Coach Seats v Train seats

[delt1c]

Lately I have done a substantial amount of miles using coaches, mainly Scottish City Link but also some other services further afield, including Ireland.

I have to say that overall these have been excellent, plush well upholstered seat with recline, fold down tray table, usb sockets, reading lights and all with a good window view.

This in my opinion is far superior to what is currently available on newer trains.

The reasons we are given for fitting " ironing boards" to new trains is fire resistant and Health and safety requirements. If this is the case, why are coaches fitted with far superior seating?

For me, the coach is far more comfortable .

 

[zwk500]

The reasons we are given for fitting " ironing boards" to new trains is fire resistant and Health and safety requirements.

I'm not sure that reason has ever been substantiated, and certainly looks thinner than a cigarette paper when you compare it to refurbs of rolling stock that were TOC-led, such as the TfW Mk4s or GWR Turbos and Sprinters.

Whether the DfT intended to inflict discomfort or were just very aware of the beady eye of the treasury on them, I can't say.

 

[Tobberz]

I agree on the comfort point. One of the reasons (other than price) why I take the coach London-Bristol rather than the train.

 

[JonathanH]

If this is the case why are coaches fitted with far superior seating. For me the coach is far more comfortable .

The thing that isn't more comfortable with a coach is the more restrictive legroom, less sense of space, and the need to wear a seat belt.

Coach seats in trains would look somewhat odd. A more cushioned bottom to train seats may well be better though.

 

[zwk500]

The thing that isn't more comfortable with a coach is the more restrictive legroom, less sense of space, and the need to wear a seat belt.

Coach seats in trains would look somewhat odd. A more cushioned bottom to train seats may well be better though.

Comfortable train seats are perfectly possible, as shown by the GWR refurbishment, here's a 158: https://www.flickr.com/photos/camperdown/43359050284

 

[alistairlees]

You don't need to travel on a coach to be on a more comfortable seat than on a train. I travelled on a number 6 bus from Windermere to Ulverston recently. Really comfy seats, fine legroom. Then I travelled on a Northern 156 from Ulverston to Carnforth. Terrible legroom, seats not that great either.

 

[JonathanH]

Comfortable train seats are perfectly possible, as shown by the GWR refurbishment, here's a 158: https://www.flickr.com/photos/camperdown/43359050284

Yes, it might be noted that those have deeper cushions now than when they were first introduced. It is the deep cushion that makes them comfortable, not necessarily the seat design itself.

 

[Howardh]

I saw a coach belonging to a holiday company, might have been Leger, where the coach seating was 2 x 1, which appeald to me more than a train, but the negative is brin gsuck in the M6 for hours on end!
If a coach is fully 2 x 1 I assume tickets are more expensive, but not the expense that equivalent on a train would be!

 

[zwk500]

Yes, it might be noted that those have deeper cushions now than when they were first introduced. It is the deep cushion that makes them comfortable, not necessarily the seat design itself.

Agreed - although I have moved into the area just at the end of the refurb. The depth of padding is the major component, although the back of the seat has been shaped a bit with the padding. It's a world of difference from an IET seat.

 

[FrontSideBus]

What gets my goat is when train companies claim they have to use rock hard ironing board seats which are like torture devices due to fire safety regulations... well my counter to that is what about aeroplanes? You can't tell me that rail fire regulations are more stringing than commercial airliners which manage to have quite comfortable seating which is also very lightweight and very small in terms of footprint!

 

[CaptainHaddock]

You don't need to travel on a coach to be on a more comfortable seat than on a train. I travelled on a number 6 bus from Windermere to Ulverston recently. Really comfy seats, fine legroom. Then I travelled on a Northern 156 from Ulverston to Carnforth. Terrible legroom, seats not that great either.

I agree. I regularly travel on the Stagecoach X17 bus between Sheffield and Matlock and the cushioning of the leather seats is way more comfortable than any train seat I've experienced of late.

 

[dosxuk]

What gets my goat is when train companies claim they have to use rock hard ironing board seats which are like torture devices due to fire safety regulations...

Which train companies have actually claimed this?

 

[FrontSideBus]

Im pretty sure I've seen Thameslink claim that for one, as well as by many on here.

