HS2 trains - Interior design

[VioletEclipse]

Width dictates just two things we couldn't match - seat and aisle width. It has no effect at all on overall quality of materials and comfort levels aside the simple width. Indeed the seats are often the same width as in the UK, they just go for a wider aisle.

The extra aisle width on German trains is very welcome espescially on busy services, however it's something that's impossible on this island unless there's a concerted effort to change the loading guage, which simply won't ever happen.

I personally like the ScotRail HST and Inverness 158 seats. They are fairly modern and are not over or under padded in my opinion.

Agreed, the ScotRail 158 seats are among the best in my opinion.

Although I do now have the image of a 158 on the high speed line, which is hilarious but despite being 'express' sprinters I believe they can't quite reach 360kmh.

 

[mad_rich]

Apologies if this has already been covered - if so, I can't see it.

Are these mockups for the captive sets, or the classic-compatible? Or both?

 

[Nottingham59]

Are these mockups for the captive sets, or the classic-compatible? Or both?

They're classic compatible. No captive sets have been ordered, and are unlikely to be until they build phase 2

 

[Goldfish62]

I personally like the ScotRail HST and Inverness 158 seats. They are fairly modern and are not over or under padded in my opinion.

Grammer IC3000. You will also find them on the Austrian and Czech Railways Railjets.

 

[43096]

Grammer IC3000. You will also find them on the Austrian and Czech Railways Railjets.

And the object of the dreams of @Bletchleyite !

 

[Bletchleyite]

And the object of the dreams of @Bletchleyite !

I don't know, I think the new Pendolino seat slightly beats it. Very similar shape but a slightly nicer angle.

 

[Goldfish62]

I don't know, I think the new Pendolino seat slightly beats it. Very similar shape but a slightly nicer angle.

A nice seat indeed. Good shape and excellent angle. It just needs to be a bit softer.

 

[RailWonderer]

Grammer IC3000. You will also find them on the Austrian and Czech Railways Railjets.

I prefer this seat style for comfort and for the important footrest beneath the rear of the seat. The only issue I imagine over here would be the thick double armrests but as a first class seat it's perfect. In Norway through they are the standard class seat on the Stadler class 74.

This is an OBB Raijet but the Norwegian Class 74s also have this seat, albeit with a cloth moquette.
Nothing beats the Swedish X2000 seats however (left: post refurbishment, gives passengers more legroom, right: pre refurbishment)

I'm not sure why we need a bespoke seat for HS2 rather than purchasing one from Europe. Neither the new X2000 seat or the Railjet/VY Class 74 seat would be too large for our loading guage and they meet EU regulations which certainly means they will meet our regs.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I prefer this seat style for comfort and for the important footrest beneath the rear of the seat. The only issue I imagine over here would be the thick double armrests but as a first class seat it's perfect. In Norway through they are the standard class seat on the Stadler class 74.
View attachment 167866
This is an OBB Raijet but the Norwegian Class 74s also have this seat, albeit with a cloth moquette.
Nothing beats the Swedish X2000 seats however (left: post refurbishment, gives passengers more legroom, right: pre refurbishment)
View attachment 167867View attachment 167868
I'm not sure why we need a bespoke seat for HS2 rather than purchasing one from Europe. Neither the new X2000 seat or the Railjet/VY Class 74 seat would be too large for our loading guage and they meet EU regulations which certainly means they will meet our regs.

Are you sure those X2000 images are post and pre refurbishment, or are they just second and first class?

 

[superalbs]

Are you sure those X2000 images are post and pre refurbishment, or are they just second and first class?

Yes, they are after and before.

 

[RailWonderer]

Are you sure those X2000 images are post and pre refurbishment, or are they just second and first class?

Yes, left is second post refurb, right is first pre refurb but both are equally comfortable.
The link below gives the whole gallery of images (the 2nd class is 2+2 and the quiet zone part is shown, which uses a near identical seat).

TESTAT | Nya X 2000 och 1 klass i SJ:s återvunna trotjänare

SJ rullar ut allt fler nya X 2000 och jag har testat tåget i 1 klass mellan Stockholm och Göteborg. Här är en komplett genomgång av hela resan!

www.upplevelsebloggen.se

 

[Rhydgaled]

They say they want the most comfortable train and then they pick an existing seat that, whilst not an ironing board, isn’t great…

You could probably have finished your post at "existing seat" really; since new seats on new and refurbished trains in GB seem to range from diabolical (the Northern and Thameslink 'ironing board') to 'not great'.

