More seats equals less leg room.......

[Justin Smith]

Is it just my imagination, or has the leg room in class 158s reduced ?
I know that many rail companies add extra seats (by reducing the leg room, cheeky gits.....) but I didn`t think the Northern Rail 158s had been so afflicted. I`m 6ft, with fairly long legs, but I find the arline seats very short of legroom.
I used to find HSTs fine for legroom but the last two I went on (Cross Country and East Coast) seemed cramped to me.
Of course Voyagers have always been uncomfortable, even when they were brand new.....

 

[GNERman]

east coast and xc hst' don't have the seats aligned to the windows to fit in more capacity whereas gc does, thus lots of leg room

 

[Justin Smith]

east coast and xc hst' don't have the seats aligned to the windows to fit in more capacity whereas gc does, thus lots of leg room

I went on a Grand Central HST in August and as far as I can remember they`ve actually got less seats (= MORE LEGROOM) than the original HSTs.
It was very comfortable, even I had loads of legroom.

 

[MCR247]

Justin, would you rather have less legroom and cramped seats or standing/sitting in vestubules? I know which I'd prefer

 

[Drsatan]

Justin, would you rather have less legroom and cramped seats or standing/sitting in vestubules? I know which I'd prefer

Preferably a compromise between the two, in this case longer trains. Running 4-5 car Voyagers on Plymouth-Newcastle services isn't good enough.

 

[Justin Smith]

Justin, would you rather have less legroom and cramped seats or standing/sitting in vestubules? I know which I'd prefer

Most trains are less then full most of the time.
If I had the choice of :
A Having a comfortable seat all the time but having to stand (for a stop or two) on 10% of journies.
(or)
B Having an uncomfortable seat all the time and having to stand (for a stop or two) on 5% of journies.
I`d pick the first one. Definitely.

I`m 6ft and I think ones choice may, to a certain extent, depend on ones height.
Bear in mind that, arguably, overweight people can help being overweight but taller people cannot help being taller, not unless they have their legs surgically shortened...... Why should they be uncomfortable ?
My preferred answer to lack of peak time seats is more occasional seats in the vestibules. Remember that many people actually choose to stand in the vestibules (rather than sit next to anyone else) so it`s a win/win situation. The Mk4 coaches have 4 per end don`t they ? A very good idea.

 

[thefab444]

158s have small flip-down vestibule seats, at least 4 per coach. I do agree the legroom on the units with original seats is a bit paltry.

 

[devon_metro]

Is it just my imagination, or has the leg room in class 158s reduced ?
I know that many rail companies add extra seats (by reducing the leg room, cheeky gits.....) but I didn`t think the Northern Rail 158s had been so afflicted. I`m 6ft, with fairly long legs, but I find the arline seats very short of legroom.
I used to find HSTs fine for legroom but the last two I went on (Cross Country and East Coast) seemed cramped to me.
Of course Voyagers have always been uncomfortable, even when they were brand new.....

No, the seats are in the same layout as built.

 

[yorkie]

Justin, would you rather have less legroom and cramped seats or standing/sitting in vestubules? I know which I'd prefer

I know which I'd prefer, and I'm yet to find someone who disagrees: more legroom. I've never heard anyone complain that the decent legroom on GC means standees. Occasionally there are standees but I've never heard that complaint. I'd rather stand infrequently and usually be very comfortable than always be cramped. I know people who specifically choose to travel with GC because of the legroom.

 

[starrymarkb]

FGW did it well, though they have fitted more seats the leg room is greater then the original layout

 

[Daimler]

FGW did it well, though they have fitted more seats the leg room is greater then the original layout

I've made peace with the FGW refurb in standard class recently - because of University, I've been using them a lot more than I ever did before, and have decided that while they don't look nice - they look claustrophobic and very unpleasant - they are actually pretty comfortable.

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

I know which I'd prefer, and I'm yet to find someone who disagrees: more legroom. I've never heard anyone complain that the decent legroom on GC means standees. Occasionally there are standees but I've never heard that complaint. I'd rather stand infrequently and usually be very comfortable than always be cramped. I know people who specifically choose to travel with GC because of the legroom.

I'll second that!

