Could "Class 175" seating be replicated elsewhere?

[All Line Rover]

Regular users of Class 175's will know that the seating is exceedingly comfy (I believe the seating is similar on Class 180's).

Could this seating be replicated in Standard Class on other trains, such as the 185's, 220/221/222's, 350's and 390's? Perhaps on even more Classes?

The 350's and 185's in particular serve a very similar purpose to the 175's - they serve plenty of short distance passengers, whilst also serving a good number of long distance passengers. The seating on 175's is ideal for both categories of travelers, and whilst the seating on 185's and 350's is "adequate" for short distance passengers, both are not at all ideal for long distance passengers! Much too hard...

What do people think? Could this be feasible when each Class goes in for a refurb in the next few years?

PS. Please don't comment if you have no experience of the 175's! Thanks.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Well i agree it should be put on more units. Not been on 175s an awful lot but every time ive found them to have an excellent atmosphere in the carriage and very comfy seats so i would certainly say that was a good idea

 

[MCR247]

Regular users of Class 175's will know that the seating is exceedingly comfy (I believe the seating is similar on Class 180's).

Could this seating be replicated in Standard Class on other trains, such as the 185's, 220/221/222's, 350's and 390's? Perhaps on even more Classes?

The 350's and 185's in particular serve a very similar purpose to the 175's - they serve plenty of short distance passengers, whilst also serving a good number of long distance passengers. The seating on 175's is ideal for both categories of travelers, and whilst the seating on 185's and 350's is "adequate" for short distance passengers, both are not at all ideal for long distance passengers! Much too hard...

What do people think? Could this be feasible when each Class goes in for a refurb in the next few years?

PS. Please don't comment if you have no experience of the 175's! Thanks.

222 seats are exceptional comfortable, and are intercity seats. 175 seats are not.

 

[gnolife]

What exactly is the difference between an intercity seat and a non-intercity seat?
The way I interpret it is that Intercity seats are ones that go on intercity runs, and if Cardiff to Manchester ain't intercity (albeit with a lot of stops), then I don't know what is.
Therefore, by using that reasoning, I say that the 175 seats are Intercity seats

 

[All Line Rover]

222 seats are exceptional comfortable, and are intercity seats. 175 seats are not.

Are the Standard Class seats on the 222 refurbs comfortable? I've not been on them yet...

And why don't you think Class 175 seats are comfortable!? hock: They are one of the only Standard Class seats which I can fall asleep in, have large enough armrests, "feel" wide enough and have sufficient legroom.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

What MCR247 said AFAIC.

 

[NXEA!]

Are the Standard Class seats on the 222 refurbs comfortable? I've not been on them yet...

And why don't you think Class 175 seats are comfortable!? hock: They are one of the only Standard Class seats which I can fall asleep in, have large enough armrests, "feel" wide enough and have sufficient legroom.

Different seats suit different people, everyone is different. For instance, some people find the Grammer seats in the FGW HST's hard and uncomfortable, whereas I think they're really comfortable, and are wholly suitable for the services they perform.

 

[anthony263]

I have found the seats on the class 175's to be great and yes I do think they should have been installed on the class 350's.

I dont mind the seating on the hst's although I much prefer the seats on the crosscountry hst's

 

[Ivo]

By Standard Class standards they aren't bad. Far from it. But not the best; I would almost suggest that Voyagers might be hock:

 

[MCR247]

Are the Standard Class seats on the 222 refurbs comfortable? I've not been on them yet...

And why don't you think Class 175 seats are comfortable!? hock: They are one of the only Standard Class seats which I can fall asleep in, have large enough armrests, "feel" wide enough and have sufficient legroom.

No, I'm not saying they aren't comfortable, the opposite, but they wouldn't be right for a 222. I mean would you fit a 153 with FGW grammer seats? You wouldn't do it the other way either?


When I say Intercity seats, I'm on about the train not the routes.

222s - InterCity
175 - InterRegional
377 - Commuter
142-156/8 - Stuff that is just being passed down...

(as examples)

 

[Welshman]

I totally agree with you, All Line Rover.

In my experience, the 175s are the best of the units currently being used in terms of seat comfort and support.

