The Sunday Times: 'Ironing board' seats

[Muzer]

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.

OK, but 365s are also outer suburban units.

 

[Failed Unit]

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.

They seem like the same seat to me physically. Yes the 387 has armrests and better leg room but the both have no padding. Surely no one can think first class on the 387s is acceptable?

The seats on the 387s attracts as much criticism as the 700s.

 

[class387]

They seem like the same seat to me physically. Yes the 387 has armrests and better leg room but the both have no padding. Surely no one can think first class on the 387s is acceptable?

The seats on the 387s attracts as much criticism as the 700s.

No, first on the 387 definitely isn't acceptable, but it isn't on the 700 either.

The Fainsa seat is very subjective. I would argue that it doesn't need extra padding as you are sitting in a supportive posture since the seat is shaped well. Others would obviously disagree. What is almost unanimously agreed on is that the layout of the seats on the 700s is very uncomfortable in every way.

 

[Failed Unit]

No, first on the 387 definitely isn't acceptable, but it isn't on the 700 either.

The Fainsa seat is very subjective. I would argue that it doesn't need extra padding as you are sitting in a supportive posture since the seat is shaped well. Others would obviously disagree. What is almost unanimously agreed on is that the layout of the seats on the 700s is very uncomfortable in every way.

To be honest I am not sure if the problem with the 387s is the quality of the seat (some people like hard) or the fact the train throws you around so much that you notice every defect on the track. (Haven't done Potters Bar - New Barnet yet on a 700 to compare notes)

 

[class387]

To be honest I am not sure if the problem with the 387s is the quality of the seat (some people like hard) or the fact the train throws you around so much that you notice every defect on the track. (Haven't done Potters Bar - New Barnet yet on a 700 to compare notes)

Electrostar ride quality is very harsh. The 700 is better, but much worse than older Desiros (I find the 450 one of the smoothest units in the UK).

 

[sefton]

OK, but 365s are also outer suburban units.

Interesting. So which suburban routes do they run on?

 

[AM9]

Interesting. So which suburban routes do they run on?

Don't you mean:

So which outer suburban routes do they run on?

 

[sefton]

Don't you mean:

Ok so which outer-suburban routes do they run on? (the Peterborough and Cambridge routes obviously not being outer-suburban routes as they are not routes serving suburbs of London).

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, first on the 387 definitely isn't acceptable, but it isn't on the 700 either.

The Fainsa seat is very subjective. I would argue that it doesn't need extra padding as you are sitting in a supportive posture since the seat is shaped well. Others would obviously disagree. What is almost unanimously agreed on is that the layout of the seats on the 700s is very uncomfortable in every way.

And there is a different cushion with more padding which both Northern and ScotRail are using/will use.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I find the 450 one of the smoothest units in the UK

Try sitting right at the coach end and see if you still think that. The side to side hunting-like movement can be coffee-spillingly violent.

 

[Hadders]

Ok so which outer-suburban routes do they run on? (the Peterborough and Cambridge routes obviously not being outer-suburban routes as they are not routes serving suburbs of London).

In railway terms Peterborough and Cambridge are outer suburban routes. The operator of the GN franchise has always split out performance stats into 'inners' (basically the Moorgate services from/to Welwyn Garden City and Hertford North) and the 'outers' which are the longer distance Peterborough and Cambridge/Kings Lynn services.

In any case this isn't really important. What we are both agreed on is the interior of the 700s is unsuitable for trains operating from London to Peterborough/Cambridge/Brighton etc.

As it happens I spent several hours on a 700 today, although from the relative comfort of declassified 1st. For me the key issue with the 700s is the seat pitch and the distance of the seats from the side wall of the train. It the lack of a gap between the seat and side wall that makes the seats so uncomfortable with respect to the heating duct. The narrowness of the seats also doesn't help, travel on a busy 700 train and the aisle width is narrowed by passengers backsides and lags protruding into the aisle because they can't fit onto the narrow seats!

The should've specified a more appropriate seat.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The should've specified a more appropriate seat.

TBH if they had the Grammer E3000 (narrow version per the 350/2) I doubt there would have been anywhere near as many complaints. 350/2s aren't the most popular thing in the world over here in south-WCML-land, and we don't mind that they're off in a few years, but we don't *hate* them with anything like the vitriol the 700s are getting.

 

[Failed Unit]

TBH if they had the Grammer E3000 (narrow version per the 350/2) I doubt there would have been anywhere near as many complaints. 350/2s aren't the most popular thing in the world over here in south-WCML-land, and we don't mind that they're off in a few years, but we don't *hate* them with anything like the vitriol the 700s are getting.

Probably true - but the 700 fanboys seem to think that the disgracefully uncomfortable seat that was select (because it was the cheapest) is the only way that the train can meet the dwell times, so therefore DFT were correct to buy it....