People seem to like the refurbished Pendolino’s seats, from what I’ve read, so hopefully that will bode well.

Really? I prefer the original seats

I've only had one trip on a refurbished Pendolino, but the seats were one of the few good things about them before the refurb - the new ones (in common with everything else) seem to be quite a bit harder.

Except we didn't, did we? The IET fleet is very expensive - around 1/3 more than a Pendolino from memory (inflation adjusted) - yet somehow we'd been landed with a "cheap" product. Worst of all words, and a fine example of why civil servants should never be allowed to run projects such as IEP.

I thought IEP (ie. class 800 and 801) was expensive because it included a complicated 27.5 year 'rolling stock as a service' deal where the supplier provided diagrams rather than trains (are the class 802s, which if I understood correctly were ordered conventionally, also expensive compared to a Pendo?). Interestingly I believe the IEP first class seats are 'Fainsa MD' with the letters standing for 'Medium Distance'. If even first class are only getting a medium-distance product, I wonder what market Fainsa intended the standard class seats (Fainsa Sophia) to be aimed at?

I am not saying the whole product is "cheap", but the seating is. Better seats could have been specified but they would have added to the cost.

Could better seats have been specified though? A few TOCs now have tried to design a better seat to suplant the 'Sophia' and 'ironing board' but those I have sat on have disapointed. Perhaps there is some truth in the rumour that hard seats are now mandatory due to PRM requirements after all.

I personally like the ScotRail HST and Inverness 158 seats. They are fairly modern and are not over or under padded in my opinion.

I believe those are the Grammer IC3000 seats which can also be found on TfW class 158s and possibly any Castle HSTs that GWR still has left (the ScotRail Inter7City HSTs retain the seats FirstGW fitted I think). They are probably my favourite 'modern' seats (particularly the TfW/ATW version, which seem to have a slightly softer headrest but I think are otherwise the same). Unfortunately, I'm not sure if they still meet the necessary regulations for new installations, since I don't think they have appear in any new or refurbished fleet for a good while now and didn't TPE claim that the Fainsa Sophia was the only authorised standard class seat for their Nova fleets at the time?

GWR 158 seats would be nice.

Agreed. The legroom is appalling, not helped by the very deep seat backs and overall I find the seats rather small. Comfortable enough, but certainly not a premium design!

Are these the seats you are talking about (my photo, taken on a Northern 158 a good few years back)? If so, they are massively softer than even the Grammer IC3000, let alone the current concrete offerings. In all my GB rail holidays, those class 158 seats are probably the only thing that compares to the 3-CIG slammer on the Lymington branch for nice, soft, seats (although I think I've only managed to sample refurbished examples of IC70 seats, so maybe the likes of Chiltern and EMT replaced the padding with a much-harder foam compared to whatever BR used). I would agree that the class 158 seats offer poor legroom; but the bodyshell doesn't help, with nine windows in probably less space than a mark 4 coach has eight the seats wouldn't align with the windows otherwise. I would like to try the seats from that Northern 158 in something with bigger windows at the 84cm seat pitch of a class 175 and see what the legroom is like then.

The original concept was that there would be 2 HS2 ‘sets‘ coupled together potentially splitting to serve 2 destinations. As no platforms have been constructed as yet on HS2 & most trains will now run on existing lines has any consideration been given to train lengths?
I see press comment that there will be less seats available London - Manchester because a HS2 ‘set‘ has less seats than a pendolino. Surely a ‘set’ could be made the same length as a Pendolino. Then existing non HS2 stations can accommodate the maximum seats Without further platform alteration.

Personally, I think the HS2 fleet should be comprised of 'classic compatible' sets the same length as an 11-car Pendolino. If it ever reaches Manchester, then they should build some fixed-formation 400m 'captive' sets, probably double-deck, to suplement the fleet but at no point should they plan to run sets (of either type) in multiple. If multiple working ever happens it should only be because something failed and the other set came to rescue it, or other unplanned disruption. Portion working should be ruled out.

 

[Yew]

I get the feeling that the HS2 trains will just be faster IETs really considering they are basically Hitachi trains built in a joint venture with Bombardier (now Alstom).

Hmm, It's worth remembering that these trains might have Hitachi branding, but they're mostly of Alstom/Bombardier DNA, being the "Zefiro" model, that was required to be sold off under competition laws as part of the Alstom/Bombardier merger.
They are evolutions of the Zefiro 300 design, which is are the "Frecciarossa 1000" trains operated by Trenitalia. I had a ride on one about 18 months ago, from Lyon to Paris, and it seemed well built, and rode fairly competently.

 

[superalbs]

I thought IEP (ie. class 800 and 801) was expensive because it included a complicated 27.5 year 'rolling stock as a service' deal where the supplier provided diagrams rather than trains (are the class 802s, which if I understood correctly were ordered conventionally, also expensive compared to a Pendo?). Interestingly I believe the IEP first class seats are 'Fainsa MD' with the letters standing for 'Medium Distance'. If even first class are only getting a medium-distance product, I wonder what market Fainsa intended the standard class seats (Fainsa Sophia) to be aimed at?

Originally, they were marketed as "commuter" and "regional", but very recently they have developed a new version with "exceptional comfort" specifically for "intercity".

That's their choice of words, not mine. I sat on it, and it wasn't very good at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could better seats have been specified though? A few TOCs now have tried to design a better seat to suplant the 'Sophia' and 'ironing board' but those I have sat on have disapointed. Perhaps there is some truth in the rumour that hard seats are now mandatory due to PRM requirements after all.

It's not and never was PRM related (and your post is the first suggestion I've ever seen of that). It is/was fire regulations - suitably fire retardant foam for the application is quite expensive.

 

[Yew]

The original concept was that there would be 2 HS2 ‘sets‘ coupled together potentially splitting to serve 2 destinations. As no platforms have been constructed as yet on HS2 & most trains will now run on existing lines has any consideration been given to train lengths?
I see press comment that there will be less seats available London - Manchester because a HS2 ‘set‘ has less seats than a pendolino. Surely a ‘set’ could be made the same length as a Pendolino. Then existing non HS2 stations can accommodate the maximum seats Without further platform alteration.

I must admit, whilst I'm a fan of "splitting sets" for sub 100mph stock with corridor connections, I don't think it's the right call for high-speed operations. Nosecones and crumple-zones eat into seating space too much, and catering facilities have to be a) duplicated and b) often significantly reduced in scope.

 

[superalbs]

It's not and never was PRM related (and your post is the first suggestion I've ever seen of that). It is/was fire regulations - suitably fire retardant foam for the application is quite expensive.

Do we know the exact name of the regulation that is supposedly to blame?

 

[Rhydgaled]

I must admit, whilst I'm a fan of "splitting sets" for sub 100mph stock with corridor connections, I don't think it's the right call for high-speed operations. Nosecones and crumple-zones eat into seating space too much, and catering facilities have to be a) duplicated and b) often significantly reduced in scope.

This. Also, any passengers who initially board the wrong section have to get off again (and risk missing the train) in order to move to the correct portion, whereas with something like a 158 or 444 they can just walk through while the combined train is still moving.

Originally, they were marketed as "commuter" and "regional", but very recently they have developed a new version with "exceptional comfort" specifically for "intercity".

That's their choice of words, not mine. I sat on it, and it wasn't very good at all.

Is what TfW have on the 197s the 'intercity version' of the Sophia or are all Sophias currently deployed in the UK the commuter/regional product?

Could better seats have been specified though? A few TOCs now have tried to design a better seat to suplant the 'Sophia' and 'ironing board' but those I have sat on have disapointed. Perhaps there is some truth in the rumour that hard seats are now mandatory due to PRM requirements after all.

It's not and never was PRM related (and your post is the first suggestion I've ever seen of that). It is/was fire regulations - suitably fire retardant foam for the application is quite expensive.

Fire retardant foam might be expensive, but if it's expensive then at least it does exist. I used the word 'rumour' for the PRM issue because I wasn't sure I could remember where I read it. However, I have now found the source again - it was in fact this document (Rail Delivery Group KTR-v6). While it doesn't exactly say that hard seats are mandatory, it does say "The PRM TSI requires compliance at all times. Any seat sagging can reduce height or pitch contravening this legal requirement. This should be considered in the design" (page 179).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fire retardant foam might be expensive, but if it's expensive then at least it does exist. I used the word 'rumour' for the PRM issue because I wasn't sure I could remember where I read it. However, I have now found the source again - it was in fact this document (Rail Delivery Group KTR-v6). While it doesn't exactly say that hard seats are mandatory, it does say "The PRM TSI requires compliance at all times. Any seat sagging can reduce height or pitch contravening this legal requirement. This should be considered in the design" (page 179).

Thanks. It would certainly be cheaper to comply with that using thinner material. Though one could also comply by having a higher base.

Do we know if TfW's adapted Sophia with a very thick base (about 5cm I think) complies or if it has a derogation?

