The Sunday Times: 'Ironing board' seats

[matacaster]

Personally, I don't even like the First Class seating on VTEC. The seats are very wide and somewhat slippery being leather to the point of being uncomfortable for people of normal build. Most First Class passengers have likely forsaken their comfortable BMW / Audi / Jaguar seats which provide lateral support and they probably expect the same in a train. The seats don't feel very comfortable either as the leather is a hard type leading to an ironing board with leather trim. The original MK3 seats are still the ones to beat.

 

[Matt_pool]

Even the Daily Mash are reporting this:

"MODERN train seats have been made purposefully hard and uncomfortable so that arriving in the office seems like an escape from hell.

Professor Henry Brubaker, from the Institute for Studies said: “Humans love sitting on cushioned surfaces. If you add the consumption of crisps to that, it’s as good as life on earth gets.

“It therefore seems confusing that when we’re required to sit for long stretches other humans would design a chair more uncomfortable than small talk with Theresa May.

“In order to purchase our own soft seats we have to stay in a building from 9am to 5pm at the behest of someone who takes credit for your work and bollocks you when things go wrong.

“Clearly its not a great set up so some genius has decided to make train journeys so unbelievably **** that arriving into the office feels like being drunk in a Jacuzzi.

“One interesting feature of the new train seats is they really retain the heat generated by the previous occupants bum which manages to be both nice and absolutely disgusting.”

Brubaker added: “With traffic at a standstill the only alternative is buying a horse and riding into work, plus eating Frazzles on a galloping stallion looks fantastic.”"

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...-the-office-seem-like-a-relief-20180222144728

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally, I don't even like the First Class seating on VTEC. The seats are very wide and somewhat slippery being leather to the point of being uncomfortable for people of normal build. Most First Class passengers have likely forsaken their comfortable BMW / Audi / Jaguar seats which provide lateral support and they probably expect the same in a train. The seats don't feel very comfortable either as the leather is a hard type leading to an ironing board with leather trim. The original MK3 seats are still the ones to beat.

I dislike IC70 Standard seats, but I agree the First Class ones are comfortable. The best were the later Mk3b seats though.

 

[yorkie]

Good to see we are back on topic but just a reminder this is to discuss seating; if anyone wishes to discuss anything else please either create a new thread or use an existing one (as appropriate). Thanks.

 

[sefton]

That's correct, it is a double-ended outer suburban route, Cambridge to the core stations and from there to Brighton.

I don't think it is reasonable to describe Cambridge or Brighton as suburbs of London.

This is a lengthy journey between cities and the trains should have been fit for that purpose.

 

[BeHereNow]

Having used the GWR IET seats I would say they they are extremely hard. Hopefully the Virgin seats will be slightly plusher on the tush.

 

[AM9]

I don't think it is reasonable to describe Cambridge or Brighton as suburbs of London.

This is a lengthy journey between cities and the trains should have been fit for that purpose.

Where did I say that?.

They may be cities but then so is St Albans, - city status means nothing in train terms. In the peaks they are 'commuter origins (am)/destinations (pm)' which are in need of very high capacity. Brighton has been served by maxed-out services for many years. With the Peterborough and Cambridge to London flows, current and projected housing growth would soon fill its GTR and GA services to capacity, so for once, the railways are ahead of the game. The benefit of through-running to core destinations will also increase GN area journey opportunities in the same way that it did for Thameslink following the 1992 recession and the 2009 recession. So there needs to be a corresponding capacity increase in place before it's too late.

 

[Failed Unit]

I doubt it as the next order will be on a different franchise. Wait for the complaints about the Statler and CAF seats, particularly the GA ones. It will be over 30 years before the class 700s are replaced.

But this thread is about the totally justified criticism of the cheap seats selected by DFT. hopefully they won’t still be on the train for 30 years. Hopefully the next operating company of the franchise will forfil the trains potential by giving it decent seats because of this criticism.

Many trains get reseated. Most of the sprinter stock, 313s, 317/2, mk3 & 4 coaches all reseated. Good or bad they were reseated.

Most criticism I see of the 700 is the seats. Something that can be fixed (just like the seat back tables were) comfortable seats don’t increase dwell times as far as I am aware.

This is coming from someone that will never get a seat anyway when the 700s are introduced.

If this pressure means that the 717 will be introduced with a more comfortable seat then this will all be justified. The refinements made to the voyager incorporated into the meridian make them popular trains. Likewise if the 700s are reseated in say 5 years to provide a comfortable seat even if the capacity is the same is that a bad thing. We need more passengers to complain not less. I don’t mind the seats on the 387 for my short journeys (on the rare occasion I get one). But don’t want to travel for over 1 hour on one

 

[AM9]

If this pressure means that the 717 will be introduced with a more comfortable seat then this will all be justified. The refinements made to the voyager incorporated into the meridian make them popular trains. Likewise if the 700s are reseated in say 5 years to provide a comfortable seat even if the capacity is the same is that a bad thing. We need more passengers to complain not less. I don’t mind the seats on the 387 for my short journeys (on the rare occasion I get one). But don’t want to travel for over 1 hour on one

As I've said elsewhere, the basic setup that the trains have been introduced with I imagine will not have any significant change before their mid-life update, unless it is a safety issue or a significant operational impediment. The only other opportunity would be a cascade/redeployment (very unlikely) or a change of TOC where a bidder promises to change them to get brownie points.