 

[sefton]

but we don't *hate* them with anything like the vitriol the 700s are getting.

Probably because they raised peoples expectations with boasts of "new trains" and "more seats" and were found to be lying on the second point and the new trains (with fewer seats) are only barely suitable for metro services replacing perfectly serviceable trains that were actually suitable for the medium distance commuter routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Probably true - but the 700 fanboys seem to think that the disgracefully uncomfortable seat that was select (because it was the cheapest) is the only way that the train can meet the dwell times, so therefore DFT were correct to buy it....

The dwell time requirement would be met by any 3+2-width seat in 2+2 formation, including the E3000.

 

[sefton]

The dwell time requirement would be met by any 3+2-width seat in 2+2 formation, including the E3000.

How on earth does the width of a seat have any effect on dwell time?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How on earth does the width of a seat have any effect on dwell time?

Have you ever been on one?

The aisle being over a metre wide makes it far easier for people to move around a very crowded train, and thus means they can alight quicker. They are also less averse to "moving down the train" as there is more to do so.

It really works, and it's not new - the Class 319s had the third seat of 3+2 removed for exactly the same reason.

 

[Failed Unit]

The dwell time requirement would be met by any 3+2-width seat in 2+2 formation, including the E3000.

I certainly won't dispute that fact, all I am saying is that whenever anyone critises any aspect of this train it is always "if we did that we would ruin the dwell times"

The 4 main problems.
1. Lack of seat back tables (ruin dwell time and add wieght) - now they are retrofitting.
2. Lack of Comfort - (If the seats are comfortable people will stay in them and not want to get out of them as soon as the trian approaches so therefore increase dwell times)
3. Lack of armrests - Increase dwell times as peoples bags get caught on them. Seat will become too wide for the train.
4. Heating duct - If the seats were designed to have more distance between train side and seat. Then the dwell time would increase and Thameslink would be unwrokable. People don't sit at strange angles with knees in the isle - photos in newspapers showing this are photoshopped.

Sort of can see the point in 3&4.

 

[sefton]

Have you ever been on one?

Yes frequently but I have never noticed that the narrow seats reduce the dwell time.

The train stops, doors open, people start to get off, I wait until the aisle starts to clear before standing up, get my bag and coat off the rack, put my coat on, then start to walk to the door.

Having a narrow seat doesn't speed up that process.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having a narrow seat doesn't speed up that process.

Having a wider aisle and doorway evidently does, as more people can move at once, and it is easier to get past other standees.

 

[sefton]

Having a wider aisle and doorway evidently does, as more people can move at once, and it is easier to get past other standees.

But the dwell time is not based on how fast the majority of people get off, it is restricted to how long it takes the slowest person to get off.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But the dwell time is not based on how fast the majority of people get off, it is restricted to how long it takes the slowest person to get off.

At commuter times of day most trains contain exclusively able bodied people (I have often wondered why this is, but it is - I have never had cause to leave a priority seat on a peak time train) so this is primarily based on how fast they can be cleared. The limiting factor is the train, not the person.

 

[sefton]

At commuter times of day most trains contain exclusively able bodied people (I have often wondered why this is, but it is - I have never had cause to leave a priority seat on a peak time train) so this is primarily based on how fast they can be cleared. The limiting factor is the train, not the person.

You only need one person to be the limiting factor.

The peak time commuter service I use to Kings Cross frequently has a motorised wheelchair user, so if they decide to use the service to St Pancras that will mess up the dwell times.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You only need one person to be the limiting factor.

But most of the time there is no such person.

The peak time commuter service I use to Kings Cross frequently has a motorised wheelchair user, so if they decide to use the service to St Pancras that will mess up the dwell times.

Probably so, but that's one train out of how many?

 

[sefton]

But most of the time there is no such person.

There is on every train I am on; me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is on every train I am on; me.

Now imagine that you were not on the train (or you were able-bodied) and consider what would happen.

That's not having a go, by the way; a disabled passenger requiring assistance is a valid reason for a delay and long may it remain so (though with the Harrington humps now in place you won't need the ramp any more). But how often is there a second such person?

 

[sefton]

Now imagine that you were not on the train (or you were able-bodied) and consider what would happen.

I am able bodied, I just don't see the need to rush. I let the crowds jostle to get off and then do so at leasure.

I am sure I am not the only one and most trains will have people not in a hurry. So the dwell time is not determined by the 95% who want to get off as quickly as possible but the slowest, and so I cannot see the width of the seats would have any impact at all.

 

[class387]

Try sitting right at the coach end and see if you still think that. The side to side hunting-like movement can be coffee-spillingly violent.

I will admit that I usually sit in the centre section, where it is very smooth. Will take this in mind when I next ride a 450.

 

[AM9]

I am able bodied, I just don't see the need to rush. I let the crowds jostle to get off and then do so at leasure.

I am sure I am not the only one and most trains will have people not in a hurry. So the dwell time is not determined by the 95% who want to get off as quickly as possible but the slowest, and so I cannot see the width of the seats would have any impact at all.

Ah, so we're at the 'I'm not in a hurry so why should I be inconvenienced by everybody else' position. If you are going to Kings Cross, the disembarkation time is largely irrelevant at the moment as there are just enough platform slots to accommodate the stragglers. At core stations, even in class 319 days, the efficient transfer of passengers in the peak has been critical to the capacity of the route. If GN and TL are to succeed in increasing the overall capacity of peak services into London, it is inevitable that those measures will affect some (in their opinion) adversely. In a mass transport system, that's the way it is, - i.e. the purpose is to transfer the required number of passengers in safety in an environment where capacity and budgets are limited. So keeping the status quo for a few at the expense the majority just because the few like it that way has been deemed unacceptable and we are witnessing the execution of the measures to improve the system for the majority. Cheap news stories in local, national and broadcast media won't change anything as it is just a news filler. There's no real injustice there so even genuine hacks will have little concern once they have milked the situation for their own betterment or their editor's push for circulation.
Yes, a few will make a noise about a few minor things and there will be token concessions (seat-back tables) to show that some concessions have been made (which TL passengers will see as well), but the fundamentals of a high capacity service will not be compromised however much kicking and screaming there is from a few passengers. Eventually, the noise will die down and everybody will just get on with their lives. Those who still can't do that will make alternative arrangements, some of them token gestures like switching to driving to LU railheads etc., best of luck with that. Many of them will later decide that maybe queueing in traffic isn't that much fun, however comfortable their little cell is and crawl back onto the trains. Either way, the railway will still be there to carry them, - we won't see any collapse in passenger recipts however much some might wish for it.

 

[Failed Unit]

But who are the majority of passengers?

Peak travellers who youb

Ah, so we're at the 'I'm not in a hurry so why should I be inconvenienced by everybody else' position. If you are going to Kings Cross, the disembarkation time is largely irrelevant at the moment as there are just enough platform slots to accommodate the stragglers. At core stations, even in class 319 days, the efficient transfer of passengers in the peak has been critical to the capacity of the route. If GN and TL are to succeed in increasing the overall capacity of peak services into London, it is inevitable that those measures will affect some (in their opinion) adversely. In a mass transport system, that's the way it is, - i.e. the purpose is to transfer the required number of passengers in safety in an environment where capacity and budgets are limited. So keeping the status quo for a few at the expense the majority just because the few like it that way has been deemed unacceptable and we are witnessing the execution of the measures to improve the system for the majority. Cheap news stories in local, national and broadcast media won't change anything as it is just a news filler. There's no real injustice there so even genuine hacks will have little concern once they have milked the situation for their own betterment or their editor's push for circulation.
Yes, a few will make a noise about a few minor things and there will be token concessions (seat-back tables) to show that some concessions have been made (which TL passengers will see as well), but the fundamentals of a high capacity service will not be compromised however much kicking and screaming there is from a few passengers. Eventually, the noise will die down and everybody will just get on with their lives. Those who still can't do that will make alternative arrangements, some of them token gestures like switching to driving to LU railheads etc., best of luck with that. Many of them will later decide that maybe queueing in traffic isn't that much fun, however comfortable their little cell is and crawl back onto the trains. Either way, the railway will still be there to carry them, - we won't see any collapse in passenger recipts however much some might wish for it.

But who are the majority of passengers in your opinion?

Peak? Well we know from your posts you have nothing but contempt for them because of their subsidised season tickets. You have stated in previous posts that treating the captive market badly is acceptable as they have no alternative. Unfortunately this fact is true. Making the journey uncomfortable will not lose many of these. Pricing them off if the only solution.

Off-Peak?
Well these passengers in normal service get a seat most of the time. Even on great northern overcrowding will be resolved by the fact trains are 8 coaches. We may see an increase in passengers as a result. However Thameslink also wants to attract Cambridge- Gatwick off peak travellers. They can drive - congestion isn’t horrendous off peak. They can go by coach. Comfortable environment compared to the train. Or use Thameslink. The spartan interior won’t attrack off-peak travellers.

The train is designed of crush loading of peak passengers with no thought of comfort to attract more off-peak. Would a decent seat really be too much to ask? So who is the majority? The captive market of subsidised season ticket holders you seem to dislike so much? If it is they have still got it wrong and should have gone for longitudinal seats?
Do you work for GTR?