Why can’t modern rolling stock be as spacious and comfortable as Mk 1 coaches?

Geoff DC · 3 Jan 2020

Reading between the lines here, I see people talking about what commuters want.

Surely that is a for another thread or discussion, the comfort issue is much more important for those travelling for 3-7hrs on a train rather than those standing up for 20 minutes.

It may be 25yrs plus since I regularly travelled on mK1s - but the current IETs even with a 1st class ticket are horrendous after a couple of hours, maybe
OK for fatties who have their own cushions, but bony 6'+ like me, forget it & don't even talk about the lighting or lack of catering.

Commuter designed stock is now taking over the longest journeys in the UK - and it's not an improvement.
If the rest of Europe can maintain comfort why can't we - or are we just hardened Br**i**ers

RailUK Forums

railfan100 · 3 Jan 2020

Geoff DC said:
Commuter designed stock is now taking over the longest journeys in the UK - and it's not an improvement.

Look at some of the end to end trip times for the Class 700 units quite long and a massive step back from what they did replace. Of course the DfT with minimal rail knowledge know best. Also the new latest and greatest on the ECML have very firm seats. It will take a a significant improvement in comfort to give up my Lexus RX to use the rail services on a regular basis with regards to comfort. On another note a recent trip to Scotland including a long trip on the Scotrail refurbished Class 158 shown what could be delivered, they were nice much better than the bench seat rubbish around the London area.

AM9 · 3 Jan 2020

Geoff DC said:
Reading between the lines here, I see people talking about what commuters want.

Surely that is a for another thread or discussion, the comfort issue is much more important for those travelling for 3-7hrs on a train rather than those standing up for 20 minutes.

It may be 25yrs plus since I regularly travelled on mK1s - but the current IETs even with a 1st class ticket are horrendous after a couple of hours, maybe
OK for fatties who have their own cushions, but bony 6'+ like me, forget it & don't even talk about the lighting or lack of catering.

Commuter designed stock is now taking over the longest journeys in the UK - and it's not an improvement.
If the rest of Europe can maintain comfort why can't we - or are we just hardened Br**i**ers

Nothing wrong for me in an 802 for travelling from Paddington to St Erth, - I know that it is only 5 hours though

AM9 · 3 Jan 2020

railfan100 said:
Look at some of the end to end trip times for the Class 700 units quite long and a massive step back from what they did replace. Of course the DfT with minimal rail knowledge know best. Also the new latest and greatest on the ECML have very firm seats. It will take a a significant improvement in comfort to give up my Lexus RX to use the rail services on a regular basis with regards to comfort. On another note a recent trip to Scotland including a long trip on the Scotrail refurbished Class 158 shown what could be delivered, they were nice much better than the bench seat rubbish around the London area.

Fair enough, you can queue on the roads, and there'll be one more seat for rail travellers. Of course you will give up the RX, (or its successor) when hydrocarbon engines begin to be priced off the roads, unless you go electric, but even then the jams will still be there.

railfan100 · 3 Jan 2020

AM9 said:
Fair enough, you can queue on the roads, and there'll be one more seat for rail travellers. Of course you will give up the RX, (or its successor) when hydrocarbon engines begin to be priced off the roads, unless you go electric, but even then the jams will still be there.

The Lexus has an EV mode up to around 30MPH which is enough for London, also me giving up a seat might be needed given the lack of strategic capacity planning that seat could be useful considering the DfT seem unable to plan for the future.

WesternLancer · 3 Jan 2020

railfan100 said:
Look at some of the end to end trip times for the Class 700 units quite long and a massive step back from what they did replace. Of course the DfT with minimal rail knowledge know best. Also the new latest and greatest on the ECML have very firm seats. It will take a a significant improvement in comfort to give up my Lexus RX to use the rail services on a regular basis with regards to comfort. On another note a recent trip to Scotland including a long trip on the Scotrail refurbished Class 158 shown what could be delivered, they were nice much better than the bench seat rubbish around the London area.

The point is well made - car interior design gets better and better - but for the train, attitude seems to be why bother - just make it cheap as possible and cram them in - the passengers are just commuters and students and they all want it cheap as poss. Ridiculous. The opposite of what the involvement of the private sector should be delivering...or so we are lead to believe. Of course the private sector is not allowed to decide...

greyman42 · 4 Jan 2020

AM9 said:
'comfy seats' are subjective. I have been on many so-called 'comfy' seats in MKI, II & III coaches, and even thoughn in younger years when I was probably more tolerant of poor seating, they just doidn't have good posture for anything longer than 20 minute hops.