 

[david1212]

I have only been on one coach with uncomfortable 'ironing board' seats - the manufacturer ........ Fainsa

 

[railfan99]

I agree on the comfort point. One of the reasons (other than price) why I take the coach London-Bristol rather than the train.

Hope you enjoy the lack of legroom and if up the front, looking constantly at the tail lights of a truck or other vehicle in front.

Plus the possibility of interminable delays due to congestion or a traffic accident.

Plus the typically terrible road coach toilet if there is one. Insufficient room to swing a cat, and the blue chemical additive solution can be overpowering. The coach rocks and sways as you attempt to use the loo.

Rail travel (whatever the seat construction) is far more enjoyable and relaxing.

 

[jupiter]

….because delays never happen on the railways and the toilets are always perfectly clean, stocked and in working order…

 

[zwk500]

Hope you enjoy the lack of legroom and if up the front, looking constantly at the tail lights of a truck or other vehicle in front.

Plus the possibility of interminable delays due to congestion or a traffic accident.

Plus the typically terrible road coach toilet if there is one. Insufficient room to swing a cat, and the blue chemical additive solution can be overpowering. The coach rocks and sways as you attempt to use the loo.

Rail travel (whatever the seat construction) is far more enjoyable and relaxing.

Have you ever used a National Express coach in the UK to compare it against routes with IETs? The coach is far more comfortable and relaxing than an IET which is the primary intercity train.

 

[FrontSideBus]

Saying a coach is more comfortable than an IET isn't really saying much tbh!

 

[Davester50]

Recline on a coach is the work of a devil. Just needs one to recline for everyone sitting behind having to recline to maintain some space.

 

[dosxuk]

Im pretty sure I've seen Thameslink claim that for one, as well as by many on here.

Sure, many enthusiasts have come to the conclusion that the reason for the firm seats these days is because of fire regs, but other than confirmation that the materials used in seat construction have to meet modern fire safety requirements, I'm yet to see any hard evidence that they have suggested the reason for the choice of seat design has been due to them.

I would go as far as to suggest that this is simply a railway myth, formed initially by fans of the IC70 seat who couldn't comprehend that someone (person/group/company) would actively choose to use "ironing board" seats.

That this mystical fire regs rule doesn't exist is plainly evident from the number of non-ironing-board seats that are in use and continue to be installed.

 

[JonathanH]

Recline on a coach is the work of a devil. Just needs one to recline for everyone sitting behind having to recline to maintain some space.

What is the problem with everyone reclining? It is far more comfortable, and conducive to sleep, than being bolt upright.

You mention the space issue which is an issue for comfort, where trains do provide more room.

 

[vuzzeho]

Sure, many enthusiasts have come to the conclusion that the reason for the firm seats these days is because of fire regs, but other than confirmation that the materials used in seat construction have to meet modern fire safety requirements, I'm yet to see any hard evidence that they have suggested the reason for the choice of seat design has been due to them.

I would go as far as to suggest that this is simply a railway myth, formed initially by fans of the IC70 seat who couldn't comprehend that someone (person/group/company) would actively choose to use "ironing board" seats.

That this mystical fire regs rule doesn't exist is plainly evident from the number of non-ironing-board seats that are in use and continue to be installed.

Modern fire regulations on British trains are incredibly stringent, so there is some truth to that. That said, the firm TL seats are more a product of what the DfT ordered, and that's probably because of cost. As seen with modern trains like the GA FLIRTS, the AWC fleet and EMR's Auroras (they look comfortable but I guess that's just a guess), seats can be comfortable and comply with strict fire regs. Additionally, with enthusiasts complaining a lot about modern trains and their seats (a lot of people who work in the industry are also enthusiastic about trains!) there's been a greater onus in recent years on providing comfortable trains - in fact, in 2023 the RSSB released guidance on more comfortable train seats (link: https://www.rssb.co.uk/track-record...s,and boosting overall passenger satisfaction.)

Project 2019-STN-010 created a guidance note that sets out the methodology for assessing seats for passenger comfort and discussed other factors that affect the installation of seats.

