• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

LNER Azuma (Class 800/801)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

westv

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
4,201
The issue with the seats I think is mainly noticeable to heavier people who crush the thin base cushion and can feel a support bar through it about 4" from the front of the seat. Lighter people are unlikely to notice it. That aside they aren't hugely dissimilar to something like the Grammer E3000 "Desiro seat" or FISA LEAN, both of which are decent.

All it would take to completely fix the issue would be a modified cushion with a bit of wood (or metal, if fire resistance would be an issue) on the bottom of it.
I don't think it's anything tp do with weight. I'm 13 stone and 6' and I find the standard seats uncomfortable. As I said earlier in the thread, they are too upright and too hard.
 

47271

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2015
Messages
2,983
Is half a train not better than no train at all, and a perhaps lengthy wait till the next service? That might well be the alternative.
Yes, but a short formed service may well be worse for me than a cancelled one.

Here's the choice:

- waiting an hour for the next service, getting a seat and getting on with my work, and claiming my money back.

- or standing up between Newcastle and King's Cross and achieving nothing with an on time arrival.

You can see why I might not be happy at the sight of a five coach train.

As I said, it's entirely my personal view as a passenger. I understand the background to why these things were built, and you can't have excess capacity running around all over the place, but I suspect that my own travel experience won't be improved by them.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
In what way does it compare unfavourably, exactly? A nine-car or 2x5 Azuma (never mind buffet-less GWR IETs) seats more passengers than an 11-car Pendolino. The toilets don't stink, etc.

If you lived in Lincoln, you might just take a different view about five-car sets - just the same as on a number of GWR services, that route will never support the extra costs of running nine-car, never mind 10-car trains all day.

Hull Trains and Grand Central, to take a couple of local examples, would not be viable operations if they were running long trains up and down half or more empty all the time. Franchised TOCs (and government-owned operators of last resort) are not immune from the same cost considerations.

And how exactly would splitting or joining a pair of sets at Leeds (during the period that has to allowed for reversal anyway) to serve, for example, both Skipton and Huddersfield pose a performance risk? We were told that the world would come to an end if splitting and joining happened for Cornish IETs at Plymouth on GWR, yet trains still seem to make it to and from Penzance somehow.

It compares unfavourably in that at least some of the infrastructure is capable of accommodating a 10/IEP length, instead being used by 5-car and 9-car trains which don't make full use of the path. If traffic to these locations can't support a full-length train then perhaps they shouldn't be served, although in reality there's plenty of places across the country where we see long trains running comparatively empty for parts of a journey.

The performance risk from splitting and joining is obvious - two trains and two crews having to match up at a specific time, which works well when things are running smoothly, but doesn't when there's things going on. Plymouth is a rather less busy station than Leeds. We've already seen LNwR's attempt at splitting/joining at New Street and it's hardly been a resounding success.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
It compares unfavourably in that at least some of the infrastructure is capable of accommodating a 10/IEP length, instead being used by 5-car and 9-car trains which don't make full use of the path. If traffic to these locations can't support a full-length train then perhaps they shouldn't be served, although in reality there's plenty of places across the country where we see long trains running comparatively empty for parts of a journey.

The performance risk from splitting and joining is obvious - two trains and two crews having to match up at a specific time, which works well when things are running smoothly, but doesn't when there's things going on. Plymouth is a rather less busy station than Leeds. We've already seen LNwR's attempt at splitting/joining at New Street and it's hardly been a resounding success.

Since when has it been a compulsory requirement for a train to 'make full use of a path'? If we take that tack, then that's Hull Trains and Grand Central straight out of the window on the ECML, followed by the two-hourly LNER service to Lincoln and any charters in and out of Kings Cross, since they can't make 125mph.

The Huddersfield and Middlesbrough LNER services are not envisaged to start running for a couple of years anyway and any splitting or joining at Leeds would not be taking place during the very busiest times of the day - a departure from Huddersfield would be timed early enough to reach London in good time for a day's business there (if combined with the Skipton-London train, that is allowed 9 minutes to reverse already and is on its way south at 07.40) and a return working would be unlikely to get anywhere near Leeds before 19.00 and probably later than that.

