The Sunday Times: 'Ironing board' seats

[DarloRich]

You know the seats on VTEC are newer than the Pendolino seats, right?

The original Mk4 seats were quite thin and were not very comfortable. Curiously I can't find a single photo of the as-built Mk4 interior on the Web.

Are they? WOW. I thought they were simply new pads/cushions on the existing carcass. if so no excuse for fitting them to all trains

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are they? WOW. I thought they were simply new pads/cushions on the existing carcass. if so no excuse for fitting them to all trains

Yep, GNER fitted them, originally with a one piece cushion that had the base tilt the wrong way, they used to give me backache. VTEC have fixed it by switching to a two piece cushion where this is not the case.

 

[iFoam Ltd]

I run a company that makes the urethane foam used in train seats (suspended graphite foam). I supply most if not all domestic train seat manufacturers/ refurbishers as well as some in Europe. Whilst it is true that I have to comply with some of the most demanding Fire, smoke & toxicity (FST) testing in the world (more rigorous than any aircraft, which I also supply) it is not the reason for hard or uncomfortable seats although it can be argued that there is some causal effect. The more foam in a seat, the more difficult to pass the fire tests but (generally) the more comfortable the seat. However, more foam means more money. That I'm afraid is the driver.
As the foams get thinner they have to be harder to prevent 'bottoming out' under compression so you have what we see detailed in the Times article.
I had the opportunity to address a working group put together by the Rail Safety Standards Board to discuss passenger comfort and how to attract people on to the railway and off the roads. I was vociferous in my condemnation of both the ever increasing passenger density and the poor comfort levels. I ended up pointing out that nothing would be done whilst the driving force was the cost of the seat. I repeated this at a follow up meeting where they were inviting tenders for funding to undertake a study in to rail comfort.
There are more comfortable seats available in the UK, although very few that are fully compliant with the latest crashworthiness standards but the TOC's / franchise holders do not want to pay for them. They'll take your £5K for a season ticket and the government subsidy but they have to maintain profits for their Dutch/German/French masters.
On behalf of the train seat manufacturers, you may be interested to know it cost over £750,000 to design, tool and test a new train seat (speculatively!) and then they have to ask themselves who are we designing for? Today's 50%ile male / female will not be tomorrows as weights and dimensions increase. I have my sympathies for what is a very risky enterprise.

 

[Mikey C]

I certainly wouldn't want to do long journeys on a 700, they feel like Metro stock inside.

is there any way of reducing the size of the heating duct, as it's so intrusive for the window seats? On the 350/1 I was on on Saturday it was intrusive, but at least the seats are wider so you sit further from the wall, but on the 700 with the narrow seats pushed right up against the wall, there's no foot space at all

 

[class387]

I certainly wouldn't want to do long journeys on a 700, they feel like Metro stock inside.

is there any way of reducing the size of the heating duct, as it's no intrusive for the window seats? On the 350/1 I was on on Saturday it was intrusive, but at least the seats are wider so you sit further from the wall, but on the 700 with the narrow seats pushed right up against the wall, there's no foot space at all

The heating duct isn't too bad if you rest your foot on it, though it would obviously be better if it wasn't there. The ones on the 345 are much less intrusive.

 

[furnessvale]

The DfT is not BR. They have more control now than what they did under BR.

You surely are not suggesting that a newly nationalised BR would somehow be able to wrest power back from the DfT.

 

[43096]

Yep, GNER fitted them, originally with a one piece cushion that had the base tilt the wrong way, they used to give me backache. VTEC have fixed it by switching to a two piece cushion where this is not the case.

That cannot be right. I thought everyone knew that Virgin are the spawn of the devil and that GNER were perfect....

 

[Failed Unit]

That cannot be right. I thought everyone knew that Virgin are the spawn of the devil and that GNER were perfect....

Remember it is stagecoach now it all has gone wrong. Virgin only have 10% stake. Although as it is positive I am sure Virgin will claim it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The heating duct isn't too bad if you rest your foot on it, though it would obviously be better if it wasn't there. The ones on the 345 are much less intrusive.

I certainly prefer a flat-topped duct I can put my foot on over a smaller sloped one I can't (e.g. the Turbostar design). Ideally it wouldn't be there at all, there must be a better way.