In my opinion, for height above the floor, angle of rake, leg-room, support to the lower back and alignment to windows, the 175 seats cannot be bettered.
I am 6' 2" tall and can travel many miles on them and always feel refreshed at the end of the journey.

Would that were the case with other units.

 

[MCR247]

Don't get how leg-room is much to do with the design of the seat though IMO...

 

[Welshman]

I suppose technically the leg-room and alignment to windows have nothing to do with the actual design of the seat, but all features taken together make for a very pleasant travelling experience.

 

[tbtc]

Don't get how leg-room is much to do with the design of the seat though IMO...

...or the type of seat is intrinsically linked to the type of train.

Could 175-style seating be replicated elsewhere? Yeah, of course, but that's like saying could the Northern Rail livery be replicated on 390s... it could happen, but I very much doubt it will.

 

[Flying Snail]

No, I'm not saying they aren't comfortable, the opposite, but they wouldn't be right for a 222. I mean would you fit a 153 with FGW grammer seats? You wouldn't do it the other way either?


When I say Intercity seats, I'm on about the train not the routes.

222s - InterCity
175 - InterRegional
377 - Commuter
142-156/8 - Stuff that is just being passed down...

(as examples)

And what category would you put the 180s in?

They are near identical internally to the 175; same layout with the same seats.

As to the original question, it would depend on who made those seats and whose design they are. It is probable at this stage that getting more of them made wouldn't be cost effective if they have not been produced since the original 175/180 runs finished.

I do agree that they are one of the better seat designs around at the moment. Mind there are some truly awful things out there such as those Richmond seats with downward sloping seat bases, headrests designed for hunchbacks and hard edges on the seat backs. The original pacer bus benches are far better than those things.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The original pacer bus benches are far better than those things.

That is a terrible indictment to use on seating comparisons.

I like the Class 175 seating on journeys from Wilmslow to Hereford and to Ludlow and find this seating ideal (even my wife agrees with me on this point)

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The 175s get my vote as well, not just on grounds of seat comfort but also on having a very well arranged interior layout and a good seat to window match.

Having said that, the seats could be a bit softer ( ideally at least as soft as the MML HST seats ), but they're certainly miles ahead of those fitted to the Voyagers, Pendos, FGW HSTs, ECML stock...

 

[Pumbaa]

We won't ever get 175/180 seating installed again - the back is too low for current crash standards. Sorry but there you have it!

The 222 seating is very comfy for all passenger I think, whereas the Seating used in Desiros is a marmite thing. Personally I like it and find it very comfy.

 

[All Line Rover]

By Standard Class standards they aren't bad. Far from it. But not the best; I would almost suggest that Voyagers might be hock:

That isn't a joke, is it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We won't ever get 175/180 seating installed again - the back is too low for current crash standards. Sorry but there you have it!

What crash standards? The seats are still higher than my head! And what if they decided to extend 2-car 175's to 3-car? I'm sure they'll do that in the long term.

 

[ainsworth74]

And what if they decided to extend 2-car 175's to 3-car? I'm sure they'll do that in the long term.

Well grandfather rights would apply I would think but more to the point I doubt we'll ever see 175s extended as it would be an order for 11 vehicles, there is no way that's ever going to be economic to build. You would need an order for 100+ vehicles for it to be economic probably.

 

[317666]

The thing is, with seating you can't please everybody. Some people prefer harder seats, others prefer softer seats. If you ask me, the seats in the 175s are not particularly comfortable, I prefer the seats that are in the ATW 158s (both pre-refurb and post-refurb).

 

[Erniescooper]

I spent some time on a 175 with a senior conductor from ATW discussing it's interior and it turns out that the things that make it a nice place for a passenger are things that are not liked by a modern TOC. The wide seats make the aisle small making it difficult to collect revenue. The luggage racks being at the ends of the saloon slow down passenger access and increase dwell times, so I wouldn't expect any more 175/180 seats soon.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Regular users of Class 175's will know that the seating is exceedingly comfy

Comfy my foot, those seats are rock hard. The seat spacing, at least at some of the seats, is more comfortable than other units though, much more legroom. On a trip from near Portsmouth to Haverfordwest, the FGW 158 had nice comfy seats ruined by insufficent legroom while the ATW 175 had good legroom ruined by the rock-hard seats.