There is no suggestion whatever the practice would be attempted all day, every day, is there? The approach would presumably resemble what GWR is doing when it comes to in-service splits and joins of IET services - a limited amount in a limited number of places.
 

3973EXL

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2017
Messages
2,435
5X50/5Q51 Eastleigh - Acton - Ferme Park
66750 801213
 
Last edited:

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,250
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
Hidden in today’s press release about the introduction of Azuma on the Aberdeen route, LNER have announced that they are removing some non-reservable seats on the 9-car sets in favour of extra luggage racks: https://www.lner.co.uk/news/azuma-arrives-for-lner-aberdeen-services/

Funny that, Poor luggage capacity on these have been highlighted all along since the introduction of the 800s on Great Western. Now I wonder if they will be able to be modified next (and have the contract change accordingly as per LNER), or the mantra of "Passengers Want More Seats" will continue, despite the same issues occurring on the Great Western Sets (Particularly on the First Group ordered 802s).

From twitter, it looks like the rather poor non reservable seats next to the door pockets will be removed.
 

Swimbar

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2018
Messages
376
Location
Wetherby
Funny that, Poor luggage capacity on these have been highlighted all along since the introduction of the 800s on Great Western. Now I wonder if they will be able to be modified next (and have the contract change accordingly as per LNER), or the mantra of "Passengers Want More Seats" will continue, despite the same issues occurring on the Great Western Sets (Particularly on the First Group ordered 802s).

From twitter, it looks like the rather poor non reservable seats next to the door pockets will be removed.

I think it's more to do with LNER being willing to respond to customer/train manager feedback!
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,250
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
I think it's more to do with LNER being willing to respond to customer/train manager feedback!

Oh indeed, and with the retention of the onboard shop / buffet area, the East Coast sets where already a step ahead. But they were delivered with the (compared to what was there before in the MkIII and MkIV stock) poor luggage racks that blight the GW ones. It's good to see LNER listening to the feedback and managing to have these luggage racks changed in what seems to be such a stringently controlled contract with Agility Trains.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,536
Location
Redcar
From twitter, it looks like the rather poor non reservable seats next to the door pockets will be removed.

An outbreak of common sense at last! I know some people don't mind them (certainly I've seen passengers sat there when there are plenty of other seats available) but if you're going to add extra luggage capacity they are certainly the most obvious seats to remove!

It is terrible. I was on an 800 on Saturday where they had taken over the reservable bike space and were filling it with luggage for Edinburgh. The lack of even a small van on these trains is a real oversight (just having the length of one window bay would probably be enough)!!!

I am also perplexed by passengers still confusing bike spaces for toilets. I saw easily half a dozen or more passengers all going up to the bike space and having a good tug at the door. One really went to town on it! There is a label next to the space designating it but I wonder if even more is required (perhaps a label next to the door handle that reads "This is a bike/luggage space. The toilet can be found behind you." though I don't hold out much hope...).

It's good to see LNER listening to the feedback and managing to have these luggage racks changed in what seems to be such a stringently controlled contract with Agility Trains.

I wonder if LNER are at an advantage here over GWR by the structure under which they operate. Presumably GWR would have to go first to the DfT and have a full on franchise agreement alteration discussion before going anywhere near Agility Trains. Whilst LNER are perhaps in a slightly more flexible position contractually?
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
If those seats are to be removed how many seats will be lost across an entire 9 car unit?
20 if they remove all of the ones in standard class. A reduction from 510 to 490 standard class seats, compared to a total of 431 standard seats on an LNER HST and 402 on a 225 set.
 
Last edited:

northernbelle

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2018
Messages
679
I think it's more to do with LNER being willing to respond to customer/train manager feedback!

Or perhaps it's because GWR has been lobbying for months and now that LNER has joined the party the DfT finally accept it's an issue?

Oh indeed, and with the retention of the onboard shop / buffet area, the East Coast sets where already a step ahead. But they were delivered with the (compared to what was there before in the MkIII and MkIV stock) poor luggage racks that blight the GW ones. It's good to see LNER listening to the feedback and managing to have these luggage racks changed in what seems to be such a stringently controlled contract with Agility Trains.