 

[physics34]

I certainly prefer a flat-topped duct I can put my foot on over a smaller sloped one I can't (e.g. the Turbostar design). Ideally it wouldn't be there at all, there must be a better way.

it is actually quite useful to put your cup of coffee on.....ironically sums it up though really.
Thankfully at least there are some tables appearing

 

[Muzer]

I run a company that makes the urethane foam used in train seats (suspended graphite foam). I supply most if not all domestic train seat manufacturers/ refurbishers as well as some in Europe. Whilst it is true that I have to comply with some of the most demanding Fire, smoke & toxicity (FST) testing in the world (more rigorous than any aircraft, which I also supply) it is not the reason for hard or uncomfortable seats although it can be argued that there is some causal effect. The more foam in a seat, the more difficult to pass the fire tests but (generally) the more comfortable the seat. However, more foam means more money. That I'm afraid is the driver.
As the foams get thinner they have to be harder to prevent 'bottoming out' under compression so you have what we see detailed in the Times article.
I had the opportunity to address a working group put together by the Rail Safety Standards Board to discuss passenger comfort and how to attract people on to the railway and off the roads. I was vociferous in my condemnation of both the ever increasing passenger density and the poor comfort levels. I ended up pointing out that nothing would be done whilst the driving force was the cost of the seat. I repeated this at a follow up meeting where they were inviting tenders for funding to undertake a study in to rail comfort.
There are more comfortable seats available in the UK, although very few that are fully compliant with the latest crashworthiness standards but the TOC's / franchise holders do not want to pay for them. They'll take your £5K for a season ticket and the government subsidy but they have to maintain profits for their Dutch/German/French masters.
On behalf of the train seat manufacturers, you may be interested to know it cost over £750,000 to design, tool and test a new train seat (speculatively!) and then they have to ask themselves who are we designing for? Today's 50%ile male / female will not be tomorrows as weights and dimensions increase. I have my sympathies for what is a very risky enterprise.

Thanks for this insightful post (I think your post was only just moderator-approved as I'm sure I've looked at this thread recently and not seen it). The fact that it comes largely down to price, and not standards per se, is kind of what I expected all along.

 

[physics34]

I run a company that makes the urethane foam used in train seats (suspended graphite foam). I supply most if not all domestic train seat manufacturers/ refurbishers as well as some in Europe. Whilst it is true that I have to comply with some of the most demanding Fire, smoke & toxicity (FST) testing in the world (more rigorous than any aircraft, which I also supply) it is not the reason for hard or uncomfortable seats although it can be argued that there is some causal effect. The more foam in a seat, the more difficult to pass the fire tests but (generally) the more comfortable the seat. However, more foam means more money. That I'm afraid is the driver.
As the foams get thinner they have to be harder to prevent 'bottoming out' under compression so you have what we see detailed in the Times article.
I had the opportunity to address a working group put together by the Rail Safety Standards Board to discuss passenger comfort and how to attract people on to the railway and off the roads. I was vociferous in my condemnation of both the ever increasing passenger density and the poor comfort levels. I ended up pointing out that nothing would be done whilst the driving force was the cost of the seat. I repeated this at a follow up meeting where they were inviting tenders for funding to undertake a study in to rail comfort.
There are more comfortable seats available in the UK, although very few that are fully compliant with the latest crashworthiness standards but the TOC's / franchise holders do not want to pay for them. They'll take your £5K for a season ticket and the government subsidy but they have to maintain profits for their Dutch/German/French masters.
On behalf of the train seat manufacturers, you may be interested to know it cost over £750,000 to design, tool and test a new train seat (speculatively!) and then they have to ask themselves who are we designing for? Today's 50%ile male / female will not be tomorrows as weights and dimensions increase. I have my sympathies for what is a very risky enterprise.

Ive often mentioned SPRUNG seats that used to be the norm. Is there any reason sprung seats would be less safe regarding fire risks etc? Or is this just expense again?

With so many designs of seat going back for many years why the need to "design" new seats? Why not modify previous seat designs? I Understand the tooling issue, but once a new seat prototype is decided on, the cost will be worth it if many are ordered.

It seems that the fansia seats and the GWR 800 are just "off the shelf" seats that really havent gone through much testing from a comfort point of view. THIS is the issue really. The 700 seats are generally fine for 30 mins.

How much more would thicker seat cushions cost that still comply with regs? 2 inchs of extra foam for example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ive often mentioned SPRUNG seats that used to be the norm. Is there any reason sprung seats would be less safe regarding fire risks etc? Or is this just expense again?

Maintenance, probably, and a need for frequent replacement. Old Mk1 sprung seats were terrible once they had worn out, as are old sprung mattresses and sofas.

I don't have a sprung mattress or sofa, I find them inadequately supportive. Both are foam.

 

[fusionblue]

So why is the 700s getting all the hate when the 376 has similar ironing board (in terms of comfort, not looks) seats since 2005?

(and the same heating element sticking out at windows seats too)

 

[Failed Unit]

So why is the 700s getting all the hate when the 376 has similar ironing board (in terms of comfort, not looks) seats since 2005?

(and the same heating element sticking out at windows seats too)

The distance the passengers travel on them? 376s are metro routes. Many passengers on the 700s will be on them for more than 1 hour. Despite what GTR might say.

 

[class387]

So why is the 700s getting all the hate when the 376 has similar ironing board (in terms of comfort, not looks) seats since 2005?

(and the same heating element sticking out at windows seats too)

They have seat spacers though and are not jammed up against the wall, which is my main problem with 700s - not the seats which I find fine on 387s.

 

[Raul_Duke]

The DfT is not BR.

Thanks professor!

 

[greyman42]

Very fair point ....DfT got it so wrong with the 700's seating , otherwise excellent trains. Modern Railways , and in particular Ian Walmsley have been on the case for a very long time. Let us hope someone listens.

Can you imagine a brand new car having similar ergonomics ..?

A brand new car would not have similar ergonomics simply because no one would buy it. So why do they do it with trains?

 

[Bletchleyite]

They have seat spacers though and are not jammed up against the wall, which is my main problem with 700s - not the seats which I find fine on 387s.

To be fair the 700 seats are *slightly* spaced away from the wall (about 1"), unlike just about every bus ever.

 

[Mikey C]

They have seat spacers though and are not jammed up against the wall, which is my main problem with 700s - not the seats which I find fine on 387s.

The heating element is nowhere near as intrusive either

 

[yorksrob]

The heating element is nowhere near as intrusive either

My goodness, those seats look horrid !

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed, that looks terrible. Nasty Spartan-looking colour scheme (similar to Chiltern 165s) too.

 

[Nymanic]

ScotRail use a different base cushion. Northern will also be using it.

I thought the public had decisively voted against the ironing board seats in the Northern seat roadshow !

Quite correct. Northern have gone out of their way to provide a seat roadshow, record passenger preferences (often at stations not due to be served by their new trains*), only to opt for the least popular design. I can't really interpret that as anything short of contemptuous.

I don't think they've ever gone on record to explain or defend this decision. I've also yet to see any Twitter users call them out on this specifically, not that any benefit would result.

That design compromises have been made (a bit more padding) is of course an improvement - they might even be pleasant to use - but does nothing to temper the sense of contempt and pointlessness surrounding the whole roadshow exercise.

* Not really an issue since some existing stock is also due to be reseated.

 

[ole17]

I had the opportunity to address a working group put together by the Rail Safety Standards Board to discuss passenger comfort and how to attract people on to the railway and off the roads. I was vociferous in my condemnation of both the ever increasing passenger density and the poor comfort levels. I ended up pointing out that nothing would be done whilst the driving force was the cost of the seat. I repeated this at a follow up meeting where they were inviting tenders for funding to undertake a study in to rail comfort.

Thanks for your insight. Surely if there needs to be an increase passenger comfort, the organisation involved in setting the specs for the new trains should be involved as well. Or maybe not.....

Interesting to note that the RSSB tender (RSSB2655) involves trying to define parameters for evaluating seat comfort. Hmmm..... How much new unnecessary bureaucracy is going to be added is a question, and that will also up the cost of new trains. The quicker they drop this the better.

 

[theageofthetra]

My goodness, those seats look horrid !

They're not much better in the cab.

 

[physics34]

My goodness, those seats look horrid !

but luckily they are from Charing Cross to Bexley and places like that, not Peterborough to Brighton!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

A brand new car would not have similar ergonomics simply because no one would buy it. So why do they do it with trains?

Because the users of the trains are effectively captive customers , and to think in BR days I used to despair of "new" trains being designed by people at Derby who never used them ....(thinking of the spartan 313 and 317 era trains) , now we have "consultants" and civil servants at the DfT.

Consider how , for example local bus amenities are now - leather seats and mandatory WiFi on many routes. Whereas 700's interiors (as opposed to everything else) are deemed to be wonderful for some of the highest paying passengers per mile / on a daily basis etc , on the network.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I certainly prefer a flat-topped duct I can put my foot on over a smaller sloped one I can't (e.g. the Turbostar design). Ideally it wouldn't be there at all, there must be a better way.

Easier for the building and fitting out of the sets , - recall how even 1960's Southern EMU's had the heating elements branched off , and under the seating bays - SO much easier to run a conduct down the side and to intrude on the inner passenger foot space. (as on most or many new builds) ..a vehicle life issue.

 

[physics34]

Because the users of the trains are effectively captive customers , and to think in BR days I used to despair of "new" trains being designed by people at Derby who never used them ....(thinking of the spartan 313 and 317 era trains) , now we have "consultants" and civil servants at the DfT.

Consider how , for example local bus amenities are now - leather seats and mandatory WiFi on many routes. Whereas 700's interiors (as opposed to everything else) are deemed to be wonderful for some of the highest paying passengers per mile / on a daily basis etc , on the network.

we just need to keep up the disgust at the poor comfort levels....more moans and possibly petitions etc. Id like more involvement of back specialists, chiropractors etc more.

 

[class387]

Agreed, that looks terrible. Nasty Spartan-looking colour scheme (similar to Chiltern 165s) too.

They certainly look horrible (just like how 350/1 seats do), but I don't find them any 'worse' than a Fainsa seat. Slightly more padding too on the cushion.