Pendolino seating vs LNER stock

[AM9]

I like a high back seat, being fairly tall, but surely they won't need to design seat heights around Basketball Players and Peter Crouch!

Well seat pitch doesn't seem to be going this way.

 

[route:oxford]

With improved diets people are getting taller. When I started work over 20 years ago - I was the tallest person in the office at 6'3". These days, looking at those in their 20s in the office, I'm fairly average with 2 chaps at 6'6", one chap at 6'8" and one of the ladies in the office stands at 6'4"! You should see her in heels...

Failing to provide adequate protection for passengers is a disgrace, failing to provide a pretty view is merely an inconvenience.

I've already had compensation from East Coast for the discomfort suffered on a 6 hour Highland Chieftan journey with inadequate IC70 seating when my expectation was for a comfortable journey on regular East Coast stock.

 

[Ploughman]

Over the last week there was a mention of future aircraft doing away with all windows in the fuselage and replacing them with a full length / height screen linked to exterior cameras.
That does away with all discussion about windows lining up with seats.
Might take a while to get used to the idea though.

 

[asylumxl]

Whilst all correct none of that, really, impacts on what seats you add to the train or the comfort of those seats.

Yes it does. As I'm sure you're aware the higher seat backs are required for safety reasons, preventing people being thrown around the carriage in a crash.

The interior specification will also stipulate a certain number of seats and other interior fittings. Seating with a suitable pitch, thickness and spacing will have to be chosen to meet these specifications.

Given the growth in passenger numbers this unfortunately (or fortunately if you are used to not having a seat) requires an ever higher number of seats per carriage. This is less than ideal from a comfort viewpoint but a necessary evil to allow for future growth.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Over the last week there was a mention of future aircraft doing away with all windows in the fuselage and replacing them with a full length / height screen linked to exterior cameras.
That does away with all discussion about windows lining up with seats.
Might take a while to get used to the idea though.

That is true, but I imagine the benefits of doing that are far greater when you have to pressurise the fuselage and the extra mass of windows versus aluminium is more important. Advances in car technology will have an effect on future rail carriage design, especially the advances in carbon fibre and the reduction in weight for windows. This will mean the windows can take up more of the side of the carriage without there being any effect on crashworthiness compared to the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if the HS2 were designed with those advances in mind, so comfortably fitting in 550 seats to a 200m single-deck train might not be too difficult.

 

[tom1649]

Yes it does. As I'm sure you're aware the higher seat backs are required for safety reasons, preventing people being thrown around the carriage in a crash.

How does this work on a 378 then? I know they run at generally lower speeds, but they could theoretically be cleared run on the same line as a much faster train.

 

[asylumxl]

How does this work on a 378 then? I know they run at generally lower speeds, but they could theoretically be cleared run on the same line as a much faster train.

The rules are dependent on the speed the train operates. 378s get to around 50mph at most. I think the chances of a 378 reaching a speed over 110mph are slim.

Having said that, acceptance of stock is done on a case by case basis and there is flexibility.

Not too long ago it was generally accepted that trains travelling over 100mph would require a certain amount of non-passenger space at each end for safety reasons.

Now, given the improvements in crash-worthiness, trains such as the 350s are allowed to run at higher speeds and the consensus has changed.

 

[RichmondCommu]

MkI, IIs and IIIs, all more comfortable than a pendo

That’s a matter of personal opinion. However, I was one of the many walking wounded on the day of the Clapham Junction disaster and should a high speed collision occur the Mk1's would be nothing short of death traps.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sadly, the next requirement will be the TOC trying to cram in as many seats as possible without worrying about passengers' needs, especially seat pitch. Modern seats are bolt upright without backrest tilt and as for those FGW high backrest seats...

Would you rather pay a kings ransom and still have to stand or would you rather have a seat? It really is that simple.

 

[Taunton]

That’s a matter of personal opinion. However, I was one of the many walking wounded on the day of the Clapham Junction and should a high speed collision occur the Mk1's would be nothing short of death traps.

That is not necessarily so; it depends on the characteristics of the accident. There were plenty of accident reports in the 1950s-60s which complimented the Mk 1s on their structural integrity in minimising injuries. And if you look at some other events, in particular Hixon, Mk 1 stock full and standing doing about 75 mph hits a solid 160 ton transformer jammed across a level crossing, the casualties were far less than the lower-speed Clapham rear-ender.

I do wonder also how the modern rail industry so readily decants passengers into coaches or taxis whose incidence of collisions is greater and structural strength way less than any passenger rail vehicle, Mk 1 or current build. And yet this is apparently quite acceptable.