To try and please everyone, couldn't you make the seats down one side one colour and hard, and the seats down the other side a different colour and soft?

 

[snail]

The thing is, with seating you can't please everybody. Some people prefer harder seats, others prefer softer seats. If you ask me, the seats in the 175s are not particularly comfortable, I prefer the seats that are in the ATW 158s (both pre-refurb and post-refurb).

I agree. It's not helped by having the seats in a 175 fixed only to the floor, which makes vibration effects worse.

 

[Bellwater]

I spent some time on a 175 with a senior conductor from ATW discussing it's interior and it turns out that the things that make it a nice place for a passenger are things
that are not liked by a modern TOC. The wide seats make the aisle small making it difficult to collect revenue.

185s are the same, however if you attempt revenue and you accidentally hit someone the TOC won't support you in a claim by the passenger and if you don't you get downloaded and disciplined.

For the record 175 seating is alright compared to AXC 222s.

 

[Greenback]

I spent some time on a 175 with a senior conductor from ATW discussing it's interior and it turns out that the things that make it a nice place for a passenger are things that are not liked by a modern TOC. The wide seats make the aisle small making it difficult to collect revenue. The luggage racks being at the ends of the saloon slow down passenger access and increase dwell times, so I wouldn't expect any more 175/180 seats soon.

You are so right. I saw the luggage rak effect with my own eyes this afternoon. People wer eboarding and taking an age to rearrange the racks to get their bags in, that there were till passengers on the platform who could not get on.

Of course, this problem could be mitigated if people arranged their bags carefully in the first place, so that there was room for othe rbags, rather than just slinging them in willy nilly. Larger luggage raks, particularly above the seats would also be helpful.

It's a shame that what we get nowadays seems to be msotly what the TOC want, rather than what the passenger finds useful or comfortable.

Comfy my foot, those seats are rock hard. The seat spacing, at least at some of the seats, is more comfortable than other units though, much more legroom. On a trip from near Portsmouth to Haverfordwest, the FGW 158 had nice comfy seats ruined by insufficent legroom while the ATW 175 had good legroom ruined by the rock-hard seats.

To try and please everyone, couldn't you make the seats down one side one colour and hard, and the seats down the other side a different colour and soft?

I find the seats very comfortable. A 3 hour trip on a HST leaves me with a sore back, but over 4 hours on a 175 leaves me without a niggle. All this just reinforces that it is very much a personal thing!

 

[All Line Rover]

Some fair points have been made in this thread. Having travelled on 175's again today, I agree that the seats are not the softest in the world, but I still find the posture to be excellent (at least for someone of my build).

I appreciate that there are many varying opinions regarding the type of seating that should be installed on different trains, but could the TOC's not - at the very least - conduct some "market research" with passengers before installing seating on new or refurbished trains? It may cost a bit, but in the long run should contribute to a much better passenger experience.

 

[Greenback]

I appreciate that there are many varying opinions regarding the type of seating that should be installed on different trains, but could the TOC's not - at the very least - conduct some "market research" with passengers before installing seating on new or refurbished trains? It may cost a bit, but in the long run should contribute to a much better passenger experience.

As you have almost said yourself, the market research would be a pointless and costly exercise because it will not reveal anything new. It will simply confirm that there just as many views on what makes for a comfortable seat as there are body shapes.

In any case, no TOC really cares about creating a better passenger experience. All they are interested in is the bottom line.

 

[sprinterguy]

Installing 175 style seating to other classes of train would be governed to an extent by whether this would cause a reduction in seating capacity. The type of seat fitted in 175s seems to be much more substantial than the design used in the 185s and 350s which appears to be considerably more lightweight. If installing a different seating design is likely to cause a reduction in overall capacity, then it's probably a no-go.

Is it the same seat design as in the refurbished 175s that is currently being fitted to ATWs' 158s as they go through refurbishment? I haven't been on a refurbished ATW 158 yet, but the design looks similar from the outside.

 

[Flying Snail]

Is it the same seat design as in the refurbished 175s that is currently being fitted to ATWs' 158s as they go through refurbishment? I haven't been on a refurbished ATW 158 yet, but the design looks similar from the outside.

No. The ATW 158s are getting the Grammer seats as fitted to FGW HSTs and EMT 158s.