What is "good posture". Is it what our arm chairs and settees at home have because they seem very comfortable?

Bikeman78 · 4 Jan 2020

Shaw S Hunter said:
I suggest you look up details of the Clapham crash...

I thought someone would bring that up. It's a long time since I read the report but all the unfortunate victims were in the REP on the front of the Bournemouth train. Same with Purley, one of the trains was a VEP but it was the other train that went down the embankment. So yes, it was largely down to luck, but it shows how low the risk was, even then.

yorksrob · 4 Jan 2020

Clip said:
Because big sprung seats and compartments are far too heavy and do not suit the needs of a modern commuter

I'm a modern commuter and big sprung seats meet my needs.

Bikeman78 · 4 Jan 2020

AM9 said:
Rail is mostly run in a controlled environment and in general terms has been far safer than road vehicles/pedestrians since the earliest days of motor vehicles. Comparing 50s-70's rail accidents to 90's to present day incidents that involve actual collisions between passenger vehicles of the day, shows that survivability of MKII,III and contemporary stock outstrips that of MKI fabricated structures. The last siginificant MKI collision was the Clapham Junction crash. Had the trains been of later construction than MKI, the toll would have been far less than it was considering that the speed of impact was about 40mph. Compare that with Grayrigg, - smaller legroom, small windows, 95mph, and only one death.
Safety trumps all considerations of 'comfort'.

With respect you are comparing a three train collision with a one train derailment. For me, it's fairly straightforward. I'm willing to accept the risk of cycling to the station so anything safer than that is fine. No one is suggesting bringing back mark 1 stock but if they were still running, I would happily travel in them.

Bikeman78 · 4 Jan 2020

Geoff DC said:
Reading between the lines here, I see people talking about what commuters want.

If the rest of Europe can maintain comfort why can't we - or are we just hardened Br**i**ers

It's ironic that the Belgian trains from the 1960s had very basic hard bench seats in second class. The modern M6 double decker hauled stock have springs in the seats.

Clip · 4 Jan 2020

greyman42 said:
What is "good posture". Is it what our arm chairs and settees at home have because they seem very comfortable?

No - good posture is keeping yourself sat upright and not twisting your body

NSEFAN · 4 Jan 2020

On some routes, things could be made better with longer trains (XC, Transpennine, etc). Voyagers wouldn't actually be too bad to ride on, had they been built as 9 car fixed formation sets. On other routes, trains are already at full length and yet still full and standing. Plenty of trains from Edinburgh to King's Cross yesterday had people standing in the vestibule. Mk1 style seating would only have resulted in more overcrowding and people left behind at stations.

cjmillsnun · 4 Jan 2020

xotGD said:
I have to disagree with you on all counts, other than the safety issue.

Travelling in a Mark 1 is a vastly superior experience.

having experienced crush loading on slammers in the BR era we will have to agree to disagree. it’s bad now in the peaks but it was intolerable back then. Mk3 ride quality is also far better.

satisnek · 4 Jan 2020

This thread just goes to show how comprehensively subjective train seating is! I am one of those who prefers the 'sofa' style used in Mk1 stock (particularly compartments) but then I also think back to what would then have been an 'economy' type of seating used in Phase 2 CIGs, VEPs and, I think, Classes 310/312 as well. This was harder than the traditional, squashy Mk1 style and wasn't very rateable at the time, but during the final years of the 'slammers' I thought it was a damn sight more comfortable than anything contemporary, or indeed anything since.

But to answer the original question, we are now living in different times. Main line rail travel is far more 'mass transit' than it used to be, and this is reflected in the design of rolling stock.

Wivenswold · 4 Jan 2020

UK Population;
1950 - 50.3 m
2019 - 66.8 m

That's the simplistic answer. A more nuanced result is changing commuting habits. In the 1950's jobs were more evenly distributed in rural areas. Now with fewer local businesses, fewer rural railway services and more reliance on cars for local journeys there's a greater need to shift high numbers of passengers within concentrated periods of the day.

