Not as nice as the 444s, but the 2+2 Southeastern 375s are to me a significant improvement in comfort over the slam door trains they replaced. For some reason later Electrostars went down the ironing board path.
Probably something where DfT’s bean counters proudly saved ninepence per seat, whereas railway managers of old would have considered the revenue to be generated by increased comfort and ambience.
always interesting when the 'experts' start with comments like this and what , pray tell did the s build specification say about surface preparation before painting ?
as others have pointed out seating is tertiary suspension in the majority of railway vehicles, which means we can view this comment in context ...
before we go any further , what is your view on HS2 ?
Which is why they are so comfortable.
And is a problem if someone is sat there.
Correct.
Do the Velaro D used internationally contain those adjustments? They ride just fine on the LGV Est Européenne
I would say the 444 seats are not soft enough for long distance. A bit of numb bum on a 2hr journey. I do like the ambience them though.
To be honest I thought the 444s were a step backwards compared to the 442s.
Other than the diesel noise (which isn't too bad really) I find the Chiltern 168s much nicer than the 390s.
The Turbostar seats are quite comfortable for inter-city journeys compared to most modern seats.
I only know for sure that the Velaro Novo has this issue rectified - the Velaro D still has problems on the ballast track, and the solution on the LGV Est was to lower the level of ballast to accommodate them - mostly to solve ballast flight problems but ride-quality was a minor factor. Overall though they do ride fairly okay on the LGV Est, especially in comparison to HS1 - It is sort of the same infrastructure, and pretty much the same train, so the slab track probably only tells part of the story
I used to moan about harder seats and look back with fondness at the well padded and well sprung seats of the Mk1 based stock which (at 40) I’m still old enough to remember travelling on into the early 2000s (First North Western North Wales Coast, Yorkshire Metro, South West Trains).
It would be nice to think so, but the reality is it has more to do with the bean counters 'saving' a few pounds per seat.
Pretty sure It shouldn't have corroded in build but ok. Even at the time comparing to BREL stock it didn't have that amount of brown spots of rust on the body
You cannot (rightfully) present that as an objective fact. I for one wholeheartedly disagree, and I'm sure there will be others who do also.
There’s also plenty who would agree with @co-tr-paul
Yes I’m well aware, but he presented the opinion as if it were a given.
Erm, pass!
It’s most definitely a given that on-train comfort has gone into reverse, whether that’s seating, window size or the curse of engine noise under every vehicle. (Mk2 trumps IEP on all of those.)
Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude is “some people don’t like them, so we shouldn’t have them at all!”
That is a subjective view, even if you are travelling as a group of six or eight people. A visit to a preserved railway is enough to show that people are put off entering an already occupied compartment depending on who is already in there, and that the view out can be terrible from the corridor seats.
On preserved lines the corridor ‘view’ is usually the rear of sagging XXL Tesco jeans being forced south by two waxing moons.
They are increasingly disappearing on the mainland, too.