 

[Failed Unit]

As I've said elsewhere, the basic setup that the trains have been introduced with I imagine will not have any significant change before their mid-life update, unless it is a safety issue or a significant operational impediment. The only other opportunity would be a cascade/redeployment (very unlikely) or a change of TOC where a bidder promises to change them to get brownie points.

Well you probably didn’t think the 707s would go off lease either (because it was viewed the facilities offered were not good enough) or that the 700s would get seat back tables.

The basic configuration of these trains is acceptable. The seats are not. Hopefully this outcry will be noticed by whoever takes over from GTR and factors comfort into the bid. (Do the 700s have protection or could the next bidder replace them all? Just a question not an outcome I want to see)

Be interesting to see what seats the 717s get. If they go for the same seat as the 700s then GTR can’t blame daft. If they go for a better seat then the “Metro trains” will actually be better than the long distance trains.

Whatever, as we the passengers must keep the fight up to improve comfort. Challenge DFT and the TOCs. If we don’t they will keep lowering standards. We can’t simply accept this constant lowering of quality of trains. It is a shame open access isn’t allowed on the commuter market.

 

[physics34]

just thought.....how can the seats be hard with minimal padding because of fire regs...and yet they have the softer and deeper padding on the first class seats in the same unit. ! Must be lies.

 

[sefton]

Cambridge to Brighton is hardly a metro type service.

That's correct, it is a double-ended outer suburban route, Cambridge to the core stations and from there to Brighton.

I don't think it is reasonable to describe Cambridge or Brighton as suburbs of London.

Where did I say that?.

When you called the service between Cambridge and Brighton a "double-ended outer suburban route".

Outer suburban means a distant suburb of a town or city. The service may be used by commuters from Cambridge and Brighton to London but those places are certainly not suburbs of London so it cannot be an outer suburban route.

The description of a route indicates the type of trains which are acceptable for use. Misdescribing this route as outer suburban when it is in fact a medium distance inter-City journey results in the unsuitable trains which have been introduced.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It may be an inter-city journey but it is not an InterCity journey.

That kind of service is provided by the Cambridge Express and the Brighton Express, should you desire it. It's more like comparing the Southern WLL service with using VT and Southern express services.

 

[Hadders]

There’s nothing wrong in describing Cambridge to London or Brightonto London as an outer suburban route. The issue is the interior of the 700s is unsuitable for outer suburban services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There’s nothing wrong in describing Cambridge to London or Brightonto London as an outer suburban route. The issue is the interior of the 700s is unsuitable for outer suburban services.

It's no more unsuitable than the Class 319 was (which had a similar interior on the Cityflyer sets).

 

[sefton]

There’s nothing wrong in describing Cambridge to London or Brightonto London as an outer suburban route.

Only that it isn't.

The issue is the interior of the 700s is unsuitable for outer suburban services.

And therefore even more unsuitable for services which are beyond outer-suburban and are medium distance journeys between large cities.

 

[AM9]

Only that it isn't.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.
I, Bletchleyite and maybe many more would say it is. Don't get hung up on the 'city' title that Cambridge has, it's only a market town that got city status recently. There are many 'cities' around the London outer-suburban commuter area, e.g. St Albans, Chelmsford, Ely, Peterborough, Brighton, Canterbury etc., and none of then need Inter-city rail services.

Only that it isn't.

And therefore even more unsuitable for services which are beyond outer-suburban and are medium distance journeys between large cities.[/QUOTE]

And therefore nothing. See above.

 

[sefton]

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.
I, Bletchleyite and maybe many more would say it is. Don't get hung up on the 'city' title that Cambridge has, it's only a market town that got city status recently. There are many 'cities' around the London outer-suburban commuter area, e.g. St Albans, Chelmsford, Ely, Peterborough, Brighton, Canterbury etc., and none of then need Inter-city rail services.

But none of those are suburbs of London either so don't receive an outer-suburban service!

Words matter as demonstrated by the appalling seats on the 700.

 

[greyman42]

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.
I, Bletchleyite and maybe many more would say it is. Don't get hung up on the 'city' title that Cambridge has, it's only a market town that got city status recently. There are many 'cities' around the London outer-suburban commuter area, e.g. St Albans, Chelmsford, Ely, Peterborough, Brighton, Canterbury etc., and none of then need Inter-city rail services.

And therefore even more unsuitable for services which are beyond outer-suburban and are medium distance journeys between large cities.

And therefore nothing. See above.[/QUOTE]
I would hardly call Cambridge a market town.

 

[yorksrob]

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.
I, Bletchleyite and maybe many more would say it is. Don't get hung up on the 'city' title that Cambridge has, it's only a market town that got city status recently. There are many 'cities' around the London outer-suburban commuter area, e.g. St Albans, Chelmsford, Ely, Peterborough, Brighton, Canterbury etc., and none of then need Inter-city rail services.

