HST refurbs : Great Western v Cross Country

[Justin Smith]

I've just travelled on a Great Western refurbished HST.
I'd seen them from the outside and they seemed claustrophobic and cramped, but when I actually travelled on one yesterday I was pleasantly surprised how much leg room there was, though I still think they're claustrophobic....
I got a Cross Country HST today and I have to say I'm pleased I was only on it for 50min. There was about the same legroom as on the EMT class 153 I got on next ! Still at least it means the Voyagers don't look as crap as they used to (in comparison to the HSTs).
Are there fewer seats on the Great Western HSTs ? If not how come there was so much more leg room ?

 

[222666]

It's because of less table bays. I don't like it too much, but it's a good idea, not everyone (myself inc.) NEED a table seat lol. It's a bit weird how nearly all seats are facing one way up 'til half way then facing the other, so you get less chance of traveling in your desired direction. The feeling of claustrophobia is because the seat backs are quite tall. It's almost as if they wanted 'em to be like Pendolinos but failed in that respect. It still feels like HST just more commuter.

 

[route:oxford]

It's because of less table bays. I don't like it too much, but it's a good idea, not everyone (myself inc.) NEED a table seat lol. It's a bit weird how nearly all seats are facing one way up 'til half way then facing the other, so you get less chance of traveling in your desired direction. The feeling of claustrophobia is because the seat backs are quite tall. It's almost as if they wanted 'em to be like Pendolinos but failed in that respect. It still feels like HST just more commuter.

Surely if half the seats face one way, and half face the other then there is an equal chance of traveling in the desired direction. The tall airline seats are great - plenty of legroom and a good height for the headrest.

I'd never choose a table seat unless it was the last one on the coach - they are absolutely hopeless for anyone taller than a dwarf.

 

[truckman060473]

there are also the seats on the FGW which have a notice "please give up this seat for a disabled person". these seats have very good leg room. if travelling on a quiet service you can use them.

 

[route101]

I was on the 2114 xc hst from Edinburgh to Glasgow earlier and would say the seats are too upright for a long journey and the lighting a bit bright . Still better than a voyager. Not been on fgw hst

 

[Justin Smith]

It's because of less table bays. I don't like it too much, but it's a good idea, not everyone (myself inc.) NEED a table seat lol. It's a bit weird how nearly all seats are facing one way up 'til half way then facing the other, so you get less chance of traveling in your desired direction. The feeling of claustrophobia is because the seat backs are quite tall. It's almost as if they wanted 'em to be like Pendolinos but failed in that respect. It still feels like HST just more commuter.

I agree with you on the high seat backs making it feel claustrophobic, I don't like them either. Unfortunately I think it`s` a modern trend, 222s have them as do the refurbed East Coast stock. I can`t remember it being quite as bad as the Great Western coach though, or perhaps that`s just because there were more airlione type seats ?
The thing is that the XC HSTs didn't seem to have that many tables either, and they definitely still had significantly less leg room.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely if half the seats face one way, and half face the other then there is an equal chance of traveling in the desired direction. The tall airline seats are great - plenty of legroom and a good height for the headrest.

I'd never choose a table seat unless it was the last one on the coach - they are absolutely hopeless for anyone taller than a dwarf.

Table seats actually have more leg room, but only if there's nobody sat opposite !
If there is then it's a nightmare.
I actually prefer table seats, but only if there isn't anyone sat opposite, which, of course, you can't rely on. So I only sit at table seats if the train is pretty emoty and likely to stay that way ! The only exception to that is if the wife and I are travelling First class, then we want the twin table seat.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

there are also the seats on the FGW which have a notice "please give up this seat for a disabled person". these seats have very good leg room. if travelling on a quiet service you can use them.

You are correct, and I started off sitting in them, but went further up the coach to check those seats were also reasonably good, leg room wise. They weren't quite as spacious, but they were still fine, better than the XC HST I went on yesterday.

 

[starrymarkb]

I found the XC HST cramped aswell, it has a similar layout to the FGW HST (4 tables IIRC) but much worse seating.

BTW the high back seating is a Group Standard, both for comfort (providing a headrest) and safety (again the headrest to reduce whiplash and also to provide more survival space)

 

[Goldfish62]

I found the XC HST cramped aswell, it has a similar layout to the FGW HST (4 tables IIRC) but much worse seating.

