers/public funds are carrying the cost of their travel. In effect, they are in a captive market because they are heavily subsidised.



Cross-London travel from Herts. to Gatwick, (and the reverse from Surrey/Sussex to Luton) has been available via the MML/BML for almost thirty years. It has continued to grow (including since the introduction of class700 stock) and for many is a viable means of trouble-free travel to and from holiday airports. The service runs through the night (one of the few in the south-east) but the M1/M25/M23 either self-drive or coach are alternatives so travellers can make their choice. I would put money on there being a sizeable trade in passengers travelling down the ECML and Cambridge lines within a year of the full service starting. The fact that some might prefer softer seats won't make that much difference to the volume of travellers. Being able to get on a spacious train with more luggage than can be taken on a flight and no requirement to change will ensure that for most, plusses and minuses are weighed up.



The train is specified to do a variety of jobs. It would seem that commuters get the preferential treatment because of the absolute need to deliver peak capacity, (see above re. season ticket holders being the cause of much railway investment). I am not a commuter (it's over 30 years since I did any rail commuting, - over 40 years in the London area) but the investment cannot just fail to meet that level of demand. Now as I have said, public funds for rail investment are of necessity limited which means that it isn't possible to have 'commuter rolling stock' that runs for just four hours per day to be put away in sidings and replaced with more luxurious trains between the peaks. Most passengers understand this and is does not discourage the majority of leisure travellers from using the commuter friendly trains in the off-peak. If some more extreme predictions of become reality, it may indeed be necessary to have some longitudonal seating put in rather that do nothing for decades whilst politicians haggle over the budget for additional lines. The alternative for commuters is that they won't be able to board trains at all, - just like on Thameslink 10 years ago. After all, The current Thameslink enhancements have taken nearly 30 years to materialise, Crossrail was originally identified as a need over 50 years ago.
Oh and by the way, I don't work for anybody, nor have I ever had any employment in any part of the railway industry let alone GTR.

I did wonder if you work for GTR when you seem to defend the 700 as the perfect unit. It is a bit patronising that you view anyone that puts criticism towards the 700 as the minority. I haven’t see any positive stories about thier rock hard seats. Likewise have you seen some of the AP fares on offer in the U.K.? Much lower than and Pence per mile than a season ticket holder.

Do you dispute that comfort on road vehicles is improving? Even a bus has more comfortable seats that the class 700. It isn’t down to fire regulations otherwise the s-stock would be uncomfortable. If we don’t complain the race to the bottom will continue and these dreadful seats will be put on intercity trains as well.

As for fear of change. I will continue to protest. Yes it may do no good but as long as GTR remain the bottom of the league tables it is working. Getting a seat for me was over when the. 387s replaced the 317s. So now 387 or 700 I won’t get a seat more will be standing so I suspect the 700s will be less comfortable to stand in as a result.

As for a change in journey. I would love to travel into the core and have a direct train to my destination rather than a 30 minute walk from Kings cross. (Walking is reliable Thameslink isn’t so i walk to be certain to get my train out of kings cross. When it is direct that won’t happen.). However the Cambridge- Maidstone service may never happen.

I certainly don’t think i am in the minority thinking the interior of the 700s is not acceptable (even if the train is fine). But saying nothing is not the right thing to do. As I said may not help the 700 but may make a better train out of the 717.

 

[43096]

You should read what I actually say about season ticket pricing. My irritation is that despite most of the annual season tickets being valid for Anytime travel over 480 journeys per year, there are still many who complain that they are paying £3000, £5000 etc., (insert whatever fare it is) per year, when they are in fact paying below off-peak ticket prices, yet they still insist that they are essential for the railway's commercial functioning.

You are, of course, ignoring the fact that season ticket holders pay up front, so the TOC gets its cash well before providing the service which of course has a cashflow benefit.

 

[Hadders]

I think the change from 3+2 to 2+2 yields the wider aisle and this would still apply if the remaining seats were given a 1 to 2" spacing. I think this would be a good compromise between a comfortable seat and easy movement down the carriage.

