Stadler Flirt 'IC'

[DarloRich]

You only have to look at the hate for the IEP units going to Virgin East Coast & Great Western. Same happened with HSTs over Deltics back in the day. People need to grow up & move on but then I always look at it that these are not the people the TOCs need worry about as doubt they contribute that much to the farebox by photographing line side :roll:

the problem is that those of us who do contribute to the farebox by travelling everywhere by train know that the level of passenger comfort decreases with every new train.

For me it isnt the newness of the train that causes the issue but rather the cheeseparing approach to passenger comfort. We will see if these new train buck the trend. I doubt it.............

 

[Bletchleyite]

the problem is that those of us who do contribute to the farebox by travelling everywhere by train know that the level of passenger comfort decreases with every new train.

That is just not true. The Desiro is vastly superior to the Class 321 for MK commuters, for example. The IC70 is an abomination unless you are skinny.

 

[DarloRich]

That is just not true. The Desiro is vastly superior to the Class 321 for MK commuters, for example. The IC70 is an abomination unless you are skinny.

my apologies - the Desiro is a very good train and a good example of high quality commuter trains - my point relates to traditional IC routes.

BTW i am not skinny in any shape or form and don't have a problem with the old style intercity seats. They are comfortable if frustrating because of the fixed armrest. The EC refurbishments easily deal with that issue and offered comfortable and modern seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can replace the seats on a Mk3, there is little else wrong with the Mk3 other than looking a bit old fashioned and that the Standard coaches should have had 9 rather than 8 windows, thus allowing proper alignment (the Class 158 fixed that). But the fixed armrests prevent me sitting in a comfortable position by taking up some of the seat width. Aircraft are similar - my backside does fully fit in one easyJet seat but only if I can have the *whole* seat right up to the centre of the armrest - I don't fit comfortably in the ones with the tray tables in the armrests as the actual seat is about 1" narrower because of that space used by the tray table.

The ECML seats, though, belong in the bin as originally implemented, there is no under-thigh support, and the back of the seat is higher than the front. I've not used one recently, but I believe that has now been fixed by using two-piece contoured cushions instead like they should have done in the first place.

But seats are such a matter of opinion anyway, and I wouldn't judge the entirety of a piece of rolling stock on them - they are almost certainly going to get replaced at some point anyway. After all the GWR Grammer seat remains my favourite UK Standard class seat (and I'd take one over most SBB First Class seats) but some people hate them, and the LEAN seat looks reasonable provided the pitch is not too tight, though I've not yet actually sat in one.

 

[MarkyT]

I find most modern standard class seats in intercity type stock today very comfortable, but perhaps that just indicates how 'average' I am. I don't mind the thinner cushioned seats of the 444s and when I was commuting regularly from Basingstoke I much preferred these units to the low laid back slouchy seats in the old 442s. Although the seat and cushions in Voyagers are fine, I have a problem getting my arms and particularly elbows in a comfortable position on the particular design of hard plastic armrests. ISTR WCML Pendolino seats are the same but I haven't ridden in one of those for years.

I don't understand the premise of the original post here regarding the Stadler units not being 'proper' intercity units. It's true that company's original 'Flirts' were lower speed regional units, but the product line has moved on significantly since then. Stadler are delivering new EC250 trains with a very similar articulated formation and bodyshell layout to SBB this year for international services through the new Gotthard Base tunnel and they are (as may be deduced from the designation) built for a maximum speed of 250kph. If that isn't 'intercity' I don't know what is!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Now I must admit those EC250 units look very, very nice. A good change from SBB's more recent double-deck everything with plasticky white interiors, cheap and far too narrow seats, and tiny windows in one of the most scenic countries in the world.

Scrap the IC2000s and get more of them in! (Or if they must go DoSto, buy the same ones DB buy which have large windows and are generally better designed).

 

[F Great Eastern]

The Flirt can be a intercity or a regional train, the spec of the interior is decidedly regional from what we have seen as the seat is designed for ultra high density and to be thin and light for regional routes, comparing the LEAN seat to a 444 seat is laughable because the 444 seat is not designed for or used in ultra high density.