 

[asylumxl]

FGW did it well, though they have fitted more seats the leg room is greater then the original layout

I agree. It's also more upright and good for your posture . People complain about the high backs but at 6 3 it feels good to me!

 

[Justin Smith]

I know people who specifically choose to travel with GC because of the legroom.

I don`t blame them, I`d do the same if they ran from Sheffield.......
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

158s have small flip-down vestibule seats, at least 4 per coach. I do agree the legroom on the units with original seats is a bit paltry.

Can`t they have more than 4, and more legroom in the seating area !

 

[MCR247]

I`m 6ft and I think ones choice may, to a certain extent, depend on ones height.
Bear in mind that, arguably, overweight people can help being overweight but taller people cannot help being taller, not unless they have their legs surgically shortened...... Why should they be uncomfortable ?

Yes, but it can be said, because I join the train towards the end of a journey, why should I have to stand so people over 6ft (which are in the minority*) can have more legroom?

*Taken from various websites that all said the average was somewhere around 6ft for the UK

 

[poshbakerloo]

The Voyagers have little leg room. I noticed it when going to Oxford and was all cramped...

 

[bluenoxid]

I know which I'd prefer, and I'm yet to find someone who disagrees: more legroom. I've never heard anyone complain that the decent legroom on GC means standees. Occasionally there are standees but I've never heard that complaint. I'd rather stand infrequently and usually be very comfortable than always be cramped. I know people who specifically choose to travel with GC because of the legroom.

And Grand Central are not operating the Calder Valley, Leeds - Sheffield and various other COMMUTER routes.

 

[Justin Smith]

Yes, but it can be said, because I join the train towards the end of a journey, why should I have to stand so people over 6ft (which are in the minority*) can have more legroom?

*Taken from various websites that all said the average was somewhere around 6ft for the UK

I refer you to my earlier answer :

Most trains are less then full most of the time.
If I had the choice of :
A Having a comfortable seat all the time but having to stand (for a stop or two) on 10% of journies.
(or)
B Having an uncomfortable seat all the time and having to stand (for a stop or two) on 5% of journies.
I`d pick the first one. Definitely.

To be honest even if I was a few inches shorter I`d still prefer a bit more leg room, than to save standing on the odd journey. Let`s face it if the train is packed a few more seats still means most of these standees would still be standing anyway......

 

[RobShipway]

I am 5ft 9.5 inches in height, but have to agree with Justin's comments. I am also broad shouldered and yes I am a little overweight, so do find that most train seats are uncomfortable. Esepcially if they are seats made to seat three people on them such as the class 458 trains, The Class 450 HC seats though even in the three seat guise are actually more comfortable and do allow even broad shouldered people to at last be able to move our arms when seated.

I have also have to agree that the FGW seats are comfortable, but would imagine that if the seats where changed to commuter style that they would be uncomfortable.

 

[A60K]

The Mk4 coaches have 4 per end don`t they ? A very good idea.

As built they did - GNER's Mallard refurbishment removed them though, because of the partial blockage of the doorway caused by their use.

 

[Helvellyn]

Class 158/159 units feel cramped when sat in the original seats, as the padding is very thick. I think SWT should have switched some of the table seats during the 159 refurbishment to have more airline seats. It wouldn't have increased the seating but it would have allowed more leg room to be provided in the airline seats.

Whilst the FGW HST refurbishment has been criticised, they had to provide more seats for commuters in the peaks. At the end of they day, they want seats. It doesn't help families off peak to have less table seats, but as a rule who is paying more for their ticket?

 

[Moodster020]

Cheepskates

This is wot ye get when you have buses taking over from proper traction of the 13+ coach variety...

 

[Justin Smith]

As built they did - GNER's Mallard refurbishment removed them though, because of the partial blockage of the doorway caused by their use.

How stupid is that.
If people aren`t sat in them they`d be stood there anyway, and getting even more p****d off into the bargain.......

 

[gordonthemoron]

I have also noticed that the legroom in voyagers varies depending upon which (standard class) seat you are sitting in. Some have plenty leg room, some have bugger all

 

[Justin Smith]

I have also noticed that the legroom in voyagers varies depending upon which (standard class) seat you are sitting in. Some have plenty leg room, some have bugger all

You`re right, from memory there are a few with more legroom at one end of each coach. I try to get them if I can......

