The future of seating on UK rail network

[bramling]

Your problem is that the railway is a commercial business, - albeit a pseudo privatised business. If you travel in the south-east on the busiest lines in the country where the nature of that business is moving the maximum number of passengers possible safely on Victorian infrastructure that itself would have prohibitive costs to fix. You are coming from some passengers point of view. The railway is a public transport system.



As I said, it is a business where the customers are captive and the objective is to deliver the capacity at the minimum cost/maximum profit. It's not the relatively small cost of adding armrests, tables and cushioning, it's the cost and performance implications of them being there. The addition of armrests would either make the seats too narrow for some or narrow the gangway, more legroom would reduce the number of seats, tables (apparently proven in tests) increase dwell times, more cushioning is not necessarily what everybody wants, - those who do could bring additional cushioning with them whereas those who need a firm supportive seat couldn't remove any fitted cushions.



Passengers are travelling in class 700s for an average of 25mins. Those travelling for 1hr+ are in the minority and a lot of them are making journeys less than 25mins. So the trains have been specified to carry the maximum numbers for the duration that most passengers actually do. The dwells are also part of the requirement as they have an impact on the line capacity. The previous stock was becoming seriously inadequate for the volume of traffic on the line. Passengers along the route were unable to board trains. The trains couldn't get longer so something had to give. Those lucky enough to board at the start of the journey have always had seats. With the new trains, those travelling from mid route stations at least now have a chance of boarding, so they can stand (and look at the luckier passengers who have filled all the seats). They now have better, safer standing space.



See above, - passengers on longer journeys are in a minority.

I really wish we could get away from this average journey length nonsense. 25 minutes barely gets anyone from St Albans to London, which is the first stop outside London on many Thameslink services. For GN 25 minutes is even less - Hatfield and Stevenage.

The antics of many passengers in turning up early on platforms so as to be first on the train, pushing others out of the way and other behaviours suggests people do value getting a seat highly. Likewise many choose to take slower services if it gives them more chance of a seat. This applies even at locations where the journey to London is 25 minutes or less. I don’t think I’ve ever stood from my local station to London, ever - including at peak times, although admittedly I do have a very good experience of which services to aim for.

The result of all this is already people turning to other modes. I haven’t used a mainline train to get into London at all this year yet, and neither has someone else in my household. With worsening rail performance recently the car is proving massively more attractive for me.

Maybe loss of our revenue isn’t much in the grand scheme of things, but if this becomes a trend then it will start to bite - especially loss of discretionary off-peak revenue.

 

[brel york]

Unfortunately the railway stopped been solely about running trains for the benefit of passengers over profit a long time ago
Br tried to make money but realised its main objective was running the network not shareholder profits

 

[AM9]

I really wish we could get away from this average journey length nonsense. 25 minutes barely gets anyone from St Albans to London, which is the first stop outside London on many Thameslink services. For GN 25 minutes is even less - Hatfield and Stevenage.

The antics of many passengers in turning up early on platforms so as to be first on the train, pushing others out of the way and other behaviours suggests people do value getting a seat highly. Likewise many choose to take slower services if it gives them more chance of a seat. This applies even at locations where the journey to London is 25 minutes or less. I don’t think I’ve ever stood from my local station to London, ever - including at peak times, although admittedly I do have a very good experience of which services to aim for.

The result of all this is already people turning to other modes. I haven’t used a mainline train to get into London at all this year yet, and neither has someone else in my household. With worsening rail performance recently the car is proving massively more attractive for me.

Maybe loss of our revenue isn’t much in the grand scheme of things, but if this becomes a trend then it will start to bite - especially loss of discretionary off-peak revenue.

There may be pockets of protest where specific issues irk some passengers. Overall, long-term passenger numbers are determined by work trends, the economy, train loading (as in can paying passengers actually get on trains to make their journey) and the relative viability of alternative modes. So if the roads take more traffic than a few token protests, road travel times will increase, parking will get more difficult at railheads closer in and eventually, many of theose additional travellers will stand back and take a look at the car park in their local station with more spaces, and the trains with more seats available etc..
Like it or not, commuting (which is the primary cause of overcrowding on capacity limited infrastructure) is a choice of the least-worst option for traveller, partivcularly from some Home County dormitory towns and their hinterlands. The overall travel conditions change very slowly* but there is churn from rail to road and back, sometimes on a seasonal basis. You and other members of your household, like everybody else can make decisions based on the options open to you at the time, - it doesn't make much difference to anybody else apart from those with similar beliefs (including a few here who have expressed their views). Thameslink off-peak services don't seem to have been abandoned by leisure traveller in the 12 months or so since the class 700s were introduced, on the contrary, the speed and recent reliability has probably increased patronage.

* slightly OT for this thread but on another thread, - there is news of the partial closure of Kins Cross when it is remodelled in 2020. The temporary loss of paths will guarantee that every train is full to capacity in the peaks. The majority of the passengers who don't have any alternative will be grateful for the ability of the class 700s' ability to move very large numbers of passengers, and I doubt that many will be obsessing about the firmness of the seats or the lack of places for their coffee cup when the alternative is being left standing on the platform.​

 

[Dave1987]

Until there is some kind of protest or study by a passenger group..or something to whip up a debate about it in the media then i think you are right

People are already commenting about it on social media. The DFT have assumed that passenger numbers will grow whatever. But as comfort gets less and less people will start to reconsider train travel.

 

[brel york]

People like to protest for the sake of protesting, is this really an issue that stops a commuter using the train to get into London.
It’s a free country , if you find the seats to soft or hard and the interior colour scheme is not your style then find another mode of transport, before you start your protest group do some canvassing and ask if people are refusing to use the seats and opting to stand