class 444 vs class 159 seating and comfort

[HowardGWR]

Today I travelled from Dorchester on a 444. Usually I am travelling from Axminster on a 159. The latter's second class legroom is barely adequate (I am 1m 77cm tall) except some seating has slightly better seating legroom, a couple of cms more, if you can only remember where those ones are and they are still free!

The class 444 seating is simply magnificent in this respect, up to German standards, and I wonder how SWT got away with providing worse seating in the 159s (and 158s I assume) than the 444s? I didn't notice that they charge lower fare per km on those!

Are there standards for this sort of thing? Also the luggage racks on the 444s take a standard airline spec suitcase (that you can take as hand luggage on easyJet free of charge) with ease, whereas it's a squeeze and a bit of an overhang on the 159s.

Now it's SWR, I wonder what we can expect with the 442s. of which I have no experience.

 

[387star]

the 159s have their as built seats which have always had inadequate leg room although they are ridiculously well padded at least

I would expect a refit soon to EMT standards

 

[Cowley]

I've only been on a couple of 444s but I thought they were nice and comfortable.
I've been on many 159s though and it fair to say that they are a bit of a squeeze (I'm just under 6' 3").

 

[samuelmorris]

To be honest, I like them both and always thoroughly enjoyed travelling on 159s. The kind of journey you can sit back, relax and doze off. I haven't used 444s that often but had no problem with them either, though the somewhat firmer seats made it feel slightly less cosy.

 

[cjmillsnun]

the 159s have their as built seats which have always had inadequate leg room although they are ridiculously well padded at least

I would expect a refit soon to EMT standards

Why EMT? Wouldn't they be done to GWR 158 standards?

 

[yorksrob]

Travelled on a 159 from London to Exeter today. As I know these services can be crowded I got an airline seat.

I'm happy to report the seats were beautifully cushioned with plenty of leg room (more than the hard seated 158's I'm used to in Northern land).

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't think you are supposed to criticise the 159s, as they are basically as built by BR. But they cannot really get any better under SWR, as they have already stated their intention is to cram even more seats into them...

 

[MCR247]

Why EMT? Wouldn't they be done to GWR 158 standards?

EMTs refurbishment is considered to be better than than GWRs, which I agree with. Of course this is all opinion based

 

[HowardGWR]

Travelled on a 159 from London to Exeter today. As I know these services can be crowded I got an airline seat.

I'm happy to report the seats were beautifully cushioned with plenty of leg room (more than the hard seated 158's I'm used to in Northern land).

May I ask your height? As I wrote, I am 1m77 and my knees almost scrape against the airline seat in front, causing a constant shift to try and avoid that sore feeling. I appreciate not all have the same length of leg to height ratio (crudely put, 'low bottomed' or 'high steppers'). The class 444s will accommodate anyone IMO. I agree about the cushions, good on both. The class 444 luggage racks allow one to keep an eye on the cases throughout the trip.

Thanks for replies. May I repeat the 442 query? Will they be getting new seats and were they as good as the 444s?

Looking at swt_passenger's reply, I don't get the drift. May not BR designs be refurbished by TOCs? Apols if I missed the point there.

 

[Starmill]

There is a serious lack of legroom in a 158 / 159 seat for anyone but the slimmest and smallest of adults. It's not the worst, but it's poor. They are almost perfect other than that - although some do have issues with toilet odor.

 

[MCR247]

Looking at swt_passenger's reply, I don't get the drift. May not BR designs be refurbished by TOCs? Apols if I missed the point there.

I've always got the impression on here that people loved the SWT 158/9s because they retained their original seats, whilst I on the other hand agree with you. The seats themselves aren't terrible, they're just spatially inefficient, reducing legroom

 

[swt_passenger]

I've always got the impression on here that people loved the SWT 158/9s because they retained their original seats, whilst I on the other hand agree with you. The seats themselves aren't terrible, they're just spatially inefficient, reducing legroom

That's what I was getting at. I don't think the seats are that good myself, but many people here seem to view the 159s as a great example of unaltered BR units, as though other TOC's upgrades have really been downgrades...

 

[Kite159]

There are a couple interesting seats on some of the 159/1s, in the driving coach with First Class in, a pair of the tables got removed during the recent works. Those seats give excellent leg room, however for the downside of not having seat-back tables (as the seats were spun around 180 degree)

 

[bramling]

That's what I was getting at. I don't think the seats are that good myself, but many people here seem to view the 159s as a great example of unaltered BR units, as though otters TOC's upgrades have really been downgrades...

Presumably the legroom is not an issue on lightly loaded services particularly in the table seats? Perhaps another case of trains getting busier and thus the journey experience less pleasant.

 

[Mikey C]

I've always thought the 158s et al to be rather tight on legroom

But then I find most Sprinter/Pacer generation stock to be cramped when compared to the stock which followed.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

For both 159s and 444s if you take just the space between the vestibules, is there much difference in available overall space (width, length, height)?

 

[yorksrob]

I was on a 159 to Exeter recently and am pleased to report that it still had the same lovely bouncy cushions.

It was six carriages all the way to Exeter and whilst not full, the train was busy - around 75% of seats taken. Had it been three carriages, it would have been extremely overcrowded.

 

[cjmillsnun]

EMTs refurbishment is considered to be better than than GWRs, which I agree with. Of course this is all opinion based

I agree, but bearing in mind who the franchise operator is.....

 

[rmt4ever]

Today I travelled from Dorchester on a 444. Usually I am travelling from Axminster on a 159. The latter's second class legroom is barely adequate (I am 1m 77cm tall) except some seating has slightly better seating legroom, a couple of cms more, if you can only remember where those ones are and they are still free!

The class 444 seating is simply magnificent in this respect, up to German standards, and I wonder how SWT got away with providing worse seating in the 159s (and 158s I assume) than the 444s? I didn't notice that they charge lower fare per km on those!

Are there standards for this sort of thing? Also the luggage racks on the 444s take a standard airline spec suitcase (that you can take as hand luggage on easyJet free of charge) with ease, whereas it's a squeeze and a bit of an overhang on the 159s.

Now it's SWR, I wonder what we can expect with the 442s. of which I have no experience.

Metres ! CM’s ! KMS!!!

 

[HowardGWR]

For both 159s and 444s if you take just the space between the vestibules, is there much difference in available overall space (width, length, height)?

That's why i consider the 444s to be an improvement, whereas I don't see why the 159s and 158s should not be made more spacious on refit. We have some years to go with them do we not? Are we to understand that they have never been refurbished in all that time, after BR? I find that difficult to believe, as they are in standard SWT red colours. I take note that swt_passenger has written that they are to be made even more cramped. Do you have a reference for that, swt, please? That's horrifying.

Another point I forgot to mention, which is to the detriment of the 444, is that on out and return journey, the air conditioning was very noisy. As it was very sunny, I didn't mind too much, as I would have rather it worked, at least.

South Coast pax are very lucky to have such comfortable trains. SWR Exeter service is a slow service and stops at too many farmyards, but more comfort would mitigate that. I agree with yorksrob that if the train is not full, one can eventually find a seat that has that extra legroom, or choose a table seat not opposite a Usain Bolt.

 

[swt_passenger]

I take note that swt_passenger has written that they are to be made even more cramped. Do you have a reference for that, swt, please? .

It was either in one of the various franchise related announcements, or one of the staff briefing things, but I just cannot find it at the moment.. The West of England route was stated to be getting a 6% seating capacity increase.

I suppose if they fit modern thinner, (aka 'ironing board') seats, and fewer tables, it might work.

Another poster, Suraggu, mentioned it as well, but I still haven't found a linkable source: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2985453&postcount=1514

 

[Helvellyn]

I agree that the 444s have good legroom and the seats are comfortable.

The SWR 158/159 seats are well padded but do struggle with legroom. The high number of tables in each vehicle doesn't help. SWT could have opted for more airline seats to increase the legroom (but never did) without changing the seat count. Now it seems that SWR will increase the seat count, which will reduce the number of table seats and possibly reduce the amount of full height luggage rack space. I also won't be popular for this but the tip-up seats in the vestibules should go to help speed up boarding and alighting. Too many people don't want to stand at stations to assist with this and even when they do it limits the room in the vestibule.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

As things currently stand I would say:

The unrefurbished 159s have the more comfortable seating, but the 444s have a vastly superior layout of seating.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Yurgh 444s, in fact any deziro equals yuck seating and cumfort wise although the afformentioned are the best of a bad bunch, give me the 159s any day. BTW Im short and fat!

 

[Bletchleyite]

As things currently stand I would say:

The unrefurbished 159s have the more comfortable seating, but the 444s have a vastly superior layout of seating.

The 159 seats are very space-inefficient compared with the 444 ones.

 

[yorksrob]

The 159 seats are very space-inefficient compared with the 444 ones.

Space efficiency is the least of my concerns as a passenger, concerning seating.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The 159 seats are very space-inefficient compared with the 444 ones.

True, but I am pointing out that the 444 does have a better layout whereas the ones in the unrefurbished 159s are by far the more comfortable of the two.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Space efficiency is the least of my concerns as a passenger, concerning seating.

If the number of seats is a given it's important for me. I find the GWR HST layout better than the original, because IC70s waste so much space the GWR layout has better legroom despite 4 (I think) more seats.

 

[Kite159]

If the number of seats is a given it's important for me. I find the GWR HST layout better than the original, because IC70s waste so much space the GWR layout has better legroom despite 4 (I think) more seats.

However the GWR HST layout in standard class is awful as very few (if any) tables line up with the windows, normally one side has a window with the opposite site having a view of plastic.

Add on the high seating so it is hard to judge from a distance what seats could be free (hence you get the lazy "I can't be bothered walking down the coach to find empty seats so I will stand/sit by the doorway" brigade

 

[3141]

It was either in one of the various franchise related announcements, or one of the staff briefing things, but I just cannot find it at the moment. The West of England route was stated to be getting a 6% seating capacity increase.

I suppose if they fit modern thinner, (aka 'ironing board') seats, and fewer tables, it might work.

I also recall the bit about a 6% increase in seats, and assumed that the way they will do that is to reduce the number of tables and put in more airline seats.

At 6' 1" I find the legroom just adequate in class 159 airline seats, but when sitting at a table there's often not much room for my feet and those of the person opposite me. But sitting at a table makes for a more pleasant journey than having the back of the seat in front close to my face.

The 159 seats are very space-inefficient compared with the 444 ones.

That's because most of the 444 seats are airline style. I'd rather have more tables. I think the 444 seats are less comfortable than the 159 seats. "Very carefully judged" is how I'd describe the 444s.

Earlier in the thread, someone asked if there were any standards. Several years ago I was at meeting with Andy Pitt, who was then the SWT MD, and someone complained about the seats in class 450s. He went through a long list of organisations that had tested them and agreed that they met their standards. But it was unclear whether the testing included real people sitting on them for three hours.