Train seats

[YoungJohnson]

Having travelled on a wide variety of trains over the last 3 months, I thought it was interesting just how varied the standard of seating is, irrespective of the distance or type of train. Obviously it is very subjective, but it is amazing there is such a variety and how they can make a journey pleasant or very unpleasant, and I am surprised there is not really one or two set standards for seating.

Good:

FGW HST Standard and First.
EMT HST Standard.
Virign East Coast First.
Northern 319.
LM 350/1 Standard and First.
Transpennine First.
XC 170 Standard.
165 / 166 Standard.

Awful:

Voyagers Standard.
390 Standard.
EMT Meridian Standard.
LM 350/2 Standard.

How do operators choose what sort of seating to use in sets, and surely there have been trials with different types of seats before the things are released into public?

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Do operators choose the seating? It could be Porterbrook and Angel Trans etc who lease them out, the cheapest seat, the existing seat etc are probably used unless there's a requirement to make the train comfy I guess.
144e was fitted with new seats but Northern didn't do the work.

 

[hulabaloo]

I was surprised when I found out how much modern seat designs are dictated by safety these days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apNYFfYpZL8 (1:30)

I don't know what would stop you flying into the person opposite you in a non-airline seat (without a table) though.

 

[azz7008]

Having travelled on a wide variety of trains over the last 3 months, I thought it was interesting just how varied the standard of seating is, irrespective of the distance or type of train. Obviously it is very subjective, but it is amazing there is such a variety and how they can make a journey pleasant or very unpleasant, and I am surprised there is not really one or two set standards for seating.

Good:

FGW HST Standard and First.
EMT HST Standard.
Virign East Coast First.
Northern 319.
LM 350/1 Standard and First.
Transpennine First.
XC 170 Standard.
165 / 166 Standard.

Awful:

Voyagers Standard.
390 Standard.
EMT Meridian Standard.
LM 350/2 Standard.

How do operators choose what sort of seating to use in sets, and surely there have been trials with different types of seats before the things are released into public?

Not too sure on these, I have definitely been on more comfortable trains. Chiltern 170's are great. XC I find are too hard. Need an extra category "Just about manageable for medium journeys".

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The seats SWT have on their 458s and at least their former TPE 158s / 159/1s are extremely comfortable.

 

[Railops]

As I seem to spend most of my time standing up I have little knowledge of seats.

 

[kevconnor]

You have missed off the Miseryrail 142 off the absolutely god awful list. Always also thought the former ATN 143 & 144 were OK, a bit cramped on legroom however.

I am never sure what they are packed with but springs in the seat of the former FMW 150's always felt like they had been taken out of the ejector seat of a fighter pilot and were ready to go off at any minute, launching the occupant into orbit.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

You have missed off the Miseryrail 142 off the absolutely god awful list. Always also thought the former ATN 143 & 144 were OK, a bit cramped on legroom however.

I am never sure what they are packed with but springs in the seat of the former FMW 150's always felt like they had been taken out of the ejector seat of a fighter pilot and were ready to go off at any minute, launching the occupant into orbit.

When the Northern Spirit 142 refurb was first done, the seats were ridiculously fragile and tended to start to fall apart after a few weeks. It was only when they were refreshed by Northern that this issue was solved, and I now prefer these to 144s but for the lack of a facing bay in the non-toilet car by the inner end door.

 

[greaterwest]

Modified OP's list
Good:

FGW HST Standard and First.
XC HST Standard.
LM 350/1 Standard and First.
TPE 350 Standard and First.
XC 170 Standard.
GWR 165 / 166 Standard and First
ATW 158
ATW 150
ATW 175
SWT 158 + 159 Standard and First
SWT 444 Standard and First
GWR 158 Standard
GWR 153 Standard
390 Standard

Bearable:

SWT 450 Standard
LM 350/2 Standard
Voyager Standard
SE 375 Standard

Awful:

GTR 377/387
GWR 143 Standard
GWR 150 2+3 Standard
Merseyrail 507 / 508 Standard

 

[JonathanH]

Modified OP's list

Bearable:

SWT 450 Standard

Awful:

LM 350/2 Standard

How? The seats and the layout are identical (other than a few less seats in the 450/5 subfleet). Is this view simply because LM have other 350s with a different layout?

 

[greaterwest]

How? The seats and the layout are identical (other than a few less seats in the 450/5 subfleet). Is this view simply because LM have other 350s with a different layout?

Refined my list, that was actually left behind from the OP's one

 

[59CosG95]

I'll have to agree with the GTR 377/387 seats, they are godawful, particulrly the 387, the 377/6s and the 377/7s. They're just like ironing boards!

 

[PHILIPE]

Modified OP's list
Good:

FGW HST Standard and First.
XC HST Standard.
LM 350/1 Standard and First.
TPE 350 Standard and First.
XC 170 Standard.
GWR 165 / 166 Standard and First
ATW 158
ATW 150
ATW 175
SWT 158 + 159 Standard and First
SWT 444 Standard and First
GWR 158 Standard
GWR 153 Standard
390 Standard

Bearable:

SWT 450 Standard
LM 350/2 Standard
Voyager Standard
SE 375 Standard

Awful:

GTR 377/387
GWR 142 Standard
GWR 150 2+3 Standard
Merseyrail 507 / 508 Standard

GWR don't have 142s. They did for a time but that was nearly 5 years ago.

 

[greaterwest]

I'll have to agree with the GTR 377/387 seats, they are godawful, particulrly the 387, the 377/6s and the 377/7s. They're just like ironing boards!

I can't even remember which subclass has these seats, which are somewhat nicer than the ironing boards.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

GWR don't have 142s. They did for a time but that was nearly 5 years ago.

Class 143, my mistake.

