Priority seats on the new 800s?

[ThinController]

I commute from Oxford to London. As i am quite tall I always went for the extra legroom seats in the first and last rows of standard class on the HSTs.

This week we have the new trains from Hitachi instead, but it doesn't look like they have any seats with extra legroom

Can anyone confirm this?

PS the seats are rally hard too.. not really progress..

 

[Bletchleyite]

The seats are rubbish, but I find the legroom is generous throughout. I guess you must be *very* tall!

 

[ThinController]

The seats are rubbish, but I find the legroom is generous throughout. I guess you must be *very* tall!

Thanks for replying. Yes, I am 6' 5"

So are you saying all the seats have the same pitch? (unlike the HSTs which had the first and last rows with more room for elderly/disabled people etc)

 

[Bletchleyite]

An inch taller than me

There are priority seats, but I don't recall if they have any extra legroom or not. But in the regular seats I have a couple of inches spare at 6' 4". Having said that, upper leg length is more important a measurement than height in this regard.

 

[Alfie1014]

The GWR seating plans do not show priority seats, however a document from DfT dated 2012 and draft shows them mostly the second and third row in from the vestibules except in the end coaches where thay are the end row.

 

[ThinController]

Having said that, upper leg length is more important a measurement than height in this regard.

you're not wrong.. but now we are getting intimate with each other..

The GWR seating plans do not show priority seats, however a document from DfT dated 2012 and draft shows them mostly the second and third row in from the vestibules except in the end coaches where thay are the end row.

thanks. I guess I'll bring my tape measure in tomorrow..

 

[Bletchleyite]

The GWR seating plans do not show priority seats, however a document from DfT dated 2012 and draft shows them mostly the second and third row in from the vestibules except in the end coaches where thay are the end row.

Presumably this is so they aren't the nasty seat with no window.

 

[Indigo Soup]

So are you saying all the seats have the same pitch

I believe that the official definition of priority seating is based on a certain percentage increase in the seat pitch, so they'll always have more room.

Whether this is a sensible way to specify seating for the less-mobile is another question.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe that the official definition of priority seating is based on a certain percentage increase in the seat pitch, so they'll always have more room.

Whether this is a sensible way to specify seating for the less-mobile is another question.

In my observation it isn't - I've observed that people of limited mobility tend to avoid such seats because the back of the seat in front is too far away for them to hold onto it when sitting down.

Using a percentage also ruins window alignment.

 

[ThinController]

Presumably this is so they aren't the nasty seat with no window.

Yes. Looks like you’re right. I’m also able to confirm that there are indeed two rows of priority seats at each end of the standard carriage, and that they have three inches more leg room

 

[Mikey C]

View attachment 50077 View attachment 50078


Yes. Looks like you’re right. I’m also able to confirm that there are indeed two rows of priority seats at each end of the standard carriage, and that they have three inches more leg room

Not sure I like the look of the stain on that seat...

 

[Indigo Soup]

In my observation it isn't - I've observed that people of limited mobility tend to avoid such seats because the back of the seat in front is too far away for them to hold onto it when sitting down.

Using a percentage also ruins window alignment.

Even accepting the assumption that some people with reduced mobility will benefit from space to manoeuvre themselves and any mobility aids, I'm not sure that a percentage is sensible.

Say that a design of stock has a 35" seat pitch, and the regulations require 20% extra for 'priority seats'. So they're given 42" spacing. Okay, fair enough. But if you decide to be generous to everyone and put that 42" everywhere, the priority seats no longer meet the requirement, despite having the same amount of space as they did before!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even accepting the assumption that some people with reduced mobility will benefit from space to manoeuvre themselves and any mobility aids, I'm not sure that a percentage is sensible.

Say that a design of stock has a 35" seat pitch, and the regulations require 20% extra for 'priority seats'. So they're given 42" spacing. Okay, fair enough. But if you decide to be generous to everyone and put that 42" everywhere, the priority seats no longer meet the requirement, despite having the same amount of space as they did before!

Indeed. On the 800s I think the regular seats are probably adequate as they are - they have more legroom than many trains do in the priority seats. I would have said that a minimum distance from seat back cushion to seat back in front measured at the height and inclination of the base cushion would have been a more sensible specification, and would have removed the issue with them ruining window alignment.