Can and will train seats become comfortable again?

[class26]

Weren`t the 800 seats specified whuilst we were still in the EU and presumably EU rules applied (or do we have our own rules here?) Having travelled last week ona Spanish High Speed train between Madrid and Zaragoza in both first and sercond class these the second class Spanish seats are WAY better than the first class 800 seats and no comparuison whatsoever betweebn the Spanish seats on 800 standard class seats It must surely be all down to cost, fire regs being a comlete excuse ?

 

[Mikey C]

I don't find the Class 345s too bad but I only use them for short journeys and I suspect TfL priorities standing spaces over seating anyway.

I find the 345 seats fine for the job they do, indeed the high backed transverse ones I find quite comfortable. And at least they have some transverse seats, unlike the 710s out of Liverpool Street.

If there's an issue with the 345s, it's the length of journey they operate on, but that's a by-product on running them out to Reading.

Similarly the Thameslink 700 ironing boards are ok on shorter routes, but are a bit grim on longer journeys.

 

[AdamWW]

I suspect that most complaints about modern train seating are, in reality, complaints about the users' niggling musculoskeletal, arthritic and hernia (etc) issues, which the railway is unable to resolve. If your body has become a bit crooked, any form of seating will become uncomfortable after an hour or so - even BR Mk1s.

I think most people have experience in sitting in non train seats that they can use as a comparison.

The issue here is what is an uncomfortable seat to one person is a comfortable seat to another person. Whatever seating a train operator puts in, some people are going to find it uncomfortable.

It certainly shows how different people experience things differently because personally I can't understand how anyone can rationally argue that train seats in the UK haven't become on a whole a lot more uncomfortable in recent years.

 

[CBlue]

Seats in the 745s/755s are perfectly fine, I've done a few longer trips on them without issue. Seats in the 170s that GA used to operate were also comfortable.

I actually prefer the 700s seating to that of the "Southern spec" 387s also found on the Kings Cross runs, though. 700s may be firm but at least they aren't covered in that rough and unpleasant feeling astro-turf type material...and ride far better than the Electrostars do.

Although I'm not a fan of the 3+2 sections, the small 2+2 sections of seating on the 720 are fine and I found the seats shaped and padded well enough. Definitely better than the Richmond seating on the refurbished 317s and far, far better than the original BR spec stuff the unrefurbished 317 fleet still had, which made you sit with a poor posture and had springs that dug into your back.

I suspect that most complaints about modern train seating are, in reality, complaints about the users' niggling musculoskeletal, arthritic and hernia (etc) issues, which the railway is unable to resolve. If your body has become a bit crooked, any form of seating will become uncomfortable after an hour or so - even BR Mk1s.

Quite - if you don't exercise at all it's rather frightening how poor your posture can get, without you really noticing apart from aches and pains. I was completely sedentary for a good 15 or so years, until 3 years ago when I took up weightlifting....it's almost impossible to describe how much better my posture is as a result when sat or standing. I was surprised to find the "ironing board" seats more comfortable as a result despite having less "personal padding" than a few years ago!

 

[Irascible]

We need a 'department' somewhere in the railway that is focused on passenger comfort.

The RSSB showed some interest in investigating the area, I haven't checked what came of it.

I suspect that most complaints about modern train seating are, in reality, complaints about the users' niggling musculoskeletal, arthritic and hernia (etc) issues, which the railway is unable to resolve. If your body has become a bit crooked, any form of seating will become uncomfortable after an hour or so - even BR Mk1s.

Ah yes, the wrong sort of body.

No. Transport should be as accessible as possible. Small injuries are common. Are car seats that bad? they have to deal with fire hazards too.

--

Seat lifetime of 20 years, decide how many trips a set makes over that period and then divide say, £1000 by that, it does not come out to very much on a trip. Some tickets will be the full trip and some will be part, so it's not even necessarily that full number on top of a ticket. You could fit more expensive seats and stick the price on a ticket & people wouldn't even notice.

 

[Vanmanyo]

A combination of that and cost. Some TOCs are willing to cough up, e.g. Avanti for the in my view excellent new Pendolino seat.

I find the new Avanti seats worse than the IET seats actually. I don't know if it's just my height or posture but they stab into my back leaving it aching like mad; so I struggle on long Avanti journeys with them.