 

[samuelmorris]

GTR 377 seats would mean 377/5, which I disagree with. It's only the 377/6 and 377/7 seats which I think are questionable, although I don't really find them uncomfortable, just 'odd'. They don't feel like a vehicle seat should.

I actually found the standard class seating in the 222s very comfortable, no issue there. I don't really have a problem with Voyager seating either.

 

[Kite159]

The seats SWT have on their 458s and at least their former TPE 158s / 159/1s are extremely comfortable.

Bar the memory foam seats in the refreshed sets (159101-103)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't even remember which subclass has these seats, which are somewhat nicer than the ironing boards.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Class 143, my mistake.

They be the 377/3s

 

[MatthewRead]

I hate Southern's astro green seats there all in very poor condition even on the newer 377 units

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Bar the memory foam seats in the refreshed sets (159101-103)

Oh great... so they're removing the comfortable seats now in favour of the more modern rot?:roll:

 

[Kite159]

Oh great... so they're removing the comfortable seats now in favour of the more modern rot?:roll:

Not the "ironing boards" but the new seat cushions are a tad hard at the moment, probably will loosen up over time but at the moment reminds me of the memory foam matresses you get in hotels

 

[Master29]

I agree GWR have cracked it with standard class Mk 3`s

SWT 159`s are good too.

 

[Deepgreen]

The first class seats in 166205 are the same as the HST firsts, and are excellent. No other 166s have been so treated yet.

 

[superalbs]

The first class seats in 166205 are the same as the HST firsts, and are excellent. No other 166s have been so treated yet.

No they're not.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/27666294@N02/23667034312/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/66901380@N04/25287767841/

Not my pics.

 

[physics34]

Bar the memory foam seats in the refreshed sets (159101-103)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


They be the 377/3s

and 377101 - 120
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't even remember which subclass has these seats, which are somewhat nicer than the ironing boards.

.

377/3 and 377/1s (377101-120) also have those seats, all other 2x2 seats in the 377/1s, 2s, 4s and 5s look similar but have less cushioning on the seat backs and dont have a spring in the seat base.

Not gonna repeat my thoughts on buttnumbing 377/6s, 377/7s and 387s.

I fear these seats will eventually go from the /3s as Network Rail mentioned in their last CP document that the 377s that are used on the metro should be reconfigured to increase capacity.

 

[bramling]

Having travelled on a wide variety of trains over the last 3 months, I thought it was interesting just how varied the standard of seating is, irrespective of the distance or type of train. Obviously it is very subjective, but it is amazing there is such a variety and how they can make a journey pleasant or very unpleasant, and I am surprised there is not really one or two set standards for seating.

Good:

FGW HST Standard and First.
EMT HST Standard.
Virign East Coast First.
Northern 319.
LM 350/1 Standard and First.
Transpennine First.
XC 170 Standard.
165 / 166 Standard.

Awful:

Voyagers Standard.
390 Standard.
EMT Meridian Standard.
LM 350/2 Standard.

How do operators choose what sort of seating to use in sets, and surely there have been trials with different types of seats before the things are released into public?

A lot depends on the age of the train or if its owner/operator have chosen to replace the seats at any time, the standards in force at that time, and what suppliers were supplying a compliant seat at that time.

It's also a heavily subjective subject, so you're good seat maybe someone else's bad.

For me:

Good:
Networker (I find these superb)
Pendolino
Original HST
Electostar original
Turbostar
Original pacer (yes, I find these perfectly comfortable)
EMT Meridian
Class 317
Class 319/321
Class 333
4Vep
4Cig
Class 205/207


Bad:
Recent Electrostars
Merseyrail Pacers
Mk4 standard class
FGW HST

Also, a lot depends on how they are laid out (e.g. legroom), and whether the train is crowded so restricting freedom to stretch out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

LM 350/1 Standard and First.

Standard - 2+2
First - 2+2

Not worth paying extra for. First should always be one seat across the aisle fewer than Standard (or if not, *extremely* generous legroom).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't even remember which subclass has these seats, which are somewhat nicer than the ironing boards.

Notably LM consider those First Class.

I don't.

 

[6Gman]

Is it just me, but I can't think of any seating that's really uncomfortable.

350/2 seats are too narrow; 323s too thinly padded. But quite happy with them over the reasonable distances they tend to work.

 

[class387]

My List:

Good:
-Class 387/new 377 Standard
-Class 159 (other than 159101-103) Standard
-GWR HST First+Standard
-Class 365 First+Standard
-Class 319 Standard (319/2 only) + First (all)
-Class 377/3 Standard
-Class 442 First+Standard
-Class 444 First+Standard
-Chiltern Mk3 First
-Class 313/1
-Class 175
-Class 168/170 Standard

Bearable:
-Class 350/2 First+Standard
-Class 450 First+Standard
-Class 319/321 Standard (other than 319/2s)
-Class 373 Standard
-Class 374 First+Standard
-Class 377/1/2/4/5 Standard
-Class 313/0
-Class 159101-103
-Class 357

Awful:
-Class 317/3/5/8 Standard
-Class 377 First
-Electrostar 3+2 seating (other than 357s)
-All unrefurbished Mk3s/HSTs

 

[Kite159]

You need to add in the seats on 376s to the awful list

 

[Deepgreen]

No they're not.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/27666294@N02/23667034312/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/66901380@N04/25287767841/

Not my pics.

Quite right - good comparison, thanks. Anyhoo, they're vastly better than their predecessors.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is it just me, but I can't think of any seating that's really uncomfortable.

350/2 seats are too narrow; 323s too thinly padded. But quite happy with them over the reasonable distances they tend to work.

I find the new standard design being used by GTR (upright plank-style) very uncomfortable, but it is true that every body is different.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, I quite like the "ironing boards", particularly at the low density being used.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk