'Narrow' South West Trains' seats criticised

[GodAtum]

South West Trains has been criticised for introducing seats with a width of 43cm (18in) on some of its mainline trains between Portsmouth and London.

The firm said it meant it could provide dozens more seats to help ease overcrowding problems.

But Portsmouth North MP Penny Mordaunt said many passengers had complained the seats had left them in "agony".

She raised the issue in the House of Commons and called for minimum standards in comfort on trains.

The Conservative MP said: "What's happening is that trains designed for suburban routes, and designed for people to be on them for 20 minutes or 30 minutes maximum, are being used on mainline services.

"So people commuting from Portsmouth might be on them for nearly two hours and it is really agony for them.
'Ergonomically sound'

"I'm getting a lot of complaints from people suffering back injuries, leg problems.

"What we want to do is ensure that in future rail franchises have minimum standards of comfort for passengers."

The MP admitted customers were often unhappy by the lack of seats but said the same people were just as concerned about comfort.

The new seat sizes have been introduced on the firm's Class 450 trains which means the carriages can now fit five seats across instead of four.

A spokeswoman for South West Trains said: "Class 450 trains are modern, reliable, air-conditioned rolling stock and every aspect of these trains, including the seats, has to comply with strict legislation and Railway Group standards.

"In addition, an independent assessment of the seating design and layout demonstrated that the seats on the Class 450 are ergonomically sound.

"Our customer feedback shows that getting a seat is high on the list of priorities for our passengers - these trains, when run as 12 cars, provide 142 additional seats per journey compared to a 10-car Class 444 train."

Passenger Focus said: "The longer-term solution is to increase capacity, more rolling stock is needed so that we can balance comfort and capacity."

Transport Minister Theresa Villiers has agreed to meet Ms Mordaunt to discuss the issue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-12819180
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-12819180

Would you agree with this?

 

[northwichcat]

I agree with this comment on the Daily Moaner article

The BBC have reported that these seats are 1cm WIDER than with British Airways. The problem is the lack of the arm rests. The North of England has had this problem since 1983. Why have the media only just caught up?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368425/South-West-Trains-seats-small-complain-DO-one.html

 

[chris89]

Saw that on the Daily Mail, just seem to be Anti-Railways.

But the 450's (and 350/1's) have been in service for a few years now and only 'just picked up' on that.

Nothing can be done, just leave the moaners to it really. They are communter trains hence the seating arrangment.

Chris

 

[swt_passenger]

A nearly new and gullible local MP has got involved - so the media have written up the story as if it's just happened.

Nothing will change, the 2+3 seating is no worse than any other 2+3 seating, whether it is in DMUs or EMUs all over the country.

 

[WatcherZero]

I would agree with his little experiment that they couldnt fit three people on a supposedly three person seat from practical experience, but thats the same everywhere. The true outrage is that its legal to cram passengers in at a density thats illegal for livestock like cows, chickens or sheep.

 

[TomJ93]

They'd only be complaining if there less seats.

 

[swt_passenger]

The true outrage is that its legal to cram passengers in at a density thats illegal for livestock like cows, chickens or sheep.

The 'cattle truck' argument?

It's complete rubbish and you know it, because us humans don't actually walk around on four legs.

 

[Drsatan]

A nearly new and gullible local MP has got involved - so the media have written up the story as if it's just happened.

Nothing will change, the 2+3 seating is no worse than any other 2+3 seating, whether it is in DMUs or EMUs all over the country.

I wonder whether any MP will moan about the 3+2 seating on 350s, Southern's 455s, or even LM's 150s. I very much doubt it.

And yes, it's pathetic that the DM has taken about four years to notice that trains with 3+2 seating operate between Pompey and London Waterloo on a regular basis.

 

[radamfi]

I refuse to sit in the middle seat and I believe many others are the same. I would rather stand up. If I'm near the window then I have to give up my seat if someone wants to sit in the middle. It isn't physically possible for three average adults to sit in a 3 without excessive squashing.

 

[swt_passenger]

They'd only be complaining if there less seats.

They already have. When SWT took seats out of some of the 450s in the suburban area, to provide more standing room, the self same media went off on one about that as well.

 

[williamn]

I think the point is that these are commuter trains being used on long-distance services for which they're no suited. Remember just a few years ago the Portsmouth line had the super-comfy 442's.

 

[swt_passenger]

I refuse to sit in the middle seat and I believe many others are the same. I would rather stand up. If I'm near the window then I have to give up my seat if someone wants to sit in the middle. It isn't physically possible for three average adults to sit in a 3 without excessive squashing.

I don't think anyone here will disagree with that - it's just the way this is being treated as somehow unique.

 

[radamfi]

I think the point is that these are commuter trains being used on long-distance services for which they're no suited. Remember just a few years ago the Portsmouth line had the super-comfy 442's.

How do we define 'long distance' and 'commuter'?

Why don't 450s have the same configuration as Southern 377s which have 2+2 in the 2 outer coaches and 2+3 in the middle two coaches? There doesn't seem to be much controversy about 377s.

I wonder if some pax between Portsmouth and Havant have switched to the slower Southern route to London to avoid 2+3 seating?

What's weird is that 2+3 seating is rare on the continent, particularly with new trains, but they have the wider loading gauge to accommodate it!

 

[northwichcat]

What's weird is that 2+3 seating is rare on the continent, particularly with new trains, but they have the wider loading gauge to accommodate it!

They have longer trains, more frequent services, double decker trains etc. depending on whether exactly you're referring to so less need for cramming people in. In this country it's rare to see trains longer than 3 carriages on off- peak regional/local services outside of London. In places such as Barcelona and Cologne they have longer trains on off-peak services, ours are more comparable with Cork which isn't exactly a densley populated area of Europe.