I agree with this. In fact it’s basically what we’ve had on the 365s for the last 20 years.

 

[bramling]

You are, of course, ignoring the fact that season ticket holders pay up front, so the TOC gets its cash well before providing the service which of course has a cashflow benefit.

And ignores the fact that not everyone travels 5 days a week, or in the peak, on a season ticket.

But none of this really matters, it's quite obvious AM9 has a chip on his shoulder against commuters for some reason. It's quite noticeable he ignores posts about potential reliability implications of Thameslink, just keeps peddling the same stuck record about capacity. A safe bet he's retired so it's easy to preach to others, just like preaching to others about the 700 seating whilst he makes use of the declassified first.

 

[AM9]

I did wonder if you work for GTR when you seem to defend the 700 as the perfect unit. It is a bit patronising that you view anyone that puts criticism towards the 700 as the minority. I haven’t see any positive stories about thier rock hard seats. Likewise have you seen some of the AP fares on offer in the U.K.? Much lower than and Pence per mile than a season ticket holder.

I take my view of the class700s as a recognition of the way it is. After spending upwards of £6bn of public money, addressing everything that could possibly be done to help increase throughput on the routes, it is unlikely that anything other than tinkering with minor detail will get introduced without at least an objective trial of those measures. My personal view is that there will be some issues (probably things that haven't been mentioned by any members of this forum), that will require some changes. Complaints about seating are not necessarily objective enough to disturb what is inevitably a complex ergonomic design, - just look at postings in here complaining that the elastoplast fix of seat-back tables restricts the amount of legroom. That's not really a fault of seat spacing, more a commentary on the problems created by knee-jerk reactions to complaints (sorry about the pun).
As for the absence of positive comments about seats, that's not how it works. Why would anybody feel the need to congratulate a TOC (or even the DfT!) on their choice of seat. Gernerally, the public only bother to complain, (unless it is a backhanded congratulation saying that it took them to complain before a good seat was provided.
As far as advance tickets go, I'm not aware that they are available from outer suburban origins into London employment areas, - I've never seen them on Thameslink. They are of course available to 'leisure' destinations outside London, but there's no restriction on who can buy them, including season ticket holders! All you need to do is travel at a time when the TOC would otherwise be carrying air in your place.So the relative cost per mile is irrelevant.

Do you dispute that comfort on road vehicles is improving? Even a bus has more comfortable seats that the class 700. It isn’t down to fire regulations otherwise the s-stock would be uncomfortable. If we don’t complain the race to the bottom will continue and these dreadful seats will be put on intercity trains as well.

True car seats are gradually improving with their much shorter life, but it's not just the seat. It's the time you have to sit in them with no opportunity to stand up, drink or use a toilet. True Inter-city is not in the same position as London commuter routes, it's much more commercially competitive, - against long distance coaches and domestic airlines.

As for fear of change. I will continue to protest. Yes it may do no good but as long as GTR remain the bottom of the league tables it is working. Getting a seat for me was over when the. 387s replaced the 317s. So now 387 or 700 I won’t get a seat more will be standing so I suspect the 700s will be less comfortable to stand in as a result.

Actually I've read this week that the 2017 passenger satisfaction rating of Thameslink (with class 700s) is above that of GN (without class 700s) so it would seem that the trains themselves have very little to do with passenger satisfaction.
If youfind yourself standing in a class 700 train for whatever reason, I, and some others on the forum can confirm that the experience is better than 387s and 365s as there is more room and you won't be standing over seated passengers. That's assuming that the trains isn't crush loaded, in which case you wouldn't have even managed board other train classes. The 12-car trains are designed to safely carry a full load of 1750 passengers, that's about 20-30% more than Electrostars or Networkers.

As for a change in journey. I would love to travel into the core and have a direct train to my destination rather than a 30 minute walk from Kings cross. (Walking is reliable Thameslink isn’t so i walk to be certain to get my train out of kings cross. When it is direct that won’t happen.). However the Cambridge- Maidstone service may never happen.

Who knows?

