• 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!

Seven UK Trains Fail RSSB Seat Comfort Targets

Status
Not open for further replies.
superalbs

superalbs

Established Member
Joined
3 Jul 2014
Messages
2,464
Location
Exeter
The RSSB appears to have released its research on seat comfort, and in absolutely no surprise whatsoever, all seven of the trains they tested failed their targets.

Hopefully this will mark a change in comfort for future builds at least.

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/rssb-defines-comfort-targets-for-train-seats
Train and seat designers and specifiers are being encouraged to adopt RSSB research findings in future specifications for new rolling stock and interior overhauls.

The RSSB (formerly the Rail Safety and Standards Board) set out its recommendations in its Defining the requirements of a seat comfort selection process report - but noted that none of the seven train tested met those targets.

Following the research, RSSB created a chart showing the comfort rating for different types of journeys, with Metro requiring the least comfort and First Class and Very High Speed Trains the most.

A range of dimensional requirements was also created, to indicate whether a seat would pass on measures that form the basis of a new standard which allows comfort to be considered as an essential feature, alongside other needs such as crashworthiness and fire safety.
Click to expand...
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

S

supervc-10

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2012
Messages
702
What train is in the pic at the top of that link? The second looks to be an EMT HST, and the third a ThamesLink 700, but I don't recognise the top pic.
 
S

supervc-10

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2012
Messages
702
Well, it looks swish! And the seats certainly look better than IEPs or ironing boards. Still, I haven't tried the IEPs and the ironing boards on the 700s are tolerable for short distances (did London Bridge-Gatwick and back the other week)
 
Cowley

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,765
Location
Devon
Could anyone provide the information of which seven trains were tested for this (I’m not buying That magazine)?
 
B

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
2,790
Quite amusing really when the usual, tired old excuse for uncomfortable seats is they have to be hard and uncomfortable to meet fire regulations. I never believed that anyway and this report won't stop the excuse being trotted out but at least more people will now know it's a lie.
 
B

bspahh

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2017
Messages
1,735
Cowley said:
Could anyone provide the information of which seven trains were tested for this (I’m not buying That magazine)?
Click to expand...

The report is available at https://catalogues.rssb.co.uk/research-development-and-innovation/research-project-catalogue/T1140

I logged in with a personal Google account and was able to view the PDF. It didn't list the makes and models of the seven seats, but you might be ab le to identify them from the dimensions. The presentation has photos of 5 seats (one is from a class 700).
 
507 001

507 001

Established Member
Joined
3 Dec 2008
Messages
1,868
Location
Huyton
B

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
supervc-10 said:
Well, it looks swish! And the seats certainly look better than IEPs or ironing boards. Still, I haven't tried the IEPs and the ironing boards on the 700s are tolerable for short distances (did London Bridge-Gatwick and back the other week)
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a GA FLIRT. The seats are FISA LEAN, which hasn't had many UK applications yet (though it was the favourite in the subsequently ignored survey Northern did about seats for the 195s etc) except for First Class on SWR (which as it's 2+2 I refuse to pay extra for, but I did have a brief try of one and it *could* unseat the Grammer IC3000 as my favourite, though I'll decide when I've sat in one for over an hour). I think the East Anglia IC passengers will be having it very, very good.
 
B

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
507 001 said:
That’ll be Northern then....

(Tongue somewhat in cheek as the Northern 195 seats aren’t actually that bad...)
Click to expand...

Supposedly they combined the FISA LEAN base (not actually that base, but similar) with the ironing board back. It's not the cheapest option (which would be the old, flat, thinner ironing board base). People seem to like them on the ScotRail 385s, or at least not hate them. I find them decent enough; the seating comfort issue on the 195 was to me just the conduit in the way of my legs. I'd far rather do a 5+ hour journey from Paddington to Penzance in a Class 195 "ironing board" than a Class 800 Fainsa Sophia.

It was however rather damaging to their (admittedly limited) credibility to do a survey then quite openly ignore it. They'd have been better not doing the survey and saving the money from it if they weren't going to follow its outcome.
 
GrimShady

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
Bertie the bus said:
Quite amusing really when the usual, tired old excuse for uncomfortable seats is they have to be hard and uncomfortable to meet fire regulations. I never believed that anyway and this report won't stop the excuse being trotted out but at least more people will now know it's a lie.
Click to expand...

I've never believed it either. Any old excuse to peddle cheap crap.
 
H

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,384
Not being forced to publish / able to is actually key to getting many bits of work the RSSB does actually done and it is proving to be an increasingly effective way of getting things done.
Producing public league tables as part of reports tends not to get manufacturer support.

The seat manufactures have received some invaluable learning on what they need to improve.

As has already been point out the research is actually downloadable from RSSB (Spark portal).

The scoring system looked at 4 categories:
a) 13 key seat (/table) dimensions including fails for outside ranges in some cases. 50%
b) Seat Hardness and compression in 5 places (inc arms) 35%
c) attractiveness 10%
d) accessorises (e.g. mains/USB sockets) 5%

One of the key learning was actually measuring seat hardness in a meaningful way is actually very difficult to get right.
 