 

[Bevan Price]

I do love how so many people on RUK feel they are better informed on industrial design than the professionals.

Typical that people over simplify things. There's many more factors than windows and seat pitch at play in the design of the carriage.

But by all means, if you think you can do better then please put your money where your mouth is and prove it. I look forward to seeing you tender for rolling stock orders...

Even allowing for a single body design, almost anyone could get a better arrangement of seating. For a start, we would not put luggage racks next to windows when at least some seats could be located there. And we would recognise that a lot of passengers have more luggage than a typical business traveller - and that they need somewhere safe and secure to put that luggage.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I do wonder also how the modern rail industry so readily decants passengers into coaches or taxis whose incidence of collisions is greater and structural strength way less than any passenger rail vehicle, Mk 1 or current build. And yet this is apparently quite acceptable.

Whilst I agree with what you have said, as a percentage those incidents are very low. Would you avoid taking a cab or a bus because of its safety features? And as far as I'm aware all coaches now have seat belts but I'm willing to be corrected on that.

 

[ainsworth74]

There were plenty of accident reports in the 1950s-60s which complimented the Mk 1s on their structural integrity in minimising injuries.

And of course they were then comparing to what had come before in the 1920s and 30s! I would imagine a modern accident report would be completely and utterly scathing of a Mk1 in terms of structural integrity and crashworthiness (certainly Hidden wasn't particularly complementary). As much as some seem unable to accept it was a good day when Mk1s left service on everything other than charters.

Whilst the characteristics of an accident are vital and all tend to be different I doubt that a Mk1 would have stood up to the forces involved in the Grayrigg derailment or the Great Heck collision (combined closing speed of 142mph).

For their time the Mk1s were a great leap forward on what came before but they are undoubtedly better on the scrap heap today.

 

[Taunton]

As much as some seem unable to accept it was a good day when Mk1s left service on everything other than charters.

I don't believe this is due to any technical nostalgia for the form of bodyshell construction! It is more, as has been covered above, to poor (sometimes verging on the ludicrous) seating and window layouts, worse comfort standards of the seating, and more than anything else minimal vehicle provision such that longer distance services can be crush loaded well outside the peaks while half the stock is sat in sidings. It really is increasingly Soviet Central Planning and to hell with the passengers writ large.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I don't believe this is due to any technical nostalgia for the form of bodyshell construction! It is more, as has been covered above, to poor (sometimes verging on the ludicrous) seating and window layouts, worse comfort standards of the seating, and more than anything else minimal vehicle provision such that longer distance services can be crush loaded well outside the peaks while half the stock is sat in sidings. It really is increasingly Soviet Central Planning and to hell with the passengers writ large.

Safety should always come before anything else. Not only that but most customers appear to be more interested in their various entertainment devices than the view from a train window.

Would you rather have a seat on a busy train or have the number of seats restricted in order to gawp out the window?

 

[HSTEd]

Safety cannot come before anything else - civilisation would come to pieces.

I am not convinced constant regulatory ratcheting of safety requirements is a good thing, it has essentially killed inexpensive nuclear power systems and has driven the cost of various other industries, including rail, through the roof. No more installing electrification equipment on an operating railway with ladders (although I have yet to see evidence of any fatalities attributable to such works that would have been avoided with current practice).

Our society is crippled by the thought that a few people might get killed.
A Mark 1 formation with a full blown ATP system (which is what ETCS is) is almost exactly as safe as a modern formation.

 

[TheEdge]

Our society is crippled by the thought that a few people might get killed.
A Mark 1 formation with a full blown ATP system (which is what ETCS is) is almost exactly as safe as a modern formation.

No, no it isn't. Imagine Greyrigg with Mk1s, it would have been a damn sight worse than 1 death. Any modern accident with modern rolling stock, which, tragic as they are with loss of life, are a far better outcome than would be seen with a crash involving Mk1s.

Just compare pictures of Harrow and Wealdstone with Great Heck and Ufton Nervet to start with...

 

[NotATrainspott]

No, no it isn't. Imagine Greyrigg with Mk1s, it would have been a damn sight worse than 1 death. Any modern accident with modern rolling stock, which, tragic as they are with loss of life, are a far better outcome than would be seen with a crash involving Mk1s.

Just compare pictures of Harrow and Wealdstone with Great Heck and Ufton Nervet to start with...

In particular for Grayrigg was the strength of the windows. In an incident it's better for the windows to remain intact and prevent people from being ejected from the relative safety of the train, while the old non-AC windows on Mk1/Mk2 stock would be significantly more likely to break in a collision.