 

[asylumxl]

Simple fact is the folk bitching are snobs and want their services to be exclusively 444s. It's not going to happen so they can keep at it!

It's only 73 miles for god sake. The folk on the WCML don't make such a fuss about the 350s.

 

[Drsatan]

I think the point is that these are commuter trains being used on long-distance services for which they're no suited. Remember just a few years ago the Portsmouth line had the super-comfy 442's.

I remember the 442s were occasionally used on Pompey services but when the last Slammers were withdrawn in 2004 444s were used on these services. However, when the SWT franchise was re-let to Stagecoach in 2007 SWT decided to withdraw its 442s in return for reinstating its 458s, since the latter are cheaper to lease. This means that the Portsmouth Line is now operated by outer-surburban units.

Given the nonsensical nature of all this, maybe the hack who wrote the original article for the DM ought to write a detailed critique of the franchising system? I very much doubt that will happen.

 

[GodAtum]

I refuse to sit in the middle seat and I believe many others are the same. I would rather stand up. If I'm near the window then I have to give up my seat if someone wants to sit in the middle. It isn't physically possible for three average adults to sit in a 3 without excessive squashing.

Then what's the point of having a middle seat, just for show?

 

[radamfi]

Then what's the point of having a middle seat, just for show?

Precisely, no point. So all trains should be 2+2 as it allows people to sit in reasonable comfort and also allows for more standing.

 

[LexyBoy]

Most commuter routes in London have all three seats occupied. It's not ideal but better than standing

 

[northwichcat]

It's only 73 miles for god sake. The folk on the WCML don't make such a fuss about the 350s.

And what about when 150s (with 3+2 seating) were used on Buxton-Blackpool services? Longer distance travellers didn't like the conditions but the trains were also overcrowded so people probably appreciated not having to stand for 90 minutes.

 

[radamfi]

The folk on the WCML don't make such a fuss about the 350s.

Neil Williams from Milton Keynes is always complaining about 350/2 units on uk.railway.

 

[WestCoast]

No worse than on a three long 'bus bench' on a pacer - you get even less space! Some people need to get a grip, they complain when there is not enough seats to use and then they complain when there are too many put in:roll:

The 450s seem fine to me, I've done Crewe - London on a LM 350/2 and it wasn't too bad (admittedly it never got as busy to have to use the middle seat)

 

[northwichcat]

Then what's the point of having a middle seat, just for show?

As much as I would prefer more carriages with 2+2 seating to less with 3+2 the middle seats in London, Yorkshire, the North West and the West Midlands that I've been on mostly used it. Maybe it's just people in Portsmouth who refuse to use it?

 

[radamfi]

Most commuter routes in London have all three seats occupied. It's not ideal but better than standing

Unless all three occupants are very thin, you will find that they are in fact taking up more than 3 seats as the person on the end will have a lot of his/her bum hanging off the seat to avoid excessive intimacy, blocking off part of the corridor.

If 2+3 seating was better then trains in mainland Europe would also be 2+3 seated and they wouldn't go to the trouble of lengthening trains and double decking.

 

[swt_passenger]

Neil Williams from Milton Keynes is always complaining about 350/2 units on uk.railway.

I don't think he does complain about the existence of the units. He has on the other hand rightly pointed out that LM should diagram the 350/1 and /2 variants on appropriate routes.

Whatever, he hasn't made it his life's work for over three years to run a one man campaign against the stock being used on his local service - unlike the bloke behind the 'no450' website.

 

[ajdunlop]

I think on the whole it's a non event. When it's busy use all the seats and everyone can sit down but (albeit a bit uncomfortably) when it is less busy people spread out and have plenty of space. Well at least that's how the 450s are use my experience so what's the problem? I have never seen people sitting three together when outside commuterville nor are they expected to. Maybe if they just had benches instead of seats people would stop complaining. Also the 3 seats facing each other doubles up as luggage room when it's not busy.

 

[PhilipW]

Nothing can be done, just leave the moaners to it really. They are communter trains hence the seating arrangment.

Chris

Fine, let's all agree that Calss 450s are commuter trains.

In that case don't run them on longer distance services like Waterloo-Portmouth (direct) and Waterloo-Portsmouth (via Basingstoke).

SWT passengers have been complaining about this for years but SWT aren't listening. So nobody has just found out the problem now. It is just that the story has found its way back into the News.

So well done, Penny Mourant, MP for Portsmouth North for giving the story more publicity.

 

[MCR247]

SWT passengers have been complaining about this for years but SWT aren't listening. So nobody has just found out the problem now. It is just that the story has found its way back into the News.
.

So please tell me what SWT can do?

 

[WestCoast]

Fine, let's all agree that Calss 450s are commuter trains.

In that case don't run them on longer distance services like Waterloo-Portmouth (direct) and Waterloo-Portsmouth (via Basingstoke).

SWT passengers have been complaining about this for years but SWT aren't listening. So nobody has just found out the problem now. It is just that the story has found its way back into the News.

So well done, Penny Mourant, MP for Portsmouth North for giving the story more publicity.

How tragic, London Midland use class 350/2s quite often on Crewe - London Euston (3h17mins) - with quite a few passengers doing 2+ hour journeys.

Meanwhile commuters on Northern Rail can spend up to 1h30mins (even longer on non-commuter routes) on a 'bus bench seats' pacer (3+2)...and it can be full to the brim!

I think maybe SWT passengers should stop moaning - class 450s are much better than what some people have to put up with!

 

[radamfi]

So please tell me what SWT can do?

They could remove the outside seats from the 3s. That's what Thameslink did on the 319s.