S

supervc-10

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2012
Messages
702
Bletchleyite said:
Yes, it is a GA FLIRT. The seats are FISA LEAN, which hasn't had many UK applications yet (though it was the favourite in the subsequently ignored survey Northern did about seats for the 195s etc) except for First Class on SWR (which as it's 2+2 I refuse to pay extra for, but I did have a brief try of one and it *could* unseat the Grammer IC3000 as my favourite, though I'll decide when I've sat in one for over an hour). I think the East Anglia IC passengers will be having it very, very good.
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of the IC3000 if it's what I think it is- GWR HSTs? The other Grammer seat is used on Desiros right? Because they're pretty good too.
 
B

bspahh

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2017
Messages
1,735
A

awsnews

Member
Joined
13 Mar 2019
Messages
315
Bertie the bus said:
Quite amusing really when the usual, tired old excuse for uncomfortable seats is they have to be hard and uncomfortable to meet fire regulations. I never believed that anyway and this report won't stop the excuse being trotted out but at least more people will now know it's a lie.
Click to expand...
It was cerainly the case not so many years ago that foams which met the improved fire standards were significantly harder than those previously used. I was involved in trying to resolve the issue in a parallel industry and having spent a considerable sum of money on testing a number of foams from different manufacturers and not coming close to finding comparable products in terms of softness I am pretty confident the rail industry would face the same problem. The foam suppliers have had a few years now to improve and refine their products so the situation will hopefully now be a bit better but from my experiences they had quite a challenge to resolve.
 
J

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,773
I may die laughing if it turns out the IC70 scores poorly using these tests.
 
D

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
6,372
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
Failed their targets they may have, but what actually can be done to enforce those targets? Are they binding in any way, and, if so, why and how have they been ignored so far? It sounds like a recommendation that is ripe for dismissal by TOCs.
 
H

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,384
Deepgreen said:
Failed their targets they may have, but what actually can be done to enforce those targets? Are they binding in any way, and, if so, why and how have they been ignored so far? It sounds like a recommendation that is ripe for dismissal by TOCs.
Click to expand...
They only been published for 3 weeks.
Non binding, carrot rather than stick at the moment...
 
D

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
6,372
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
hwl said:
They only been published for 3 weeks.
Non binding, carrot rather than stick at the moment...
Click to expand...

Indeed. My experience is that carrots without much flavour (i.e. financial incentive) don't work with TOCs, and sticks have to be very big. I wonder - were these/any recommendations in place when so many seats' designs were done, and, if not, why would anyone think that non-binding recommendations like these would be adopted by TOCs whose sole aim is to make profits for their shareholders? The TOCs have monopolies on almost all routes in the UK, so are not competing with each other and are generally not in the business of competing with other, possibly more comfortable, modes now; rather they are simply struggling to cope with passenger numbers as it is. In other words, there is no incentive to provide comfort as it generally won't increase profit (and will cost more to retro-fit anyway).
 
I

Intellectual98

Member
Joined
27 Aug 2017
Messages
43
awsnews said:
It was cerainly the case not so many years ago that foams which met the improved fire standards were significantly harder than those previously used. I was involved in trying to resolve the issue in a parallel industry and having spent a considerable sum of money on testing a number of foams from different manufacturers and not coming close to finding comparable products in terms of softness I am pretty confident the rail industry would face the same problem. The foam suppliers have had a few years now to improve and refine their products so the situation will hopefully now be a bit better but from my experiences they had quite a challenge to resolve.
Click to expand...
Agreed, British fire regulations for mattresses means that Latex foam mattresses especially are much less comfortable than those in the US for example. It's a very credible excuse and could take years to iron out the kinks and get back to a similar level of comfort.
 
S

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
I'd be interested to know if anybody can work out which seats they tested and what they fell down on. I can't even find a results page in any of those documents showing all 7 seats they tested, only the three regional examples.
 
I

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,216
I guess that we'll know when the next batch of trains emerge from Hitachi for EMT, since these are the first ordered after the report was published.
 
H

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,384
samuelmorris said:
I'd be interested to know if anybody can work out which seats they tested and what they fell down on. I can't even find a results page in any of those documents showing all 7 seats they tested, only the three regional examples.
Click to expand...
.

2 of them are in the RSSB reception area...

I could probably have go.

Plenty of failures are probably around installation (seats too close together either airline or table/ insufficient, clearance under tables to get legs through e.g. IC70) rather than seats themselves.

With the scoring system they have laid out, no seats will score really highly as having adjustable height arms rests just isn't going to happen!
 
S

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
hwl said:
.

2 of them are in the RSSB reception area...

I could probably have go.

Plenty of failures are probably around installation (seats too close together either airline or table/ insufficient, clearance under tables to get legs through e.g. IC70) rather than seats themselves.

With the scoring system they have laid out, no seats will score really highly as having adjustable height arms rests just isn't going to happen!
Click to expand...
Do they mean actual adjustable height or just the ability to retract them by pulling them upwards?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top