 

[jopsuk]

if a Mark 1 (especially) train had, at the speed that train was going at grayrigg, rolled down a bank like that, you'd have been looking at one of the highest fatalities for any rail accident in this country I reckon. Never mind being ejected; the bodywork would have crumpled.

 

[cf111]

Safety cannot come before anything else - civilisation would come to pieces.

I am not convinced constant regulatory ratcheting of safety requirements is a good thing, it has essentially killed inexpensive nuclear power systems and has driven the cost of various other industries, including rail, through the roof. No more installing electrification equipment on an operating railway with ladders (although I have yet to see evidence of any fatalities attributable to such works that would have been avoided with current practice).

Our society is crippled by the thought that a few people might get killed.
A Mark 1 formation with a full blown ATP system (which is what ETCS is) is almost exactly as safe as a modern formation.

How would ATP have prevented Grayrigg or Great Heck? It doesn't bear to think about how a rake of Mark 1 coaches would have coped with those incidents.

 

[matchmaker]

LNER Gresley coaches after a crash (Castlecary, 1937).

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/scottish-train-disaster

 

[DarloRich]

No one is seriously suggesting that improvements in safety design and construction rigidity are a bad thing. Are they?

What I am complaining about is that the comfort of the passenger comes at the bottom of any list of design requirements, if it is considered at all! Why can’t the same level of rigour be put into designing the carriage interior as goes into designing the structure of the vehicle?

As for the seats themselves it is not the height of the seats that is a problem (high seats offer much better back and neck support) rather it is the quality and comfort of the seat, the level of padding, the leg room, the pitch, the ability to see out of window, the internal decorations/colour of finishes ( consider the Pendolino - WHY such dark colours!), the provision of lighting (again consider the Pendolino - why is it so dull?) the quality of fixtures and fittings, the provision and position of luggage racks, the size of tables ,the number of tables, toilets that don’t release the stench of another’s pooh into the carriage. The list goes on!

WHY after investing so much time and effort into designing a safe carriage can we not design a safe AND comfortable carriage?

 

[AM9]

No one is seriously suggesting that improvements in safety design and construction rigidity are a bad thing. Are they?

What I am complaining about is that the comfort of the passenger comes at the bottom of any list of design requirements, if it is considered at all! Why can’t the same level of rigour be put into designing the carriage interior as goes into designing the structure of the vehicle?

As for the seats themselves it is not the height of the seats that is a problem (high seats offer much better back and neck support) rather it is the quality and comfort of the seat, the level of padding, the leg room, the pitch, the ability to see out of window, the internal decorations/colour of finishes ( consider the Pendolino - WHY such dark colours!), the provision of lighting (again consider the Pendolino - why is it so dull?) the quality of fixtures and fittings, the provision and position of luggage racks, the size of tables ,the number of tables, toilets that don’t release the stench of another’s pooh into the carriage. The list goes on!

WHY after investing so much time and effort into designing a safe carriage can we not design a safe AND comfortable carriage?

Because when the madatory design aspects have been attended to there's no profit inscentive to address the wish list of passengers. Just think what has changed since all of these sadly missed coaches were introduced.

 

[HSTEd]

No, no it isn't. Imagine Greyrigg with Mk1s, it would have been a damn sight worse than 1 death. Any modern accident with modern rolling stock, which, tragic as they are with loss of life, are a far better outcome than would be seen with a crash involving Mk1s.

And yet such accidents are incredibly rare.
It is questionable if the ridiculous resources expended on crash safety are actually worth it when only a tiny number of accidents ever actually occur.
In terms of fatalities per passenger-mile you will still come out better than almost any other form of transport.

Just compare pictures of Harrow and Wealdstone with Great Heck and Ufton Nervet to start with...

Harrow and Wealdstone is irrelevant - it simply would not have happened if an ATP system had been installed - the train would have come predictably, and safely, to a halt.

Ufton Nervet would have been avoided by properly engineered level crossings (obstruction detection or remote monitoring) and Great Heck is possily the only such event I remember in recent history.

if a Mark 1 (especially) train had, at the speed that train was going at grayrigg, rolled down a bank like that, you'd have been looking at one of the highest fatalities for any rail accident in this country I reckon. Never mind being ejected; the bodywork would have crumpled.

I doubt it very much - there were only 105 passengers an 4 crew aboard the train - so it could never have got near the casualty rates at disasters like Quintinshill and similar.

How would ATP have prevented Grayrigg or Great Heck? It doesn't bear to think about how a rake of Mark 1 coaches would have coped with those incidents.

It wouldn't have - but such incidents are incredibly rare in the scheme of things - and perhaps if regulatory ratcheting hadn't put the rail industry's costs through the roof the track maintenance regime in advance of Grayrigg would have been better funded and the faults with the trackwork would have been detected in advance.

I am not in any way saying improvements in crash standards are a bad thing as such - merely that early retirement of stock due to 'poor safety' is almost certainly counter-productive.

 

[asylumxl]

So because crashes are rare, trains shouldn't be designed to be as safe as possible in the result of a crash? Words fail me,

Car accidents aren't all that common, most journeys are uneventful and go off without a hitch. Let's all stop wearing seat belts since the chances are we won't be flying through the windscreen.

 

[jc71]

LNER Gresley coaches after a crash (Castlecary, 1937).

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/scottish-train-disaster

View attachment 19579

I was not trying to suggest we use LNER structures as its obvious they're made of wood. I was not suggesting that we use the actual interior of them, nor was I suggesting that the seats should be the same. What I WAS trying to say is how hard is it to achieve a coach that provides a decent view without losing seats in comparison with what is currently available in the Pendolinos.

Cars have a lot of crash structures and the upper half of them is essentially glass on the perimeter. The strength of the cars comes through the roof and the floorpan with hefty assistance from pillars that are not ridiculously thick. Hence a coach could easily be constructed with more window area without compromising the structural integrity. The entrance lobby and extra door aperture of modern stock were factored into my original comment.

Yes, costs matter, as do safety, but I'm pointing out that modern construction methods should allow for better layouts inside without compromising safety, cost, or the number of seats.

 

[ainsworth74]

Cars have a lot of crash structures and the upper half of them is essentially glass on the perimeter. The strength of the cars comes through the roof and the floorpan with hefty assistance from pillars that are not ridiculously thick. Hence a coach could easily be constructed with more window area without compromising the structural integrity.

Are cars expected to withstand impacts at closing speeds of potentially 125mph (140mph at least in the case of 390s)? Or impacts with other vehicles which could have a combined mass of 1000 tonnes? I'm not sure (and that's the truth I'm not so if anyone knows please chime in) that cars are designed to withstand anything like the punishment that a railway vehicle could expect to encounter during an accident...

 

[NotATrainspott]

I was not trying to suggest we use LNER structures as its obvious they're made of wood. I was not suggesting that we use the actual interior of them, nor was I suggesting that the seats should be the same. What I WAS trying to say is how hard is it to achieve a coach that provides a decent view without losing seats in comparison with what is currently available in the Pendolinos.

Cars have a lot of crash structures and the upper half of them is essentially glass on the perimeter. The strength of the cars comes through the roof and the floorpan with hefty assistance from pillars that are not ridiculously thick. Hence a coach could easily be constructed with more window area without compromising the structural integrity. The entrance lobby and extra door aperture of modern stock were factored into my original comment.

Yes, costs matter, as do safety, but I'm pointing out that modern construction methods should allow for better layouts inside without compromising safety, cost, or the number of seats.

Cars have the advantage of the square-cube law, which means they need less steel versus glass to be just as strong in a collision as a train with more steel versus glass. Also, a Pendolino is cleared to run at up to 230km/h, meaning it will have around four times the amount of kinetic energy per kilogram as a car on the motorway, so it must be stronger still as a result. If you want as much glass as you can manage on a train, you end up with a Pacer or 153 with its bus body and 75mph speed limit.

 

[Emblematic]

Cars have the advantage of the square-cube law, which means they need less steel versus glass to be just as strong in a collision as a train with more steel versus glass. Also, a Pendolino is cleared to run at up to 230km/h, meaning it will have around four times the amount of kinetic energy per kilogram as a car on the motorway, so it must be stronger still as a result. If you want as much glass as you can manage on a train, you end up with a Pacer or 153 with its bus body and 75mph speed limit.

Also the windscreen glass on a modern car is very much a structural element, whereas train windows are rarely bonded (ease & speed of replacement is likely a key factor in that design choice.) Hence cars have seemingly every-increasing amounts of glass, with no reduction in safety.

 

[asylumxl]

Also the windscreen glass on a modern car is very much a structural element, whereas train windows are rarely bonded (ease & speed of replacement is likely a key factor in that design choice.) Hence cars have seemingly every-increasing amounts of glass, with no reduction in safety.

I may be wrong, but I think a lot of that will be down to the fact the bodyshell of a train is far more prone to flexing than a car.

 

[Emblematic]

I may be wrong, but I think a lot of that will be down to the fact the bodyshell of a train is far more prone to flexing than a car.

Also train carriage windows are often double glazed units, which complicates things. I believe the ribbon glazing on the few series that have it is bonded, but it's proved to be a maintenance headache and - as far as I know - everything being built presently has reverted to framed windows.