And therefore even more unsuitable for services which are beyond outer-suburban and are medium distance journeys between large cities.

And therefore nothing. See above.[/QUOTE]

Those towns and Cities are perfectly suited to decent express, if not InterCity standard stock.

Just because a service isn't in the Inter City sector isn't an excuse for poor interior specification.

 

[sefton]

Those towns and Cities are perfectly suited to decent express, if not InterCity standard stock.

Just because a service isn't in the Inter City sector isn't an excuse for poor interior specification.

Exactly, and describing them as "outer-suburban" implies carriages suitable for a suburban service are acceptable, when if they were correctly described it is obvious they are not.

 

[HowardGWR]

How long does one have to sit in a train before inter-city comfort is required? I'd say 75 minutes. That rules out Reading pax getting on GWML Inter city IEP/HSTs then - oh, or from Swindon too?

 

[Failed Unit]

It may be an inter-city journey but it is not an InterCity journey.

That kind of service is provided by the Cambridge Express and the Brighton Express, should you desire it. It's more like comparing the Southern WLL service with using VT and Southern express services.

But the Cambridge express (which starts at Kings Lynn) has these exceptionally uncomfortable seats in it as well. So no real option to vote with your feet. (But an opportunity for GA. sell a slower more comfortable service.) be brutal- sick of uncomfortable seats - travel with us and take a photo of the GN interior.

 

[Muzer]

Exactly, and describing them as "outer-suburban" implies carriages suitable for a suburban service are acceptable, when if they were correctly described it is obvious they are not.

No, it implies that interiors suitable for an OUTER suburban service are acceptable, which they ARE. See 166s, 450s, 350s, most of the 377s, etc. - all outer suburban (as opposed to inner suburban) interiors. The main difference is that 3+2 seating is common on these, which is fine for outer suburban, but not really fine for Thameslink because of the core. Therefore 2+2 seating but with the density of 3+2 is a good compromise. That's what we have with the 700s.

Where it all goes wrong is that most of the outer suburban trains listed have a reasonable amount of padding on the seats, and many of them also have tables on at least some of the seats. They also either have power sockets and Wi-Fi, or were built in a time before those were expected features of trains. These are the things missing from 700s.

If you're expecting InterCity style interiors on a service that's going to form an intensive metro-style service through the centre of London, you're completely deluded. That's never going to happen, for very good reasons involving dwell time etc.

 

[Hadders]

But the Cambridge express (which starts at Kings Lynn) has these exceptionally uncomfortable seats in it as well. So no real option to vote with your feet. (But an opportunity for GA. sell a slower more comfortable service.) be brutal- sick of uncomfortable seats - travel with us and take a photo of the GN interior.

The 387s which operate Cambridge Express service do have ironing board seats but they are better than the ironing boards found on the 700s because:

They are wider
Have arm rests (the arm rests themselves aren't important but they do give more width to the seats)
And crucially they are not positioned tightly against the side of the train.

 

[Failed Unit]

The 387s which operate Cambridge Express service do have ironing board seats but they are better than the ironing boards found on the 700s because:

They are wider
Have arm rests (the arm rests themselves aren't important but they do give more width to the seats)
And crucially they are not positioned tightly against the side of the train.

Agree the 387s are more comfortable than the 700s. But it is a case of do you want to walk over hot coals or broken glass.

Unless you travel first class, as the 387s don’t have it be interesting to see if Cambridge pax go via GA who do or use the 700s.

 

[hexagon789]

Put simply: I don't like them. They've replaced the fairly comfy seats on the 156s with these things which are less comfortable than sitting on concrete slabs!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agree the 387s are more comfortable than the 700s. But it is a case of do you want to walk over hot coals or broken glass.

This is very much a matter of opinion.

Personally, I find the Class 700 seating too narrow and the pitch too tight. But then I am quite a bit bigger (both tall and broad) than average.

I do however quite like the Class 387 interior, I'd say I prefer it over the Class 350s or the older all-tables Electrostars, simply because due to improved spacing and seat height I can sit comfortably in any seat on the train (rather than only some of them) and the armrests aren't up by my ears like on the seats used on the older Electrostars.

I do think the 1st is a sham, but equally all other 2+2 seated 1st is a sham as well.

 

[sefton]

No, it implies that interiors suitable for an OUTER suburban service are acceptable, which they ARE. See 166s, 450s, 350s, most of the 377s, etc. - all outer suburban (as opposed to inner suburban) interiors.

No, I compare them to the 365s which were previously used and suitable for the medium distance commuter routes these are.

The design of the 700 seats is shockingly bad. It isn't only the hard seats, it is the fact they are too narrow, squashed together, and overhang too-wide cable trunking. Effectively they made every design mistake they could.

 

[class387]

Agree the 387s are more comfortable than the 700s. But it is a case of do you want to walk over hot coals or broken glass.

Unless you travel first class, as the 387s don’t have it be interesting to see if Cambridge pax go via GA who do or use the 700s.

Very much disagree with this. The 700 is an awful design of train, but the 387s are to intercity specification and very comfortable for the journeys they operate.

The problem is not the seats, but the layout.