 

[J663738]

Has anyone mentioned GWR Hitachi class 800's standard class seats? The fire retarding type foam on the bases of nearly every seat has collapsed and degraded due to use and is now so thin you can feel the metal supports underneath. I lifted the base off one to see what was below and was shocked how little padding there now was. Less than 1cm thickness in places.
My 40 year old local train is more comfortable and I'm only in that for a few minutes, not two hours!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I saw a coach belonging to a holiday company, might have been Leger, where the coach seating was 2 x 1, which appeald to me more than a train, but the negative is brin gsuck in the M6 for hours on end!
If a coach is fully 2 x 1 I assume tickets are more expensive, but not the expense that equivalent on a train would be!

The last time I was on a Rail Replacement Coach, it was one with 3+2 seating usually used for schools traffic. I have never had such an unpleasant journey on a train, even on a packed Pacer with the Merseytravel refurb seats.
Of course, such a vehicle would not be used on a scheduled coach service (and in all honesty should be barred from RRB work too, not least because the seatbelts are too short for many adults) but there's an element of "pot luck" with both coaches and trains insofar as what vehicle will actually turn up for your journey.

 

[Davester50]

What is the problem with everyone reclining?

I don't want to recline. I'd rather have the space.

It is far more comfortable, and conducive to sleep, than being bolt upright.

For you. Not for me.

You mention the space issue which is an issue for comfort, where trains do provide more room.

Except there' s often a seat that doesn't recline at the back of the bus, or before the downstairs gap, and if you're in that seat and someone puts the seat back, you're trapped.

 

[FrontSideBus]

Modern fire regulations on British trains are incredibly stringent, so there is some truth to that.

Are they more stringent than on aircraft though? I mean even EasyJet have seats that are far more comfortable than most modern train seating!

 

[JonathanH]

For you. Not for me.

Which comes back to the crux of this issue, that you can't please everyone with one specification.

 

[renegademaster]

….because delays never happen on the railways and the toilets are always perfectly clean, stocked and in working order…

You get your money back if your train is an hour late, if a coach is 2 hours late you just got to shrug it off. Coaches are good if you only want to spend £10 and only really care what *day* you arrive.

 

[Davester50]

Are they more stringent than on aircraft though? I mean even EasyJet have seats that are far more comfortable than most modern train seating!

And do they recline?

 

[zwk500]

Sure, many enthusiasts have come to the conclusion that the reason for the firm seats these days is because of fire regs, but other than confirmation that the materials used in seat construction have to meet modern fire safety requirements, I'm yet to see any hard evidence that they have suggested the reason for the choice of seat design has been due to them.

I would go as far as to suggest that this is simply a railway myth, formed initially by fans of the IC70 seat who couldn't comprehend that someone (person/group/company) would actively choose to use "ironing board" seats.

That this mystical fire regs rule doesn't exist is plainly evident from the number of non-ironing-board seats that are in use and continue to be installed.

Are they more stringent than on aircraft though? I mean even EasyJet have seats that are far more comfortable than most modern train seating!

Here is an article from RAIL that quotes first a Thameslink Spokesperson blaming fire regulations and then RSSB head of rolling stock saying that's rubbish:

FROM THE ARCHIVES: Are you sitting comfortably?

New fleets have been criticised for uncomfortable seats. Is a lack of padding due fire safety and crashworthiness standards or DfT cost control?

www.railmagazine.com

According to Thameslink, fire standards is the reason why the seats on its Class 700s have so little padding, hence the discomfort. Spokesman Roger Perkins sent RAIL a statement: “Padding in the seats is constrained by the latest fire standards, which are very strict on modern trains, and is also vandal-resistant. This does give it a firmer feel. The shape and size of the seats also had to meet today’s extremely strict crashworthiness standards.”

RAIL put this view to RSSB (Rail Safety and Standards Board), which is the custodian of standards. Head of Rolling Stock Hugh O’Neill was blunt in his response: “It’s absolutely not true that seat comfort is related to fire standards.”

He explained that there was no reason why thicker foam could not be fitted, and added that he thought the reason for the thin foam on Thameslink’s Class 700 seats was entirely commercial. If you wanted to fit a set number of seats in a coach, you could either make the distance between them smaller or you could make the seat backs thinner, he said.

It is categorically true then that Thameslink did (at least at first) blame fire regulations. It is also true that this was complete lies.