I certainly don’t think i am in the minority thinking the interior of the 700s is not acceptable (even if the train is fine). But saying nothing is not the right thing to do. As I said may not help the 700 but may make a better train out of the 717.

It may, although the lead-time for changes in production is probably such that it is too late for anything at introduction. I assume that the relatively short lead-time of the 717s is down to the re-use of class700 type approvals.

 

[AM9]

You are, of course, ignoring the fact that season ticket holders pay up front, so the TOC gets its cash well before providing the service which of course has a cashflow benefit.

...and interest rates are what compared with a 30% discount?

 

[bramling]

Actually I've read this week that the 2017 passenger satisfaction rating of Thameslink (with class 700s) is above that of GN (without class 700s) so it would seem that the trains themselves have very little to do with passenger satisfaction.

This is hardly surprising given GN performance has dipped massively in the last couple of years. After a decade of pretty good reliability and punctuality, GN has nosedived since GTR took over. One of the reasons why I'm increasingly choosing the car.

Unless people are dissatisfied with the seats in the 387s?

 

[Failed Unit]

Actually I've read this week that the 2017 passenger satisfaction rating of Thameslink (with class 700s) is above that of GN (without class 700s) so it would seem that the trains themselves have very little to do with passenger satisfaction.

This isn’t really a surprise if you look at the negatives in the last year.
Great Northern
Capacity decreased following removal of 317 / 321 replaced with 387
Nose dive in punctuality- below 30% some months.
Denied boarding at weekends because of 4 coach trains.

So to be honest I am surprised things are so high on great northern.

Thameslink has at least got extra seats out of the 700s as 12 Car trains replace 8 and 8 Car trains replace 4. Any seat is better than standing. (Not that is happening on great northern)

Not sure about performance as I don’t use the route. But I suspect that is of greater weight then seat comfort.

I guess a good test will be south of the Thames where people have a choice. Will they vote with their feet? I doubt it. I suspect they will take the first train that gets them from A-B. But moan about the seat.

 

[Hadders]

This is hardly surprising given GN performance has dipped massively in the last couple of years. After a decade of pretty good reliability and punctuality, GN has nosedived since GTR took over. One of the reasons why I'm increasingly choosing the car.

Unless people are dissatisfied with the seats in the 387s?

This isn’t really a surprise if you look at the negatives in the last year.
Great Northern
Capacity decreased following removal of 317 / 321 replaced with 387
Nose dive in punctuality- below 30% some months.
Denied boarding at weekends because of 4 coach trains.

So to be honest I am surprised things are so high on great northern.

Thameslink has at least got extra seats out of the 700s as 12 Car trains replace 8 and 8 Car trains replace 4. Any seat is better than standing. (Not that is happening on great northern)

Not sure about performance as I don’t use the route. But I suspect that is of greater weight then seat comfort.

I guess a good test will be south of the Thames where people have a choice. Will they vote with their feet? I doubt it. I suspect they will take the first train that gets them from A-B. But moan about the seat.

Don't forget appalling weekend reliability at weekends due to lack of drivers.

Plus the dumbing down refresh of the 365s to get us ready for the 700s.

 

[30909]

Recreate the 4SUB (Queen of Sheba sub class): comfy sprung seats 6 pax across, 12 pax per compartment, 10 doors per side in the trailers, dwell time short, max speed 75mph - sorted!!

 

[dorsetdesiro]

A really old battered Pacer should be borrowed from GWR or Northern and fitted with these ironing board seats then the top brass, who are pushing the class 700 and its unsuitable seating on us, should have their arms and legs handcuffed to the ironing boards and made to sit all the way from Brighton to Thurso without food & water as the Pacer crawls all the way up...

 

[Bletchleyite]

A really old battered Pacer should be borrowed from GWR or Northern and fitted with these ironing board seats then the top brass, who are pushing the class 700 and its unsuitable seating on us, should have their arms and legs handcuffed to the ironing boards and made to sit all the way from Brighton to Thurso without food & water as the Pacer crawls all the way up...

Like this, you mean?

e144 interior with ironing boards