BTW the high back seating is a Group Standard, both for comfort (providing a headrest) and safety (again the headrest to reduce whiplash and also to provide more survival space)

Agreed - but AFAIK the seat back doesn't have to be as high as the Grammer seats on the FGW HSTs. They are definitely higher than on other stock.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I am wondering about the effects of hitting your face on the hard high seat back in front of you in the event of an accident?

 

[Justin Smith]

I found the XC HST cramped aswell, it has a similar layout to the FGW HST (4 tables IIRC) but much worse seating.

BTW the high back seating is a Group Standard, both for comfort (providing a headrest) and safety (again the headrest to reduce whiplash and also to provide more survival space)

I travelled on another XC HST yesterday, and it really was as cramped as I thought it was. For an Inter City (i.e. longer distance train) it's an absolute disgrace.
There's no way I'd want to be in one of those from Sheffield to Plmouth !
How come the leg room is so much less ? Have they crammed more seats in ?
If so that's another example of "wrongheadedness".
I'd rather run a 3% risk of having to stand but get a comfortable seat when I got one, rather than a 2% risk of having to stand but a bleedin' uncomfortable seat when I got one.....

 

[Geezertronic]

Everything is wrong in your opinion. Posts past and present show that....

 

[sprinterguy]

The Crosscountry mark 3s have squeezed 82 seats into each TSO (The FGW "High density" TSOs only have two more seats at 84!), except for the carriages with wheelchair space (one per set). The original number of standard seats in a carriage was 76.

I've never travelled on an FGW HST, only seen them from the outside, but I have travelled extensively (Frequent journeys of over 2-3 hours) on the Crosscountry HSTs and I find there to be no problems with legroom whatsoever. The seat fabric seems to be good quality and the cushions are comfortable. I also like the bright interiors, the whole internal decor gives a good impression of being on a modern train, and not a relic from the 70s. Don't know how this stacks up against the FGW HSTs though.

 

[route101]

I thought the lighting was way too bright on the xc hst when its dark outside

 

[Justin Smith]

The Crosscountry mark 3s have squeezed 82 seats into each TSO (The FGW "High density" TSOs only have two more seats at 84!), except for the carriages with wheelchair space (one per set). The original number of standard seats in a carriage was 76.

I've never travelled on an FGW HST, only seen them from the outside, but I have travelled extensively (Frequent journeys of over 2-3 hours) on the Crosscountry HSTs and I find there to be no problems with legroom whatsoever. The seat fabric seems to be good quality and the cushions are comfortable. I also like the bright interiors, the whole internal decor gives a good impression of being on a modern train, and not a relic from the 70s. Don't know how this stacks up against the FGW HSTs though.

I've been doing a bit of research in my data books and, as far as I understand it, these are the correct figures for HST Trailer Second carriages (some of which are the same as yours) :
Original HST = 72 seats
1st HST refurb = 76
EMT refurb = 74 (plus centre luggage rack)
First GW refurb = 80
XC trains refurb = 82
First GW refurb (High Density) = 84

There are a couple of interesting sidelights to this.

1 As far as I'm aware people haven't been getting shorter since the mid 70s when HSTs came out, in fact if anything the reverse is true. So how come it's now perfectly acceptable to cram an extra 10 or 12 people in each carriage ?
I tell you I'd love to have a chat with the person at XC who authorised cramming 82 seats into a long distance carriage originally designed for 72. Now he is a t****r, and there's no possibility for a breakdown in communication on that one because I'm not joking this time. I was getting cramp on the relatively short journey from New St to Sheffield. If you were too you'd feel the same way.

2 The number of seats per First class carriage has stayed exactly the same since the HSTs first came out (48 per carriage).
Funny that isn't it ?
A bit inconsistent maybe ?
Maybe wealthy people have stayed the same size whilst us paupers have been shrinking ?


I still don`t understand how come GW refurbed HSTs seem to be significantly more roomy the the XC ones though ! ? !

 

[Geezertronic]

You don't do yourself any favours at all with particular comments. If there was a single person at XC that made the decision, they would probably think you are a...

t****r

too...