My problem isn't with the FLIRT train itself, more the spec and seating that has been chosen for them.

 

[47802]

The Flirt can be a intercity or a regional train, the spec of the interior is decidedly regional from what we have seen as the seat is designed for ultra high density and to be thin and light for regional routes, comparing the LEAN seat to a 444 seat is laughable because the 444 seat is not designed for or used in ultra high density.

My problem isn't with the FLIRT train itself, more the spec and seating that has been chosen for them.

Well you might well have got the same seats regardless of the train obtained, same goes for the seating and layout on the Aventra's, and don't you just love people who complain before they have actually seen something for real and tried it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Flirt can be a intercity or a regional train, the spec of the interior is decidedly regional from what we have seen as the seat is designed for ultra high density and to be thin and light for regional routes, comparing the LEAN seat to a 444 seat is laughable because the 444 seat is not designed for or used in ultra high density.

Er, ever been on a 450 or 350/2? The same seat (slightly narrower version) is used for high density purposes.

 

[Muzer]

Er, ever been on a 450 or 350/2? The same seat (slightly narrower version) is used for high density purposes.

The narrowness makes all the difference.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Well you might well have got the same seats regardless of the train obtained, same goes for the seating and layout on the Aventra's, and don't you just love people who complain before they have actually seen something for real and tried it.

Considering the first proposal from Stadler included grammer seats and the first render for AGA included them too before it was decided to change the seats because they found a more cost-effective option, I stand by my claims because the source I got that from is very reliable. It's not something I made up or am speculating.

The seats being designed for ultra high density and regional seating is also not my words, it's how their manufacturer markets them.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Er, ever been on a 450 or 350/2? The same seat (slightly narrower version) is used for high density purposes.

Big difference is that the LEAN configurations seat pitch have always been measured in a highly misleading way by measuring from the deepest part of the inset to the seat behind, giving it the impression that it has far more room than it actually does when looking at the numbers.

The Desiro seats do not use any tricks such as this as they are a flat seat without an indent so you get the full seat pitch for the whole area you are sitting rather than needing to put your knees together and having a top of the seat much closer in front of you.

The Lean allows more seats to be put in the same carriage without sacrificing on what they would call seat pitch, but the seats will still be closer together than a flat seat with the same seat pitch because of the cooked calculation LEAN uses.

I much prefer the Desiro seat with high backs for the 360 than the lean.

 

[MCR247]

F Great Eastern, Im not trying to be funny but what is the point in going on about the LEAN seats on here? It's not going to change anything, and whilst your complaints might turn out to be completely justified, until they enter service there isn't really much more to say is there?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The narrowness makes all the difference.

The LEAN seat is not narrow, though, so the narrowness is of no relevance to this discussion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Big difference is that the LEAN configurations seat pitch have always been measured in a highly misleading way by measuring from the deepest part of the inset to the seat behind, giving it the impression that it has far more room than it actually does when looking at the numbers.

Then what we need to compare is the seat PITCH i.e. the spacing between the same point on two adjacent seats.

What GA may do is to space them as per the 444, which would give truly excellent legroom. You don't have to do what the manufacturer's picture does, particularly if they have selected the seat simply because of its low cost.

 

[47802]

F Great Eastern, Im not trying to be funny but what is the point in going on about the LEAN seats on here? It's not going to change anything, and whilst your complaints might turn out to be completely justified, until they enter service there isn't really much more to say is there?

Indeed at the end of the day it will be a case of like it or lump as with every other train, moaning about it on here will have no effect whatsoever

 

[F Great Eastern]

Then what we need to compare is the seat PITCH i.e. the spacing between the same point on two adjacent seats.

Indeed, but you should try getting someone to directly answer a question about the distance between one point on one seat and one point on the other, I, and others have not been able to get that information, a direct question about the seat pitch is avoided and everyone involved thus far has been very evasive.

Instead you are sold the marketing spin and given a politicians non answer about the indent on the seats meaning more seats can be fitted in because of the indent without sacrificing on the leg-room and therefore providing a more comfortable experience due to better passenger amenities such as plug sockets, Wifi and a more modern train.