 

[Helvellyn]

If people aren`t sat in them they`d be stood there anyway, and getting even more p****d off into the bargain.......

SWT kept them on the 158s/159s, and I have to say that while handy you also see plenty of commuters sat on them who won't stand up to let other passengers get on/off when the door they are sat by is the platform door. Anyone who is stood seems more inclined to move to allow people on/off. That's what I've noticed anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have also noticed that the legroom in voyagers varies depending upon which (standard class) seat you are sitting in. Some have plenty leg room, some have bugger all

Could these be priority seats? Desiros have plenty of these with better legroom near the doors. Great to sit in, but of course they need to be given up should any elderly/disabled passengers require them.

 

[johnb]

*Taken from various websites that all said the average was somewhere around 6ft for the UK

They're pretty shoddy websites, then. The average man is 176cm (5'9"), the average woman is 162cm (5'4"). Under 20% of men (so well under 10% of people) in the UK are over 6' tall - so basing train design primarily on their needs doesn't seem particularly sensible.

 

[starrymarkb]

You`re right, from memory there are a few with more legroom at one end of each coach. I try to get them if I can......

Yes, all modern stock has extra legroom seats for elderly/disabled - in Voyagers its the higher numbered seats at the Toilet end

 

[fgwrich]

Class 158/159 units feel cramped when sat in the original seats, as the padding is very thick. I think SWT should have switched some of the table seats during the 159 refurbishment to have more airline seats. It wouldn't have increased the seating but it would have allowed more leg room to be provided in the airline seats.

Whilst the FGW HST refurbishment has been criticised, they had to provide more seats for commuters in the peaks. At the end of they day, they want seats. It doesn't help families off peak to have less table seats, but as a rule who is paying more for their ticket?

Ive noticed this quite alot recently and it would appear that in the SWT 158/159 refurbishments that they have gone for more seats over tables...im only 5:8 and even im finding it difficult to get in and out of the 158/159 seats, the worst part being getting in and out of the tables...you quite literally cannot do it without banging your Knees on the person opposite...

Though id say the better 158 refurbishment is FGWs, with the Richmond seating as used in the 153s


FGW has done very well with its refurbs, afterall, when the Concept coaches came out in 06, passengers complained there wasnt enough seats...so FGW increased the amount of seats, to suit both the commuter and traveler alike...sure enough they could have added a few more tables but as Helvellyn has said...At the end of they day, they want seats. It doesn't help families off peak to have less table seats, but as a rule who is paying more for their ticket?...And at least they have done this in a sensible and decent manor, whith adequate legroom and tall comfortable seating...

As for the height of the seats...well, unfortunatly, thats a safety this as all new stock now has to have high back seating, as does most modern refurbs i belive...

Going back to the original title of this thread though...If you want a train that has actually decreased in legroom and decreased in the amount of seats they once had...how about both the 143 & 150 Fleets, operated by First Great Western & Arriva Trains Wales, as thanks to the Wales & West / Valley Lines & Wessex Trains refurbishments, The 143s have actually gone down in terms of seat numbers and legroom thanks to the chapman high back seats, as has the 150s...

 

[Mintona]

I am 6ft 5in and would rather stand on a Voyager than sit down coz it is so damn uncomfortable. Same with Mallard sets, 158s and 170s. Some trains have much better legroom though, I do like FGW HSTs, 395s, 175s and the Desiro family.

 

[Helvellyn]

Ive noticed this quite alot recently and it would appear that in the SWT 158/159 refurbishments that they have gone for more seats over tables...im only 5:8 and even im finding it difficult to get in and out of the 158/159 seats, the worst part being getting in and out of the tables...you quite literally cannot do it without banging your Knees on the person opposite...

They didn't alter the seating layout at refurbishment - that was my point. If they'd done away with some of the tables, thus having more airline seats, but kept the same number of seats then there would have been more legroom.

With the new Diagrams in place from December, to reflect an hourly service to Exeter and no workings beyond there, I'm hoping that there'll be some better matching of capacity top demand on WoE services. There is once again a 2-car off-peak SAL-WAT working, plus some 5-car and 8-car workings. Need some more of this, as still far too many 6-car workings out of Waterloo in the evening peak!