To be fair, luggage is a far greater issue on LNER than GWR. On GWR, the problems tend to be concentrated on a handful of WoE trains at specific times of the year/week. LNER's luggage management is crucial on most of its Anglo-Scottish services all year round.
 

Marton

Member
Joined
9 Nov 2008
Messages
663
Also in a tweet reply to me David Horne says they have reduced the harshness of the lighting.

Pleased to see they’re listening.
 

Attachments

  • F5117DC6-19B7-4AD1-A3CB-C658C05D49CE.jpeg
    F5117DC6-19B7-4AD1-A3CB-C658C05D49CE.jpeg
    113.3 KB · Views: 175

ohgoditsjames

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
379
Location
Sheffield & Shipley
20 if they remove all of the ones in standard class. A reduction from 510 to 490 standard class seats, compared to a total of 431 standard seats on an LNER HST and 402 on a 225 set.

Thanks! So despite the loss they'll still have more seats which was my concern and I didn't realise that the HST's had more standard class seats than the 225's.
 

TT-ONR-NRN

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2016
Messages
10,413
Location
Farnham
Delighted that the very mediocre seat cushions are progressively being upgraded to large, leather headrests in first class.

I’ve travelled in both Azuma first class environments and while the initial fabric cushioned seat is an immense downgrade from the luxurious black leather on 225s and HSTs, you’d be surprised how much of a difference the new headrests have. They make the Azuma first product more of a fair replacement from the older fleet

Not my images I take no credit, found on Google

for the benefit of visually impaired members, the top photo shows the original first class seat with a tiny and thin fabric cushion. In the second photo the replacement leather headrests are visible

DA936290-9644-448B-8DB8-5D5C64F45E4F.jpeg B583C59C-A8DC-4A2B-A330-4219E289B037.jpeg
 

387star

On Moderation
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
6,653
Are they removing seats from the 9 cars and 5 cars ?

We have been here before with virgin
 

TheBigD

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2008
Messages
1,991
Copied from wnxx

21 seats removed
4 carriages increase from 2 luggage racks to 4
3 carriages increase from 2 luggage racks to 3
Seats removed are the ones next to the door pockets.
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
Are they removing seats from the 9 cars and 5 cars ?
The article that @Crisps linked to above says:
LNER’s nine-car Azuma trains will be fitted with the new luggage space in the new year...
and:
... increasing the space available for luggage onboard our longer distance services where customers typically travel with more luggage.
So it looks pretty certain that they aren't currently planning to remove any seats from the 5-car units.
 

aiden_g1

Member
Joined
17 Dec 2015
Messages
40
With already large legroom in standard on almost ALL seat rows, technically the seating capacity could be kept the same or increased further. Although of course that would come with the reduction of legroom space, but almost certainly just be inline with the legacy fleet.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,532
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
With already large legroom in standard on almost seat rows, technically the seating capacity could be kept the same or increased further. Although of course that would come with the reduction of legroom space, but almost certainly just be inline with the legacy fleet.

Don't give them ideas. The pocket seats are rubbish - narrow and no window. Removing them to be replaced with racks is an excellent plan.
 

aiden_g1

Member
Joined
17 Dec 2015
Messages
40
Don't give them ideas. The pocket seats are rubbish - narrow and no window. Removing them to be replaced with racks is an excellent plan.

I know... Although when it comes to getting a seat or standing, every seat counts!
I remember seeing someone worked out that at least 48 additional standard seats (pre these additional luggage racks) could be added to a 9-car set without impacting on the legroom and be comparable to the legacy sets. I know this won't be done now, it's too much work to realign them and all the infrastructure around them when they're so new. However, it could be for any future operator of the franchise/trains or when having to prove they're increasing capacity if the demand continues to rise!
 

Ethano92

Member
Joined
26 Jun 2017
Messages
415
Location
London
Don't give them ideas. The pocket seats are rubbish - narrow and no window. Removing them to be replaced with racks is an excellent plan.
I would happily sit in one of those if the alternative was to stand for multiple hours. Not that I think it's a bad idea, but I've already seen a couple on twitter calling it a backwards step to remove seats.
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
I'm glad LNER are listening. Now if they could only install some better seats and some more 1 plus table plus 1 seats we'd be on our way to something moderately acceptable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top