 

[Snow1964]

ORR actually publishes complaints statistics, and breaks them into categories (table 4130)

Seat comfort is just 0.1% (although 0.6% for open access operators), But perhaps it isn't just 1 in 1000 complaints as it was 11% of complaints for lack of space to stand or sit.

If it was me complaining, would be for general squashed and uncomfortable, not solely a complaint about seat comfort

Table 4130 - Complaints categories | ORR Data Portal

But it says something when 1 in 9 complaints is about lack of space, and perhaps show that even slim (uncomfortable) seats aren't solving the problem.

 

[AdamWW]

ORR actually publishes complaints statistics, and breaks them into categories (table 4130)

Seat comfort is just 0.1% (although 0.6% for open access operators), But perhaps it isn't just 1 in 1000 complaints as it was 11% of complaints for lack of space to stand or sit.

If it was me complaining, would be for general squashed and uncomfortable, not solely a complaint about seat comfort

Table 4130 - Complaints categories | ORR Data Portal

But it says something when 1 in 9 complaints is about lack of space, and perhaps show that even slim (uncomfortable) seats aren't solving the problem.

I would place more faith in a survey as opposed to looking at complaints, on the grounds that most people probably realise that complaining about seats isn't likely to get them anywhere, whereas complaining about lack of space might get more or longer trains provided.

 

[507021]

PIS is legislated, so there's no way of not "putting money" on it.

I know it's legislated. I said Merseytravel shouldn't have bothered with the additional PIS screens mounted higher up along the sides, because they were an expensive and stupid design choice which serve very little purpose. They're poorly positioned so hardly anybody can see them and for those who can see them, the text is too small making them difficult to read. A far cheaper and better solution would have been to specify the same PIS layout as the 507/8s, where all of the screens can actually be seen.

 

[Alanko]

I suspect that most complaints about modern train seating are, in reality, complaints about the users' niggling musculoskeletal, arthritic and hernia (etc) issues, which the railway is unable to resolve. If your body has become a bit crooked, any form of seating will become uncomfortable after an hour or so - even BR Mk1s.

I agree with this. I've done a few railtours around Scotland in Mk1s. Not wanting to miss the view, I've found myself in some neck and lower back pain from twisting to look out the window for hours.

Modern seats are like office chairs. Mk1 seats feel like old sofas. Both do the job, though standing is probably better for the body in most cases.

Of the modern 'set', I don't like the seats in Voyagers. Too bagged out with a worn-in and unsettling feeling. A bit like sitting on a warm toilet seat in a public bathroom. They also seem to spill you into your neighbour.

 

[Mike Machin]

Comfortable seats disappeared with the phasing-out of the first class Mk1s.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Comfortable seats disappeared with the phasing-out of the first class Mk1s.

The Cross Country 170s are very comfortable. The issue there is actually getting a seat on them in the first place!

 

[Lewisham2221]

Modern seats do seem to rely very much on sitting with the correct posture in order to achieve comfort. The lack of padding can still be perfectly fine if your posture matches the seat design, otherwise the seat shaping results in a lack of the right support in the right places.

 

[rjames87]

The Cross Country 170s are very comfortable. The issue there is actually getting a seat on them in the first place!

Comfortable to a degree but completely worn out now and not enough leg room.

 

[AM9]

Modern seats do seem to rely very much on sitting with the correct posture in order to achieve comfort. The lack of padding can still be perfectly fine if your posture matches the seat design, otherwise the seat shaping results in a lack of the right support in the right places.

So really, those who do sit with a poor posture will be uncomfortable, - ergo the problem is only fixable by training passengers to sit correctly for the sake of their own comfort.

 

[metrail]

Regarding what many rail review YouTubers have said about the recent trend towards uncomfortable seats, especially Thameslink and GWR, and that it could be down to fireproofing regulations, what are some possible/existing examples of comfortable seats that still abide by said regulations, and if/when may they be used nationwideI

I recently went on a refurbished Northern Train 158 or 150 from Leeds to Halifax and was amazed as the seats were several inches thick . So thick that you could hardly fit under the table. Very comfortable.

 

[Mikey C]

The Cross Country 170s are very comfortable. The issue there is actually getting a seat on them in the first place!

I find the Chiltern 168s very comfortable

Just picking a random interior photo from the internet

Chiltern Class 168 219 refreshed interior

Views from the refreshed interior of unit 168 219

www.flickr.com

 

[Jamesrob637]

Refurbished Pendolino seats are very nice.

