Refurbished Class 170 Seating Configs

[greataj]

Would anybody know the seating variences between the Class 170 fleet for CrossCountry and EMR's latest refurbs? From what I've have encountered, the CrossCountry fleet has 40 seats in the main sections of each carriage, whereas EMR's refurb seem to have only 36 - I can't determine if that is due to an extra luggage rack or more table seating? Can anybody shed more light or know of any other variences between each operator's Class 170 refurbs?

 

[Bletchleyite]

There were a few layouts as built. If I recall rightly the Midland Mainline units (the ones with the metal backed seats, though the Central Trains ones also had these) had a higher density layout with fewer tables and seats not window aligned. I've lost track of which are where now (though I think most if not all of the high density ones are with XC now) but I don't think anyone has yet changed the layout (bar minor tweaks to get priority rows in) on refurbishment, though as the FISA LEAN is a slightly thinner backed seat than the original (which was *very* thick) there does feel like there's a bit more space on these than as built.

The layout of the EMR one I went on seemed to be almost identical to the Chiltern 168 (window aligned) but with an extra luggage rack taking up one airline seat width.

 

[edwin_m]

There were a few layouts as built. If I recall rightly the Midland Mainline units (the ones with the metal backed seats, though the Central Trains ones also had these) had a higher density layout with fewer tables and seats not window aligned. I've lost track of which are where now (though I think most if not all of the high density ones are with XC now) but I don't think anyone has yet changed the layout (bar minor tweaks to get priority rows in) on refurbishment, though as the FISA LEAN is a slightly thinner backed seat than the original (which was *very* thick) there does feel like there's a bit more space on these than as built.

The layout of the EMR one I went on seemed to be almost identical to the Chiltern 168 (window aligned) but with an extra luggage rack taking up one airline seat width.

All the ex-MML ones went to Cross Country but I think the previous refurbishment took out some of the seats so they no longer have the original very tight legroom in Standard.

 

[Failed Unit]

I think one of the critisms of the MML was lack of leg room, which was actually listened to and that is why the CT ones are like they are,

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think one of the critisms of the MML was lack of leg room, which was actually listened to and that is why the CT ones are like they are,

The MML ones were truly horrible. Easily as tight as a 150/2 or a 153. Later ones indeed took a row out (using a layout similar to what the Chiltern 168s had from new and still do) making it much better and delivering close to 100% window alignment.