I suspect there is a reason for this and it is the same reason Abellio in the last renders deliberately avoided any photo that could show clearly the true seat pitch of these trains, using a photo behind and from the side is a well known photography trick to give the impression of space being bigger than it is.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Indeed at the end of the day it will be a case of like it or lump as with every other train, moaning about it on here will have no effect whatsoever

May as well shut the forum down then if you don't like having a debate, unfortunately on discussion forums people will disagree with each other, I respect that you have a different view to me but I make no attempt to shut the discussion down despite that.

 

[ginger]

Indeed, but you should try getting someone to directly answer a question about the distance between one point on one seat and one point on the other, I, and others have not been able to get that information, a direct question about the seat pitch is avoided and everyone involved thus far has been very evasive.

Instead you are sold the marketing spin and given a politicians non answer about the indent on the seats meaning more seats can be fitted in because of the indent without sacrificing on the leg-room and therefore providing a more comfortable experience due to better passenger amenities such as plug sockets, Wifi and a more modern train.

I suspect there is a reason for this and it is the same reason Abellio in the last renders deliberately avoided any photo that could show clearly the true seat pitch of these trains, using a photo behind and from the side is a well known photography trick to give the impression of space being bigger than it is.

Funny that - I have an audience with abellio next week and have all the current measurements to hand.....well 321 and 360.....will be asking the direct questions! Lets see what the answers are!

 

[F Great Eastern]

If you can get an answer to seat pitch that will be great, ask them for a figure, don't let them use spin to avoid giving a figure like they have done to date or vague statements like "Leg room will be bigger" true seat pitch is what we want.

If you could ask them too why they changed the seat type from what was previously proposed even better.

 

[47802]

May as well shut the forum down then if you don't like having a debate, unfortunately on discussion forums people will disagree with each other, I respect that you have a different view to me but I make no attempt to shut the discussion down despite that.

Well there isn't really any discussion with you anyway except that the new trains will have bad seats and not enough legroom etc, and yes you can discuss that all you like but at the end of the day will Greater Anglia take any notice what is said on here? I think we know the answer to that one.

 

[MCR247]

May as well shut the forum down then if you don't like having a debate, unfortunately on discussion forums people will disagree with each other, I respect that you have a different view to me but I make no attempt to shut the discussion down despite that.

But is this a discussion? Discussions about seats (personal preferences) yes, but my point is so far all we know is that they are Stadler trains with LEAN seats. We don't know the seat pitch, we don't know what AGA have asked for. So how can we write them off already?

 

[F Great Eastern]

We known they are a Stadler train, they are LEAN seats, and LEAN seats are designed for Ultra High Density so I think it's a logical conclusion that a seat designed for high density usage is quite likely to be used in a high density configuration, unless you believe that the company who makes LEAN is for some reason marketing it as a high density seat when it isn't one on purpose or are incompetent?

We don't know what seat pitch they are but the fact is people have asked them for a seat pitch and they avoid saying a figure and just give a politicians answer about increased leg-room and modern facilities, it's not my fault that to date nobody wants to give details on the seat pitch and are also being very careful to avoid showing pictures that would show roughly what it is.

If the seat pitch was so good, surely Abellio would be shouting about it rather than just keeping it as a closely guarded secret hidden behind spin to avoid having to give specific figures. Generally if someone doesn't volunteer proper full information when asked and instead avoids the question and dresses up the answer is in spin, is because the real answer isn't favorable.

This is marketing and PR for dummies stuff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Compared to the Desiro seat:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Desiro_450_seating.jpg

they actually look quite thick backed (give or take the "niche").

I fear the Class 158 problem, but I will judge when I have sat in one.

 

[MCR247]

Yes it is a seat designed for high density, but personally I wouldn't conclude from that the IC sets will be high density.

I believe it was stated in a different thread that the change from Grammer was because they were cheaper. If the capacity was based on Grammer seating, isn't it possible that the LEANs wil be at the same spacing as the Grammers, so giving a bit more legroom since they're high density?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes it is a seat designed for high density, but personally I wouldn't conclude from that the IC sets will be high density.

I believe it was stated in a different thread that the change from Grammer was because they were cheaper. If the capacity was based on Grammer seating, isn't it possible that the LEANs wil be at the same spacing as the Grammers, so giving a bit more legroom since they're high density?

That's quite possible, indeed, that the only reason was the low cost and the pitch will be the same.

Indeed, because the FLIRT will have low and high floor sections in a short coach body with a door in the middle, there is limited scope to muck with the layout anyway.

Actually, looking at the pictures here to see where the low and high floor bits will be:

there is only likely to be one possible number of seats that will fit into each section, which will mean one table or two rows of airline seating per window bay, or 350/1 style *one* extra misaligned row shoved in the few 4-window sections if those are fully airline seated. 3 windows (the windows are the size of one normal Standard table bay on all FLIRTs) will not be enough space to get any more than 6 rows of seats in, unless they cram them up slightly for a narrow luggage rack. At a push, you might get 9 airline rows in a 4 window space like 350s do.

 

[NotATrainspott]

F Great Eastern, the overriding problem seems to be that fiddling around with the seat pitch is now the only practical way of increasing seating capacity on the route. If the seats are spaced at a 'proper pitch' then all it means is more people standing. A bad seat is no worse than having to stand for the whole journey length. After fiddling with seats the only next step is to go around ripping them out completely, with a view to maximising safe standing space instead, as has been done on the Thameslink and Crossrail trains. Ultimately, there can't be a solution that makes everyone happy unless we can get rid of whatever bottlenecks there are on the GA London routes. Sorting that out is going to cost a lot of money, which may well be better spent on more strategic routes to have a greater impact than saving the knees of a relatively small number of commuters along a single railway line.

 

[ginger]

If you can get an answer to seat pitch that will be great, ask them for a figure, don't let them use spin to avoid giving a figure like they have done to date or vague statements like "Leg room will be bigger" true seat pitch is what we want.

If you could ask them too why they changed the seat type from what was previously proposed even better.

Of course I will! Happily! I get a lot of stick on here for holding managements feet to the fire...amazed and stunned I am actually getting a positive message! About to start another "told you so" on the 321 refurb thread

 

[F Great Eastern]

F Great Eastern, the overriding problem seems to be that fiddling around with the seat pitch is now the only practical way of increasing seating capacity on the route. If the seats are spaced at a 'proper pitch' then all it means is more people standing.

A bad seat is no worse than having to stand for the whole journey length. After fiddling with seats the only next step is to go around ripping them out completely, with a view to maximising safe standing space instead, as has been done on the Thameslink and Crossrail trains.

Not quite sure what the comparison is you are trying to make between Thameslink and Crossrail and GEML services between London and Norwich, it's not a very valid one if you ask me, the first two are totally different types of services to what the FLIRTS are for, the Crossrail and Thameslink argument would be a good one for the Bombardier units, but not valid for the FLIRTS.

You appear not to know the London to Norwich route very well. The current stock has 7-8 cars with two vehicles that don't carry passengers. The new stock will be 10 cars that all will carry passengers, so the argument that a cramped seat pitch was required to stop people standing shows a lack of knowledge of the loading patterns and the size of the trains compared to what they are replacing

London to Norwich is not just another commuter railway like services served by EMUs, it's not a full intercity either, but your suggestions that it should get the same interior as your average inner suburban train is laughable, if you had this kind of argument with almost all the people who use the MK3's right now and told them they should have a Desiro City style train you'd get an awful reaction.

Nobody is expecting anything like a very long distance intercity operation that crosses half the country, but they expect better than an inner suburban unit you seem to think is feasible.

 

[F Great Eastern]

there is only likely to be one possible number of seats that will fit into each section, which will mean one table or two rows of airline seating per window bay, or 350/1 style *one* extra misaligned row shoved in the few 4-window sections if those are fully airline seated. 3 windows (the windows are the size of one normal Standard table bay on all FLIRTs) will not be enough space to get any more than 6 rows of seats in, unless they cram them up slightly for a narrow luggage rack. At a push, you might get 9 airline rows in a 4 window space like 350s do.

There is a variant of the LEAN that allows two seats back to back to share the same seat body I believe to further save on space although I understand that Abellio decided against this.