 

[zero]

I don't really pay attention to rolling stock but I find Azuma / IET and class 700/707 seats very comfortable. I also like the seats on the Northern class 195.

I remember Avanti Pendos being quite uncomfortable, but on a recent Glasgow to London which was delayed to 6 hours, I didn't find it uncomfortable. I noticed it looked different so it must have been a refurbished set, but I didn't look very closely. Will have to do so next time.

GC class 180 are the most uncomfortable seats I have had in the UK followed by pretty much all stock used by XC and EMR

 

[Bletchleyite]

Refurbished Pendolino seats are very nice.

I'm a big fan but I can see why some may find them hard.

What I don't get is why there aren't more seats with a thin, supportive back (for good posture and legroom) and a soft, comfortable base. This is the case on the Grammer E3000 Desiro seat (which draws very few complaints, though I think the odd person on here doesn't like them) and more recently the TfW Fainsa Sophia, which is totally different in comfort from all the other implementations of that seat, seeming to entirely lack the metal bar often cited. (I don't like it as much as the new Pendolino seat, but despite generally disliking Sophias, I'd put the TfW version as my second favourite of the new generation seats, and probably the "contoured ironing board" used by Northern as the third).

The particularly silly FISA LEAN seat appears to do that the wrong way round, at least on the Class 196 where the legroom is terrible and the base rock hard. I'm so glad Northern didn't fit these in the 195s, the legroom in the airline seats which is already a bit tight would have made them the same as a 153, only really suitable for small children. I wonder if realising this and thus using a version of the Fainsa Comrail "ironing board" but with a thicker base was why they changed?

FWIW I recently tried the "First Class" version of the LEAN on SWR, intending to pay for Weekend First as Standard was heaving, but was pleased not to be charged (guard didn't bother coming round) as it wasn't particularly good and the thick back meant poor legroom for First Class. Not a great seat, so I don't hold out much hope for the 810s being very comfortable - I expect poor legroom certainly

 

[Neptune]

What I don't get is why there aren't more seats with a thin, supportive back (for good posture and legroom) and a soft, comfortable base.

100% agree, this is the perfect seat design for a healthy posture. I know many people have a love for soft backed reclined seat backs (BR Mk 1’s, IC70, original 158 seat etc..) but I can’t emphasise how bad they are for comfort if you have a bad back. I have had a bad back for 30 years (a sports injury) and although the pain is controlled it is noticeable how bad my backache is on the aforementioned “seemingly popular with enthusiasts” seats (I can’t pop painkillers for fun remember).

As a for instance. I recently went from Leeds - Carlisle on a 3 car 158 with original seats and got to the Border City in pain, 2 hr 40 of purgatory. The terrible angle leads to an unnatural sitting position and as I always sit in an airline seat the legroom was absolutely appalling. On the return it was a 2 car unit and I made sure I sat in the same place in the unit. The new seat (much maligned on here by people most of whom probably haven’t sat in them and just like to rant on forums about ironing boards :yawn: ) thankfully meant I was sat at a natural angle with loads of legroom and found zero pain in my back in the ensuing 2hr 40 minutes. No numbness in my less than ample backside either despite what the ‘experts’ tell us on here.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

100% agree, this is the perfect seat design for a healthy posture. I know many people have a love for soft backed reclined seat backs (BR Mk 1’s, IC70, original 158 seat etc..) but I can’t emphasise how bad they are for comfort if you have a bad back. I have had a bad back for 30 years (a sports injury) and although the pain is controlled it is noticeable how bad my backache is on the aforementioned “seemingly popular with enthusiasts” seats (I can’t pop painkillers for fun remember).

As a for instance. I recently went from Leeds - Carlisle on a 3 car 158 with original seats and got to the Border City in pain, 2 hr 40 of purgatory. The terrible angle leads to an unnatural sitting position and as I always sit in an airline seat the legroom was absolutely appalling. On the return it was a 2 car unit and I made sure I sat in the same place in the unit. The new seat (much maligned on here by people most of whom probably haven’t sat in them and just like to rant on forums about ironing boards :yawn: ) thankfully meant I was sat at a natural angle with loads of legroom and found zero pain in my back in the ensuing 2hr 40 minutes. No numbness in my less than ample backside either despite what the ‘experts’ tell us on here.

I had a similar experience on Settle and Carlisle in that I landed one of the last unrefurbished Chapman-fitted 158s for the northbound in 2020, and as a fairly tall, slim man it doesn't feel comfortable at all to be slumped in short, wide seats like that. The return journey was, like yours, on a refurbished unit with ironing boards, and it was far more pleasant. These seats are far better for the back as they stop one from slumping and slouching for long periods of time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I had a similar experience on Settle and Carlisle in that I landed one of the last unrefurbished Chapman-fitted 158s for the northbound in 2020, and as a fairly tall, slim man it doesn't feel comfortable at all to be slumped in short, wide seats like that. The return journey was, like yours, on a refurbished unit with ironing boards, and it was far more pleasant. These seats are far better for the back as they stop one from slumping and slouching for long periods of time.

The original 158 seat is to be honest pretty poor, and both Northern and GWR have made them worse by making the cushions thicker on refurb, which means the already-bad legroom is even more bad and your legs clout the underside of the table.

The main thing I don't get about these, the Chapman (which is similar in structure) and the FISA LEAN (comfortable to sit on but incredibly wasteful of space despite their marketing campaign otherwise) is where on earth they thought the super-tall women were who would sit in them and put their knees in the "niche"? These designs are bad for three reasons...

1. Men are generally taller than women.
2. Men generally can't sit comfortably with their knees pushed together for physiological reasons (the reason some parts are external is so they can be cooler than the rest of the body, which pressing the legs together defeats). However there is no physiological reason a woman cannot sit with them *not* pressed together, and given that women tend to be more likely to wear trousers/shorts than a skirt these days are not "compelled" to do so for that reason.
3. Men typically have narrow pelvises. This means that if they sit with their legs slightly apart the angles the legs are at mean more legroom is created compared to straight forward.

If you put these together what you realise is that you need the extra legroom at the SIDES of the seat back, not in the middle. That's what the better designs do, such as the Class 175 seat (a bit too steeply raked, but at least they took account of these points) or the new Pendolino seat - you put the thick, strong supporting metalwork in the middle, and curve the back round at the edges, maximising legroom.

 

[Jamesrob637]

I'm a big fan but I can see why some may find them hard.

What I don't get is why there aren't more seats with a thin, supportive back (for good posture and legroom) and a soft, comfortable base. This is the case on the Grammer E3000 Desiro seat (which draws very few complaints, though I think the odd person on here doesn't like them) and more recently the TfW Fainsa Sophia, which is totally different in comfort from all the other implementations of that seat, seeming to entirely lack the metal bar often cited. (I don't like it as much as the new Pendolino seat, but despite generally disliking Sophias, I'd put the TfW version as my second favourite of the new generation seats, and probably the "contoured ironing board" used by Northern as the third).

The particularly silly FISA LEAN seat appears to do that the wrong way round, at least on the Class 196 where the legroom is terrible and the base rock hard. I'm so glad Northern didn't fit these in the 195s, the legroom in the airline seats which is already a bit tight would have made them the same as a 153, only really suitable for small children. I wonder if realising this and thus using a version of the Fainsa Comrail "ironing board" but with a thicker base was why they changed?

FWIW I recently tried the "First Class" version of the LEAN on SWR, intending to pay for Weekend First as Standard was heaving, but was pleased not to be charged (guard didn't bother coming round) as it wasn't particularly good and the thick back meant poor legroom for First Class. Not a great seat, so I don't hold out much hope for the 810s being very comfortable - I expect poor legroom certainly

I'm afraid seat names don't mean much to me amigo: I just judge whether I find them comfortable which the refurb Pendo pulls off very well. Northern seats aren't bad for local journeys either on the re-padded new trains. TfW seemed nice last year on their new units, but I wasn't on one for long. Will have to go Manchester/Stockport to Cardiff to test the waters thoroughly! Overseas, DB Regio can be ridiculously hard in 2nd but ICE are very comfortable in all classes. SBB is not too good in 2nd Class but amazing in 1st Class. I've usually been either on Swiss Pass or Interrail in recent times, so haven't had to endure extortionate fares.

 

[Wolfie]

Refurbished Pendolino seats are very nice.

