Thin seats - trains vs. aircraft

[Bletchleyite]

On Monday, I flew from Toronto to Heathrow in a near-enough-new Air Canada Boeing 787-900, which despite being on the bigger side of things I found quite pleasant (massive windows for a plane being the best feature, but a bit OT to the thread before I've even pressed Create ). The flight was about 6 hours and I got up once to use the loo briefly roughly in the middle. I didn't get a numb backside despite the seat being a modern one with a very thin base and back and being quite narrow (17.3 inches according to Seatguru) - it was much more comfortable than any modern railway seat other than the Grammer ones.

Aircraft seats require a very high specification on things like flame retardence, just like train seats.

So is this proof that the only reason for modern train seats to be uncomfortable is cost? Airline seats are not cheap, and airlines consider it worth spending out on good designs of seat to ensure they can pack the seats in while remaining reasonably comfortable and meeting safety regulations.

 

[JonathanH]

Aircraft seats need to deform in a very specific way in emergency situations. There are cabin staff to supervise at (almost) all times.

Train seats need to be robust in a very different way and have different safety requirements.

 

[physics34]

Ive heard that train seats need to be at higher fire spec than plane seats....but that doesnt excuse our trains having painfully thin seats especially in class 387s.700s and 800s. Not sure seats backs are a big issue but clealy seat bases are.

 

[FQTV]

There are myriad differences between the requirements, testing and construction of aircraft and train seats.

As a non-exhaustive list to start things off:

• Vandalism-resistance is a key consideration on trains; on aircraft much less-so.
• Aircraft seat cushions are designed to be removed easily. Train seat cushions are designed to not be user-removable.
  
• Aircraft seats are crash-tested on the basis of belted passengers, and the strength is largely in the legs, seat base frame and, by association, the floor mounts. There's no crash-resistance in the seat backs, which are designed only to deform but remain attached. Seat backs on trains are integral to crash resistance, and passengers are restrained by them as there are no seat belts.
• Avoidance of the production of smoke has generally been a greater consideration in the specification of materials in aircraft cabins, at least since British Airtours at Manchester. Fire-proofing itself is a challenge when the cushions are all sitting on tanks and pipes full of Jet A1, which will burn rock. Flames are, practically-speaking, more of a manageable concern on trains.

 

[DarloRich]

So is this proof that the only reason for modern train seats to be uncomfortable is cost? Airline seats are not cheap, and airlines consider it worth spending out on good designs of seat to ensure they can pack the seats in while remaining reasonably comfortable and meeting safety regulations.

I am cynical so say yes. TOC's don't care about us mere paying passengers.