Maybe the shift to more home-based working and hopefully a move towards a micro-manufacturing export model will allow for more space on commuter trains in the future. Hopefully the rail network will adapt but I fear we're in for another Beaching-style blitz on "unprofitable" services in little more than a decade.

Mikey C · 4 Jan 2020

As my experience of Mk1s is mainly from 3rd rail land, to me the 375s and early 377s are far superior to the coastal slam door stock, the early 4 abreast Electrostars have very comfortable seating, well padded and shaped.

Indeed much of the other early privatisation era 4 abreast stock I find perfectly decent, e.g. the 168s, 222s or the 444s

To me the rot set in during the late 70s, with the awful original seats on the PEPs and 455s (and DMUs).

greyman42 · 4 Jan 2020

Clip said:
No - good posture is keeping yourself sat upright and not twisting your body

So good posture is the opposite of what we do when we are sat at home relaxing. If so what do we want good posture for?

hwl · 4 Jan 2020

Shaw S Hunter said:
I suggest you look up details of the Clapham crash...

also worth have a look at these for the effect of train interiors (seat and luggage rack design etc.) on deaths/injuries
Polmont 1984
Purley 1989
Cannon Street 1991 (10mph)
Southall 1997
Ladbrooke Grove 1999
Hatfield 2000 (1 MK4 coach with just a single seat back intact...)
Great Heck 2001
Ufton Nervet 2004

They showed that the BR interior design wasn't safe in crashes whether it was Mk1, 2, 3, or 4

Hence GWR, GNER, Southern and SWT interior refits (the later proving useful with casualty reduction at Oxshott 2010 (flying cement mixer))

Clip · 4 Jan 2020

greyman42 said:
So good posture is the opposite of what we do when we are sat at home relaxing. If so what do we want good posture for?

So that you dont spend your old age in immense pain through disjointed bones and poor muscle structure.

Yeah i enjoy a lie down on the sofa from time to time but i normally always sit in the armchair where i try my best to sit upright

387star · 4 Jan 2020

I think people forget how well designed the majority of 377 outer ends and 375s are with 2 plus 2 seating with armrests loads of full sized tables and perfect window alignment. Reading lights too. The 377s can be bouncy but they are very quiet and smooth. The seats are remarkably comfortable too even the firmer variety.

Sadly the inner coaches of most 377s feature horribly thin uncomfortable seats with incredibly narrow aisles although there at least a part in one coach where the seats a re far apart and the corridor is the usual width

cjmillsnun · 5 Jan 2020

hwl said:
also worth have a look at these for the effect of train interiors (seat and luggage rack design etc.) on deaths/injuries
Polmont 1984
Purley 1989
Cannon Street 1991 (10mph)
Southall 1997
Ladbrooke Grove 1999
Hatfield 2000 (1 MK4 coach with just a single seat back intact...)
Great Heck 2001
Ufton Nervet 2004

They showed that the BR interior design wasn't safe in crashes whether it was Mk1, 2, 3, or 4

Hence GWR, GNER, Southern and SWT interior refits (the later proving useful with casualty reduction at Oxshott 2010 (flying cement mixer))

If you're referring to the Service Vehicle involved in Hatfield, then yes one seat back was intact, however the majority of that coach was destroyed (the roof and sides of the coach were missing in the seating area), so I doubt modern seating would've helped there much.

AM9 · 5 Jan 2020

greyman42 said:
So good posture is the opposite of what we do when we are sat at home relaxing. If so what do we want good posture for?

To avoid/reduce back problems, - an ever increasing health issue in the UK.

damian · 5 Jan 2020

A lot of the research suggests that what we traditionally think of as 'good posture' or bad posture has little or no effect when it comes to predicting back problems. What does make back problems worse; however is sitting in awkward positions....which we'll usually feel as discomfort. The overly upright seats epitomised by the class 700 mean that anyone with an increased upper back curve (kyphosis), will be left sitting bent forward and the weight of their head pulling forward is likely to fatigue their upper back muscles, this is likely to affect a significant number of elderly people. The increasingly hard seats (class 700 is the benchmark worst again here but the 377 is no star here, contrary to what was written above) mean that any asymmetry in the back can't be accommodated and anyone with a coccyx or sacroiliac injury will sit with discomfort. Finally 3+2 seating is purgatory for any but the smallest people, since, weight aside, most men's shoulders are wider than the space allowed, again causing people to sit twisted, which will cause back problems. I love the Mark 1...on a heritage railway...I agree that the mark 3 is most comfortable, offering the right combination of softness and support to suit most people...or perhaps the mallard seat in the mark 4. Most of the seats in the newer stock are fine if you have no pre-existing problems but as soon as you do they exacerbate them. It's funny how we'll spend a fortune ensuring train fleets are Person of Restricted Mobility friendly and at the same time fill them with seats that make travelling difficult for the vast number of people with (relatively minor) back problems. I say all this as an osteopath, who has a slightly increased kyphosis (since childhood)...Now don't get me started on how difficult shrill door sirens and non-stop, intrusive, PIS announcements are for the (relatively large number of people) with auditory processing disorder or those on the autistic spectrum

HamworthyGoods · 5 Jan 2020

Geoff DC said:
If the rest of Europe can maintain comfort why can't we - or are we just hardened Br**i**ers

But the rest of Europe is in many cases starting to adopt a similar ‘hard seat’

Switzerland is introducing its new double deck long distance EMUs to replace loco hauled carriages and I must say it makes the IET seats feel soft and cushioned!

https://www.sbb.ch/en/station-servi...trains/ld-double-decker/more-information.html

Likewise in France the Corail hauled sets are getting replaced with new Bi-mode DMUs again with harder seats.

Richard Scott · 5 Jan 2020

HamworthyGoods said:
But the rest of Europe is in many cases starting to adopt a similar ‘hard seat’

Switzerland is introducing its new double deck long distance EMUs to replace loco hauled carriages and I must say it makes the IET seats feel soft and cushioned!

https://www.sbb.ch/en/station-servi...trains/ld-double-decker/more-information.html

Likewise in France the Corail hauled sets are getting replaced with new Bi-mode DMUs again with harder seats.

Try a Deutsche Bahn 423/425/426 - appalling seats and not a pleasant experience even for a few minutes. Most definitely the worst train I've experienced. Would take a non-airconditioned mark 1 any day over one of those.

Meerkat · 5 Jan 2020

Mk1 slam door trains were terrible.
Cramped, noisy, draughty, hot/cold, shoulder ache if you got stuck against the cold wall, soaking wet if against the window, and an awkward embarrassing stumble over feet to get in or out.
Couldn’t see empty seats through the condensation and if you got in the wrong door no easy way to move to a space.
The Sprung seats were annoyingly bouncy and gave off clouds of dust if you sat down too quick.
Oh, and a ridiculous way of opening doors

bramling · 9 Jan 2020

AM9 said:
Fair enough, you can queue on the roads, and there'll be one more seat for rail travellers. Of course you will give up the RX, (or its successor) when hydrocarbon engines begin to be priced off the roads, unless you go electric, but even then the jams will still be there.

It simply isn’t the case that *every* road journey is a guaranteed queue (I know you live in St Albans which is perhaps an exception to this notion!). Having moved work location recently, my current journey is invariably quicker by road no matter what time of day. The only incentive (for me) to use the train currently is that personally I prefer a lightly loaded train to using the car. Cost doesn’t come into it, using the train is already *massively* cheaper for me.

AM9 · 9 Jan 2020

bramling said:
It simply isn’t the case that *every* road journey is a guaranteed queue (I know you live in St Albans which is perhaps an exception to this notion!). Having moved work location recently, my current journey is invariably quicker by road no matter what time of day. The only incentive (for me) to use the train currently is that personally I prefer a lightly loaded train to using the car. Cost doesn’t come into it, using the train is already *massively* cheaper for me.

Actually, for journeys inbound, St Albans to LU railheads isn't that bad, (e.g. Stanmore,) it's the last 10-20 miles before the M25 that is really bad, -effectively the 'outer suburban' band around London where the real question form. Wife goes to Stevenage most days, and after 07:30 can almost double the journey time.
The fact is though, roads aren't going to get any quieter yet motoring will become more expensive, especially for those who stick with non-sustainable energy sources.

Mag_seven · 9 Jan 2020

Meerkat said:
The Sprung seats were annoyingly bouncy and gave off clouds of dust if you sat down too quick.

I've seen that dust phenomenon in more modern stock, quite recently in fact.

Why can’t modern rolling stock be as spacious and comfortable as Mk 1 coaches?

Member

RailUK Forums

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff