Declining quality of 'Inter City' standard class passenger accommodation

[mike57]

We made one of our regular visits to Peterborough at the weekend and were travelling on the LNER Azumas for part of the journey. Bacause Doncaster - Peterborough is only just under an hour and there is no 1st class from home to Doncaster we travelled standard class, otherwise for lesiure journeys we usually get 1st class advance tickets.

On the journey south we got probably some of the worst seats, a wide between window pillar, airline style seats, hard, uncomfortable, and being high backed the person on the inside where a window would be really felt like they were travelling in a coffin. It was very busy, so no chance to move. Coming back was slightly better as we did have some window.

It got me thinking, I have been travelling up and down the ECML for close to 60 years and the accomodation comfort for standard class is now worse than at any time in my memory.

I remember the Mk1s, early Mk2s, quite noisy at tmes, and obviously warm in summer, but seats were groups of 4 round a table, aligned to a window or in compartments and were reasonably comfortable.

Air con Mk2s were an improvement

Mk3s, with the HST were a major step forward, comfortable, rode well, seats were decent. Air con usually worked and resulted in a pleasant environment most of the time

Mk4s were/are OK, but ride is poorer than Mk3 in my opinion, but still acceptable.

Then we get to the current generation, 800s, and to be honest they are dire. Seats are hard and uncomfortable, ride is very iffy with serious hunting/vibrations at times (been covered here before I know). Seat/window layout is a disaster, cramped. OK so a bit of a rant... but why have we gone backwards so far from the Mk3/HST sets. How much extra would it cost to actually provide a comfortable environment.

Interestingly the class 170 from home to Doncaster is actually way more comfortable.

So why have standards been allowed to drop so far, I know its always going for the cheapest but its resulted in a miserable passenger experience.

 

[thedbdiboy]

The Mk3s did start the trend for misaligning seats and windows - they use a common bodyshell for 1st and 2nd class and as built the bays aligned for 1st class but not for 2nd. The whole issue of seat design has been a hot topic now for a number of years. On one hand, the safety requirements for seats nowadays are much more onerous than the days of bench seats stuffed with horsehair - both fire retardant and crash behaviour characteristics (for the occupant or someone thrown against the seat) are tightly defined; unfortunately then you have the bean counters at the DfT who assigned minimal value to comfort and pushed for the cheapest seats that meet these standards.
There's been enough of a backlash to make everyone think twice but of course once the trains are built and in service it's not easy or cheap to remedy, and in the current financial situation we're all stuck with them for the foreseeable future.
I'll let other s comment on ride quality - there I don't think the relationship of time and comfort is so linear, 'good' and 'bad' riding being very interdependent on track alignment and quality as well as bogie design.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Mk3s, with the HST were a major step forward, comfortable, rode well, seats were decent. Air con usually worked and resulted in a pleasant environment most of the time

Hard disagree. Mk3s started the rot of misalignment, the IC70 seat was dire (particularly the fixed armrests), the lighting glaring and poorly diffused, the ride was busy with a lot of swaying and an almighty bang whenever anything passed and the aircon (by the 90s at least) was unreliable at best. Plus slam doors when they could have been sliding and the constand banging back and forth of vestibule doors.

The Mk3b first class coach was OK (better seats than the originals and better-diffused lighting), but the Standard wasn't at all. Similarly the 442 was many things the Mk3 should have been in Standard.

Mk4s were/are OK, but ride is poorer than Mk3 in my opinion, but still acceptable.

The Mk4 as built was junk built down to a price with extremely poor, cheap regional style seating. A combination of the GNER fitted frames and the VTEC fitted softer two-piece cushion (the least said about the awful GNER single-piece one the better) made them quite nice in the later years, though they still felt cheap including the absolutely awful ride on some parts of the ECML.

I'm no fan of the Sophia (80x without them can of course now be experienced on Lumo and Avanti), but British Rail did not ever in my eyes make what I would genuinely call a good hauled coach, aside from possibly the International. I get the bigger loading gauge has some effect, but things like the Eurofima coaches were massively, massively better in just about every way possible.

 

[Milo T.K]

Iirc theres an image of a MK4 being constructed on flickr and the thing was rusting even then. Generally I'd say tho ride quality isn't too bad tho way better than an 800 by miles. I dread to think what the new CAF units will be like....

 

[Harpo]

Train seating, increasingly worse, car seating increasingly better especially for those opting for the extra space of a Seriously Ugly Vehicle (SUV).

With rail reliability reduced to the same or worse levels as so many infamous bottlenecks (A34, M6, M25 etc..) the choice is inevitable.

 

[Steve14]

What are the thoughts around the comfortability of the Cl 373 Eurostar seating? I’ve never travelled on one but they look really comfy. Perhaps that level of comfort should be adopted for Intercity routes? Essentially if you’re trying to take a person away from their car and get them travelling on a train over long distance, surely the level of comfort and the benefits must outweigh the driving aspect?

 

[mike57]

What are the thoughts around the comfortability of the Cl 373 Eurostar seating

Certainly better than the current 80x offerings. Its a few years since I've been on one, most recent trips have been cl 374 which benefit from a more generous loading gauge, but they never made me think "I wish I wasn't sat here". If the standard class seating seating in the LNER Azumas was similar there would certainly be less cause to complain.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Certainly better than the current 80x offerings. Its a few years since I've been on one, most recent trips have been cl 374 which benefit from a more generous loading gauge, but they never made me think "I wish I wasn't sat here". If the standard class seating seating in the LNER Azumas was similar there would certainly be less cause to complain.

The actual seats are good (particularly good is the foldable-out extra underthigh support for tall people) but the tables for 4 are of a poor design, blocking legroom.

 

[Mikey C]

My opinion is that whereas 50 years ago there was a yawning quality gap between "Inter-city" trains and local/commuter trains, the gap closed significantly in the early 2000s, so that the commuter stock was much better while the Intercity trains have got less comfortable.

 

[Steve14]

Certainly better than the current 80x offerings. Its a few years since I've been on one, most recent trips have been cl 374 which benefit from a more generous loading gauge, but they never made me think "I wish I wasn't sat here". If the standard class seating seating in the LNER Azumas was similar there would certainly be less cause to complain.

Agreed, the ironing board seats doesn’t do any justice period let alone having passengers sit on them for 3-4 hours. It’s a joke. I get the fact that capacity needs to be maximised, but comfort shouldn’t be compromised. They’ve taken a leaf out of the underground book of cramming everyone in regardless of how comfy or uncomfy people are.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They’ve taken a leaf out of the underground book of cramming everyone in regardless of how comfy or uncomfy people are.

Except they haven't really - the legroom in the 80x is one of the best on the network - the thin backs have instead been used to allow more space. Same with the Pendolino refurb.

I'd rather have a hard seat than one where my knees are forced painfully into the back of the seat in front or to play kneesie at a table.

Of course the way to do it is to have a thin but supportive back and a thick base, because it's the latter where your weight goes - this is what TfW have done with their Sophia variant, and is also quite common on aircraft.

 

[43096]

Hard disagree. Mk3s started the rot of misalignment, the IC70 seat was dire (particularly the fixed armrests), the lighting glaring and poorly diffused, the ride was busy with a lot of swaying and an almighty bang whenever anything passed and the aircon (by the 90s at least) was unreliable at best. Plus slam doors when they could have been sliding and the constand banging back and forth of vestibule doors.

The Mk3b first class coach was OK (better seats than the originals and better-diffused lighting), but the Standard wasn't at all. Similarly the 442 was many things the Mk3 should have been in Standard.

You keep posting this as if it is fact. It doesn't matter how many times you post it (and it is a lot), it's an opinion. And one that is so very obviously wrong.

The Mk4 as built was junk built down to a price with extremely poor, cheap regional style seating. A combination of the GNER fitted frames and the VTEC fitted softer two-piece cushion (the least said about the awful GNER single-piece one the better) made them quite nice in the later years, though they still felt cheap including the absolutely awful ride on some parts of the ECML.

I'm no fan of the Sophia (80x without them can of course now be experienced on Lumo and Avanti), but British Rail did not ever in my eyes make what I would genuinely call a good hauled coach, aside from possibly the International. I get the bigger loading gauge has some effect, but things like the Eurofima coaches were massively, massively better in just about every way possible.

As bad as the Mark 4 may have been as built, it is still streets ahead of the 80x fleets. Hitachi's contraption is dire. And we now know that the ride quality doesn't meet the contracted specification.

 

[Mikey C]

Except they haven't really - the legroom in the 80x is one of the best on the network - the thin backs have instead been used to allow more space. Same with the Pendolino refurb.

I'd rather have a hard seat than one where my knees are forced painfully into the back of the seat in front or to play kneesie at a table.

Of course the way to do it is to have a thin but supportive back and a thick base, because it's the latter where your weight goes - this is what TfW have done with their Sophia variant, and is also quite common on aircraft.

Unlike some stock, e.g. the 158s where the seats ARE crammed in, the IETs have very generous legroom, far more than the Mk3s, but ruined the passenger experience with such lousy seats.

And poor quality ones as well, for the bar to be poking through the seat cushion so quickly.

 

[Tetragon213]

Agreed, the ironing board seats doesn’t do any justice period let alone having passengers sit on them for 3-4 hours. It’s a joke. I get the fact that capacity needs to be maximised, but comfort shouldn’t be compromised. They’ve taken a leaf out of the underground book of cramming everyone in regardless of how comfy or uncomfy people are.

If they'd just fit even a modicum of actual functional padding on the seats, there would be far fewer complaints about the seats.

As it stands, the current seats feel like something from the medieval era.

 

[irish_rail]

The IET seating is fine in theory. I actually prefer it to what is fitted to the Avanti 805s due to the horrible "wings" fitted to that fleet. It is the seat base and complete loss of padding on the GWR and LNER sets meaning you sit directly on the metal bar that is the issue. Is it possible to replace just the base and not the whole seat I wonder?

 

[gabrielhj07]

And we now know that the ride quality doesn't meet the contracted specification.

Officially? Or just an assumption because they won't say?

 

[43096]

Officially? Or just an assumption because they won't say?

Well, if you read Modern Railways it has the full story.

But in short Roger Ford submitted an FOI request about compliance with the ride quality levels in the IET specification. DfT declined to release the data saying that it was prejudicial to the commercial interests of Hitachi. With impeccable logic Roger Ford notes that the only way it could be prejudicial to Hitachi would be if the train didn't meet the specification. QED.

 

[AJDesiro]

Officially? Or just an assumption because they won't say?

There was an article written by Roger Ford in the latest issue of Modern Railways.

 

[Richard Scott]

Hard disagree. Mk3s started the rot of misalignment, the IC70 seat was dire (particularly the fixed armrests), the lighting glaring and poorly diffused, the ride was busy with a lot of swaying and an almighty bang whenever anything passed and the aircon (by the 90s at least) was unreliable at best. Plus slam doors when they could have been sliding and the constand banging back and forth of vestibule doors.

What mk3s have you been on that ride so badly? I've not been on anything in the UK that gets close to as good as a mk3 in recent years. They ride an awful lot better than many trains, UK or abroad.

 

[signed]

What are the thoughts around the comfortability of the Cl 373 Eurostar seating?

The pre-refurb ones were miles ahead, comfy soft seats. The new ones (same as on 374) are meh, but the ride quality is extremely good. It's more sofa-like than seat like

They were the same seats as used on the TGVs of the time, they are still in the older TGV Duplex gens, Ouigo Spain, and amusingly on the Enterprise DD sets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What mk3s have you been on that ride so badly?

WCML ones, but the GWML ride was also very "busy" to me with a lot of swaying.

 

[superalbs]

The pre-refurb ones were miles ahead, comfy soft seats. The new ones (same as on 374) are meh, but the ride quality is extremely good.

They were the same seats as used on the TGVs of the time, they are still in the older TGV Duplex gens, and amusingly on the Enterprise DD sets

They are not at all similar. Both the new 373 seats and 374 seats are very good, though I'd say the 374 seats take the edge.

 

[gabrielhj07]

There was an article written by Roger Ford in the latest issue of Modern Railways.

There was, but Mr Ford went to great lengths to explain that his conclusion was based on the unsatisfactory response to his FOI request, rather than any actual data.

 

[Transilien]

What about TPE mark 5s? How was the comfort on those carriages for people who managed to ride them?

 

[gabrielhj07]

What about TPE mark 5s? How was the comfort on those carriages for people who managed to ride them?

Firm, I would say.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What about TPE mark 5s? How was the comfort on those carriages for people who managed to ride them?

Ride: typical CAF i.e. a bit rough.
Standard: pretty rubbish, like a 397 but with tiny windows and poor views. Too many tables and not enough airline seats. Fainsa Sophia seats so had they stayed in service they would have eventually developed the metal bar problem.
First: extremely good, probably the best UK First Class I've experienced, good seats and decent view. Felt like a European First Class to me.

 

[mike57]

What about TPE mark 5s? How was the comfort on those carriages for people who managed to ride them?

I had quite a few journeys on them including a good few between Scarborough and Manchester, all standard class.

I realise 'comfort' is a personal thing, but to me ride wise they were very 'jittery', Ride not as bad as 80x but nowhere near as good as the best. Seats were hard, and I suspect would have ended up being dire. With more tables you didn't feel as hemmed in, but window alignment as always the issue.

Power/USB socket location rubbish, to plug something in the person next to you would need to move.

General feel was 'cheap', I know its subjective but overall I couldn't see them surving in service without some major work. Odd creaks and clicks from everything right from the start.

Noise wise a big improvement on 185s, obviously with no engine under the floor.

Doors at ends with vestibules more suitable for the limited stop inter city service that TPE should be running, but then when TPE started stopping at all the small stations as well dwell times become an issue. A complete disaster as soon as loading results in standing passengers.

From the off reliability seemed to be an issue, faults were common, with doors being one of the areas that I personally witnessed failing. Got tipped out in York.

Overall verdict, better than LNER Azumas, but not by much...

 

[physics34]

The Mk3s did start the trend for misaligning seats and windows - they use a common bodyshell for 1st and 2nd class and as built the bays aligned for 1st class but not for 2nd. The whole issue of seat design has been a hot topic now for a number of years. On one hand, the safety requirements for seats nowadays are much more onerous than the days of bench seats stuffed with horsehair - both fire retardant and crash behaviour characteristics (for the occupant or someone thrown against the seat) are tightly defined; unfortunately then you have the bean counters at the DfT who assigned minimal value to comfort and pushed for the cheapest seats that meet these standards.
There's been enough of a backlash to make everyone think twice but of course once the trains are built and in service it's not easy or cheap to remedy, and in the current financial situation we're all stuck with them for the foreseeable future.
I'll let other s comment on ride quality - there I don't think the relationship of time and comfort is so linear, 'good' and 'bad' riding being very interdependent on track alignment and quality as well as bogie design.

To fit more contoured thicker cushions wouldn't be particularly expensive when all things are considered. Something has to be done. And of course softer seating is almost secondary suspension.

 

[43096]

To fit more contoured thicker cushions wouldn't be particularly expensive when all things are considered. Something has to be done. And of course softer seating is almost secondary suspension.

Tertiary! There’s already primary and secondary suspension, although granted you could be forgiven thinking that was not the case with some trains.

 

[Richard Scott]

WCML ones, but the GWML ride was also very "busy" to me with a lot of swaying.

If a mk3 is busy I hate to think what you'd call an IET.
I would never call the ride of a mk3 busy, always found them very good and have ridden on many over many years.