 

[MCR247]

I've been doing a bit of research in my data books and, as far as I understand it, these are the correct figures for HST Trailer Second carriages (some of which are the same as yours) :
Original HST = 72 seats
1st HST refurb = 76
EMT refurb = 74 (plus centre luggage rack)
First GW refurb = 80
XC trains refurb = 82
First GW refurb (High Density) = 84

There are a couple of interesting sidelights to this.

1 As far as I'm aware people haven't been getting shorter since the mid 70s when HSTs came out, in fact if anything the reverse is true. So how come it's now perfectly acceptable to cram an extra 10 or 12 people in each carriage ?
I tell you I'd love to have a chat with the person at XC who authorised cramming 82 seats into a long distance carriage originally designed for 72. Now he is a t****r, and there's no possibility for a breakdown in communication on that one because I'm not joking this time. I was getting cramp on the relatively short journey from New St to Sheffield. If you were too you'd feel the same way.

2 The number of seats per First class carriage has stayed exactly the same since the HSTs first came out (48 per carriage).
Funny that isn't it ?
A bit inconsistent maybe ?
Maybe wealthy people have stayed the same size whilst us paupers have been shrinking ?


I still don't understand how come GW refurbed HSTs seem to be significantly more roomy the the XC ones though ! ? !

1. Well I'm sure the 10 people who can now get a seat would also love to meet him for different reasons
2. Well when first class gets more overcrowded, which it wont at XCs prices they'll add more seats ok?

 

[Justin Smith]

You don't do yourself any favours at all with particular comments. If there was a single person at XC that made the decision, they would probably think you are a...



too...

It's called emotion, after being tortured for an hour and quarter.
More than that it's frustration at not being able to do anything about it.
The best you could hope for is to take time to write a letter which would probably be ignored.
I want to talk to the person responsible for the decision who thinks it OK for all their ciustomers with longish legs to get cramp.
My customers can talk to me, who makes the decisions in my business, I can't talk to them, i.e yet more frustration.

 

[MCR247]

It's called emotion, after being tortured for an hour and quarter.
More than that it's frustration at not being able to do anything about it.
The best you could hope for is to take time to write a letter which would probably be ignored. I want to talk to the person responsible for the decision who thinks it OK for all their ciustomers with longish legs to get cramp.
My customers can talk to me, who makes the decisions in my business, I can't talk to them, i.e yet more frustration.

Does this not get through to you:
At least you had a seat

If it was that bad, stand up then

 

[Justin Smith]

1. Well I'm sure the 10 people who can now get a seat would also love to meet him for different reasons
2. Well when first class gets more overcrowded, which it wont at XCs prices they'll add more seats ok?

All TOCs first class carriages still have the same number of seats in them as when HSTs first came out, i.e. 48.
So how do you explain the fact that, apparently, second class passengers are all shrinking, but, on the other hand, first class passengers are all still the same size ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Does this not get through to you:
At least you had a seat

If it was that bad, stand up then

On none of the XC trains I went on this week, and there were dozens, were all the seats taken. That`s not to say it doesn`t ever happen, but it`s rare relative to the number of trains they run.
So all people of my height are distinctly uncomfortable 100% of the time so that some people get a seat for maybe one station stop (it`s very rare to still be standing after a station stop on any full train) 1 to 2% of the time ?
People who agree with that logic obviously have shorter legs than I do.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All TOCs first class carriages still have the same number of seats in them as when HSTs first came out, i.e. 48.
So how do you explain the fact that, apparently, second class passengers are all shrinking, but, on the other hand, first class passengers are all still the same size ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


On none of the XC trains I went on this week, and there were dozens, were all the seats taken. That's not to say it doesn't ever happen, but it's rare relative to the number of trains they run.
So all people of my height are distinctly uncomfortable 100% of the time so that some people get a seat for maybe one station stop (it's very rare to still be standing after a station stop on any full train) 1 to 2% of the time ?
People who agree with that logic obviously have shorter legs than I do.....

Actually, to imply that it's only tall people who are bothered about the amount of room they have is incorrect. I accept they're probably more bothered than those of shorter stature, but almost everyone wants more room when they travel. If they didn't then why do so many people pay extra, sometimes a hell of a lot extra, to go First class or Business class or Premier Economy or whatever.

 

[Geezertronic]

The problem is you're calling someone a t****r without knowing why such decisions have been made. To increase the capacity of a standard class coach by 10 seats actually sounds like good business sense and it has absolutely nothing to do with size so you can stop being pedantic there.

The XC issues with capacity are well documented (on here) and don't look to be sorted anytime soon. The reason why they don't use their HSTs has also been mentioned on here too.

And you keep mentioning size without actually saying how tall you are? 6ft 7?

And for gods sake man, your posts show you to be like an over-actor some times

It's called emotion, after being tortured for an hour and quarter

I suggest you look up torture on the Internet and I suggest any hits you get that are railway related are from over-actors and exaggerators like yourself.

I'm still waiting to read anything positive come from your keyboard - you're either moaning about 390s, guards who "don't do their job", BHM being a hell hole (despite it being at the beginning of a refurb), and this thread. If you don't like the railways as much as your posts suggest, go by car or coach (or other means)?

 

[MCR247]

All TOCs first class carriages still have the same number of seats in them as when HSTs first came out, i.e. 48.
So how do you explain the fact that, apparently, second class passengers are all shrinking, but, on the other hand, first class passengers are all still the same size ?

No, but standard class is busier so more seats are required

On none of the XC trains I went on this week, and there were dozens, were all the seats taken. That's not to say it doesn't ever happen, but it's rare relative to the number of trains they run.
So all people of my height are distinctly uncomfortable 100% of the time so that some people get a seat for maybe one station stop (it's very rare to still be standing after a station stop on any full train) 1 to 2% of the time ?
People who agree with that logic obviously have shorter legs than I do.....

I love that, you went on a few XC trains but you are now saying no trains are ever busy and they aren't busy for long. Maybe no-one was standing because of the extra seats

 

[Pumbaa]

1 As far as I'm aware people haven't been getting shorter since the mid 70s when HSTs came out, in fact if anything the reverse is true. So how come it's now perfectly acceptable to cram an extra 10 or 12 people in each carriage ?

For your information, the additional seats have come from a) removing tables (removing two together creates 4 extra seats) and b) removing one (XC) and two (GW) sets of mid-coach luggage racks (creates 2 seats).

On Mallard refurbs, and XC refurbs (part Mallard with extra seats) seat pitch has changed, it's got 1/8" more. Seats still in original position bar priority seats and travellers satisfied.

Shove that up your pipe and smoke it. And kindly refrain from posting claptrap again, everytime I see an ill-thought out, prejudiced and slanderous post from yourself I find myself wanting to remove it off my screen with a bazooka. It is becoming bad for my health.

 

[Justin Smith]

The problem is you're calling someone a t****r without knowing why such decisions have been made. To increase the capacity of a standard class coach by 10 seats actually sounds like good business sense and it has absolutely nothing to do with size so you can stop being pedantic there.

The XC issues with capacity are well documented (on here) and don't look to be sorted anytime soon. The reason why they don't use their HSTs has also been mentioned on here too.

And you keep mentioning size without actually saying how tall you are? 6ft 7?

And for gods sake man, your posts show you to be like an over-actor some times



I suggest you look up torture on the Internet and I suggest any hits you get that are railway related are from over-actors and exaggerators like yourself.

I'm still waiting to read anything positive come from your keyboard - you're either moaning about 390s, guards who "don't do their job", BHM being a hell hole (despite it being at the beginning of a refurb), and this thread. If you don't like the railways as much as your posts suggest, go by car or coach (or other means)?

It's known as creative writing.

I don't agree with your comment "it has nothing to do wiyth size", as in how much room passengers have.
Of course it does.
You still haven't answered the question how in the mid 1970s it was considered that people, apparently, needed more room than they do now ?
And, furthermore, if it's been decided that passengers don't need as much room these days, how come the number of First Class seat per carriage has remained exactly the same ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, but standard class is busier so more seats are required



I love that, you went on a few XC trains but you are now saying no trains are ever busy and they aren't busy for long. Maybe no-one was standing because of the extra seats

Who is exagerating now ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For your information, the additional seats have come from a) removing tables (removing two together creates 4 extra seats) and b) removing one (XC) and two (GW) sets of mid-coach luggage racks (creates 2 seats).

On Mallard refurbs, and XC refurbs (part Mallard with extra seats) seat pitch has changed, it's got 1/8" more. Seats still in original position bar priority seats and travellers satisfied.

Shove that up your pipe and smoke it. And kindly refrain from posting claptrap again, everytime I see an ill-thought out, prejudiced and slanderous post from yourself I find myself wanting to remove it off my screen with a bazooka. It is becoming bad for my health.

That's wrong.
I didn't have a tape measure on me, but on the XC refurbed coaches there was about 1" between my knees and the seat in front. That's 1", on a long distance train... I'm only 6ft for goodness sake.
The next train I got on was a EMT C153, which had about the sane legroom, around 1" in front of my knees.
Later that week I caught a GW HST, on that I could get my hand in sideways.

 

[thefab444]

You must be a very odd 6ft, is your body about 3 inches tall? I'm about your height and the legroom on the FGW HSTs is fine, better than a Voyager and a number of other modern units.

 

[starrymarkb]

I think he was saying that the FGW legroom was good enough to fit his hand in width ways - at least that's how I read it

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I'm about 6ft as well, and never had any problems with space.

 

[Greenback]

It's a pity that what started out as a pretty reasonable thread has degenerated into the usual hyperbole and ill infomred subjective drivel.

The simply facts are that increases in demand and changes in travel patterns have let to the reconfiguration of standard class seating. Originally, HST's were built as comfortable long distance express trains to compete with the relatively new and far less congested motorway network.

Nearly forty years later, amny of the routes that HST's are used on have a much higher proportion of shorter distance commuter traffic. This has led to serious overcrowding, and it is a good idea in such circumstances to look atw ays of increasing seating capacity in standard accommodation.

I personally find that some of the refurbishments are uncomfortable and claustrophobic. But I also recognise that far fewer people now have to stand. Comparing the environment on a HST out of Paddington in the afternoon in 1999 and 2010 reveals that there are less people standing in vestibules than used to be the case.

It's also a shame that there is less luggage storage available, but when a large number of people are not going further than Bristol Parkway and Swindon, and only have a laptop and briefcase, then it does make business sense.

So, in short, there has been no conspiracy, and no simple decision that people now need less legroom or space. It has been a pragmatic response to changing market conditions.

 

[tbtc]

On none of the XC trains I went on this week, and there were dozens, were all the seats taken.

It's known as creative writing.
Who is exagerating now?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's a pity that what started out as a pretty reasonable thread has degenerated into the usual hyperbole and ill infomred subjective drivel

I know, what are the chances of one of Justin's threads ending up in a car crash?

You make a good point (as usual) though. The initial 125s were spacious and intended for luxury long distance travel, much like the motorways. However, they have been gradually downgraded to use up capacity (like the motorways they compete with)

Of course I'd like to stick additional coaches on, and everyone gets a window view and six foot of legroom and a catering trolley that serves caviar, but in the real world I'm prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of getting a seat

 

[222666]

Surely if half the seats face one way, and half face the other then there is an equal chance of traveling in the desired direction. The tall airline seats are great - plenty of legroom and a good height for the headrest.

I'd never choose a table seat unless it was the last one on the coach - they are absolutely hopeless for anyone taller than a dwarf.

Yes it is equal but the choice is between two halves of a coach, I think people like to give themselves room before choosing direction of travel (unless they made reservations ), so if one half is nearly full they might choose the other first. I prefer the old style with alternating directions & some tables (for groups & families). It's really a good move on the whole, I'm just being picky .

Another bonus is the power points under the seats. On Pendolinos you often see a mad rush for table seats 'cos they only provide points there.

I seem to remember mkIII seats being the best, except for the chunky armrests boxing you in. If the new FGW seats aren't so tall they'd be perfect imo.

 

[Greenback]

Of course I'd like to stick additional coaches on, and everyone gets a window view and six foot of legroom and a catering trolley that serves caviar, but in the real world I'm prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of getting a seat

Yes, so would I! I like to have a moan or a rant from time to time, but I can stillr ecognise the reasons why things are done, and try and reason out what it would be like if these refurbishments hadn;t taken place.

I do, however, often make a conscious choice to avoid FGW HST's from Cardiff to Swansea as I personally prefer the environment of the ATW 175's and 158's. I even opted for a 150 stopping train one day in preference to a HST!

Of course, I am probably very much in the minority on that!