 

[takno]

Fire retardant foam might be expensive, but if it's expensive then at least it does exist. I used the word 'rumour' for the PRM issue because I wasn't sure I could remember where I read it. However, I have now found the source again - it was in fact this document (Rail Delivery Group KTR-v6). While it doesn't exactly say that hard seats are mandatory, it does say "The PRM TSI requires compliance at all times. Any seat sagging can reduce height or pitch contravening this legal requirement. This should be considered in the design" (page 179).

I think the PRM aspect of this is unlikely to be a very significant factor, since the height of the seat can be raised slightly to accommodate height with sagging, and the variation in pitch between IET and more recent trains suggests that the pitch requirement isn't hugely problematic.

The problem is more likely to be the recommendation that back pad compression should be between 1cm and 1.75cm, and the seat between 2 and 3.5cm. That isn't even close to comfort.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem is more likely to be the recommendation that back pad compression should be between 1cm and 1.75cm, and the seat between 2 and 3.5cm. That isn't even close to comfort.

Disagree. Too much compression means an unsupportive seat. It needs to be more like a car seat or office chair (both of which are designed for sitting in one position for a long time and are so supportive and don't compress that deeply), not your sofa.

 

[greyman42]

Disagree. Too much compression means an unsupportive seat. It needs to be more like a car seat or office chair (both of which are designed for sitting in one position for a long time and are so supportive and don't compress that deeply), not your sofa.

I would be more than happy to have train seats designed like a sofa. Surely sofa's are meant to be sat on for long periods?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Hmm, It's worth remembering that these trains might have Hitachi branding, but they're mostly of Alstom/Bombardier DNA, being the "Zefiro" model, that was required to be sold off under competition laws as part of the Alstom/Bombardier merger.
They are evolutions of the Zefiro 300 design, which is are the "Frecciarossa 1000" trains operated by Trenitalia. I had a ride on one about 18 months ago, from Lyon to Paris, and it seemed well built, and rode fairly competently.

I think you might mean Ansaldo rather than Alstom in terms of DNA. Hitachi bought out Ansaldo.
I can imagine the dynamics of the Zefiro passing to the HS2 model, but the interior will probably be quite different.
Bombardier provided the traction for Zefiro, it's more likely to be Hitachi (ie Japanese) electrics for HS2, but who knows at this stage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would be more than happy to have train seats designed like a sofa. Surely sofa's are meant to be sat on for long periods?

Sofas are awful for anyone with any kind of back problem.

 

[takno]

Sofas are awful for anyone with any kind of back problem.

I have a kind of back problem, and yet sofas rarely present me with any significant difficultly. Non-compressive surfaces, particularly poorly-raked ones or ones with lumbar support in the wrong places are fairly catastrophic.

 

[D6975]

Sofas are awful for anyone with any kind of back problem.

I have a back problem, but a sofa has never caused me any problems. IET seats however cause pain for me. On a trip to London from Bristol I was in considerable pain by Swindon and by Didcot I had to get up and stand for a while. Since then I have been using Megabus to get to London because their seats are very good. Sadly Megabus are quitting all their services that run completely within England so I'm now looking at National Express to get me to London.

 

[takno]

I have a back problem, but a sofa has never caused me any problems. IET seats however cause pain for me. On a trip to London from Bristol I was in considerabe pain by Swindon and by Didcot I had to get up and stand for a while. Since then I have been using Megabus to get to London because their seats are very good. Sadly Megabus are quitting all their services that run completely within England so I'm now looking at National Express to get me to London.

FWIW Flixbus run loads of services from Bristol to London. I'd rate the seats as much the same. I also usually find coach seats more comfortable - a bit narrow and the legroom is poor, but they mostly seem to have been designed with humans in mind.

 

[thomalex]

in comparison, the latest ICE design is here: https://www.nose.ch/en/transportation-design/db-fernverkehr/

Showing that we continue, as always, the tradition of shooting ourselves in the foot again. Just think how good the IETs could have been had we had at least some touches and flair of the DB / Siemens ICE fleets, let alone our next Flagship high speed project.

Those seats look absolutely appalling however. A literal board to sit on

 

[greyman42]

Sofas are awful for anyone with any kind of back problem.

Surely the seats should be designed for comfort and not for a minority of people.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely the seats should be designed for comfort and not for a minority of people.

Desk chairs, which are designed to similar principles, are comfortable for 8+ hours a day, that's the point of them really. Most people who work in offices sit in desk chairs for more of the day than they do a sofa.