My first trip on a refurbished Pendolino and l absolutely beg to differ. The seats are ****ing awful! I had spinal surgery (a double laminectomy) about 10 years ago. These godawful abortions have caused me more back trouble in one journey from the West Midlands to London than l've had travelling for the decade between that surgery and now. I just hope that my orthopaedic mattress undoes the damage.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I'm afraid seat names don't mean much to me amigo

@Bletchleyite you seem to be very well genned up on seat designs and their names. Like @Jamesrob637 I'm not totally au fait with all the names even though I will have ridden in plenty of different designs. Do you know of any on-line resource with such information in one place? I suspect most here would agree that having to go through the catalogues of all the various manufacturers is just too much effort. Given how often we have discussions here about train seats easy and convenient access to such information would be very useful. Perhaps someone needs to create a sticky for the forum.

 

[Bletchleyite]

@Bletchleyite you seem to be very well genned up on seat designs and their names. Like @Jamesrob637 I'm not totally au fait with all the names even though I will have ridden in plenty of different designs. Do you know of any on-line resource with such information in one place? I suspect most here would agree that having to go through the catalogues of all the various manufacturers is just too much effort. Given how often we have discussions here about train seats easy and convenient access to such information would be very useful. Perhaps someone needs to create a sticky for the forum.

Might not be completely up to date but there's this:

Train Seat Guide

Can anyone help me? Whenever you guys talk about seats, all you say is the type of seat e.g Grammar etc. this means nothing to me as I have no idea what trains to find these on. Not even a guide on the web. Can you create a guide for each class (and subclass in cases) with a picture and a name...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Might not be completely up to date but there's this:

Train Seat Guide

Can anyone help me? Whenever you guys talk about seats, all you say is the type of seat e.g Grammar etc. this means nothing to me as I have no idea what trains to find these on. Not even a guide on the web. Can you create a guide for each class (and subclass in cases) with a picture and a name...

www.railforums.co.uk

That certainly helps, thanks. Duly bookmarked for reference.

 

[ricj]

I know what I'm about to say has been said a million times before but having just suffered from a 47 minute delayed, 2.5 hour journey on an LNER Azuma set yesterday, I simply cannot see why anyone would see their seats (and general ride quality and ambience) anything other than just horrible. I literally spent the whole journey squirming about trying to avoid backache and a numb bum and being shaken around laterally, all the while listening to loud rattles and hums etc through the plasticky interior... I mean, the seats were pretty much rock solid with hardly any give in them whatsoever and I could even feel what felt like metal support bars digging into my behind as if what foam there was, had collapsed. It wasn't just "not as good as the 225 and 125 sets that they replaced", it was just straight up, genuinely uncomfortable and unpleasant however you look at it.

I just don't understand why it's SO hard to provide a relatively pleasant experience for long distance train travel in this country when you pay so much for it. Comfortable seats, warmer, dimmer lights and a couple of extra carriages would be a great start and doesn't seem like rocket science considering that's the way things always were in the past. Surely things like this should evolve over time, not go so far in the opposite direction!?

Rant over.

 

[AM9]

I know what I'm about to say has been said a million times before but having just suffered from a 47 minute delayed, 2.5 hour journey on an LNER Azuma set yesterday, I simply cannot see why anyone would see their seats (and general ride quality and ambience) anything other than just horrible. I literally spent the whole journey squirming about trying to avoid backache and a numb bum and being shaken around laterally, all the while listening to loud rattles and hums etc through the plasticky interior... I mean, the seats were pretty much rock solid with hardly any give in them whatsoever and I could even feel what felt like metal support bars digging into my behind as if what foam there was, had collapsed. It wasn't just "not as good as the 225 and 125 sets that they replaced", it was just straight up, genuinely uncomfortable and unpleasant however you look at it.

I just don't understand why it's SO hard to provide a relatively pleasant experience for long distance train travel in this country when you pay so much for it. Comfortable seats, warmer, dimmer lights and a couple of extra carriages would be a great start and doesn't seem like rocket science considering that's the way things always were in the past. Surely things like this should evolve over time, not go so far in the opposite direction!?

Rant over.

As far as the IEP stock goes, so much was spent on persuading Hitachi to develop a bi-mode trains with a rather expensice maintenance regime that they must have tought 'lets not ice the cake too much with expensive seats and accoutrements on dimmed lighting and certainly acouple of extra carriages'. What's actually there does after all meet the requirement to carry passengers safely for over 400 miles and do after all meet the legal safety requirements. All this harping back to previous generations of trains is pointless as they were provisioned in a different era, over 30 years ago for the Mk1Vs and 45 years ago for the ECML Mk111 stock! The railway industry was very different then.