Is the Fainsa Sophia the right seat for the CAF Class 197 for TfW? If not, what is?

[Bletchleyite]

Creating this to continue the discussion of the Sophia rather than clog up the 197 thread.

So is it the right choice? Or would something else have been preferable?

 

[43096]

Fainsa Sophias are never the right choice. FISA Lean, as fitted to Greater Anglia FLIRTs, is massively superior and would be my choice.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fainsa Sophias are never the right choice. FISA Lean, as fitted to Greater Anglia FLIRTs, is massively superior and would be my choice.

Can't disagree there! (This might be a short thread!)

Are the 1st seats the Fainsas from the 80x?

 

[Halish Railway]

Are the 1st seats the Fainsas from the 80x?

I’m just speculating here, but I’d guess that it’d be the first class seats found on the 385s.

 

[superalbs]

I’m just speculating here, but I’d guess that it’d be the first class seats found on the 385s.

But that's what's used in second, seems daft to use the exact same seat, but there we go lol!

 

[py_megapixel]

Fainsa Sophias are never the right choice. FISA Lean, as fitted to Greater Anglia FLIRTs, is massively superior and would be my choice.

My knee-jerk response would be the same, but considering the circumstances (it's rumoured that TfW were already locked into a contract with Fainsa when the decision was made to go with the Sophia) I'd say they made the best of a bad situation.

Yes, the seats are unsuitable, but given the situation, were they the wrong choice? I don't necessarily think so.

 

[43096]

Can't disagree there! (This might be a short thread!)

Are the 1st seats the Fainsas from the 80x?

On that second point, I don’t know.

I’ll be interested to see what the modified Leans in the EMR 810s are like. Ian Walmsley is optimistic about them in the current Modern Railways.

 

[irish_rail]

Unfortunately the Fainsa Sophia is the ultimate in discrimination. Fine if you are average height and weight, but blooming awful if you are tall, short, fat or thin! Completely inappropriate on intercity services. OK for trips of less than 20 minutes....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately the Fainsa Sophia is the ultimate in discrimination. Fine if you are average height and weight, but blooming awful if you are tall, short, fat or thin! Completely inappropriate on intercity services. OK for trips of less than 20 minutes....

The only appropriate use for it I've seen so far is the TfW trams.

 

[irish_rail]

On that second point, I don’t know.

I’ll be interested to see what the modified Leans in the EMR 810s are like. Ian Walmsley is optimistic about them in the current Modern Railways.

Just a shame they will be used on relatively short journeys, whilst the true intercity passenger will need to continue to make do with Sophias. If only there was still a British Rail type body that could allocate stock appropriately, putting the better seating on long distance trains, and the lesser seating on the sub 2 hour journeys......

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just a shame they will be used on relatively short journeys, whilst the true intercity passenger will need to continue to make do with Sophias. If only there was still a British Rail type body that could allocate stock appropriately, putting the better seating on long distance trains, and the lesser seating on the sub 2 hour journeys......

While the MML is one of the shorter IC routes, London to Nottingham/Sheffield is certainly IC.

 

[Philip]

I don't know anything about this type of seat, but the 'hard and uncomfortable' seats people go on about are there for a reason - to offer good back/posture support and so help prevent back problems. That's more important than having seats which are soft, thick, cushy and prevent your backside from aching after a while!

A good example of this is the Pennine 185 replacing the TPE 158s; the latter had softer and more cushy seats, but the 185 seats were firmer and much better for back support.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't know anything about this type of seat, but the 'hard and uncomfortable' seats people go on about are there for a reason - to offer good back/posture support and so help prevent back problems. That's more important than having seats which are soft, thick, cushy and prevent your backside from aching after a while!

I'd suggest sitting on one. The primary problem with it is not that it's hard* - actually in some ways the opposite - the base is so thin and inadequately supportive so you can, if heavy enough, feel the seat's framework through the base. If it wasn't for that I'd probably quite like it, as it's otherwise very similar to the Grammer E3000 "Desiro seat". I find the "wings" also a bit low down but I do accept this is a compromise and I'm not only tall but quite long-bodied so this probably affects others less than my specific shape. As all applications of the seat so far have excellent legroom (all the 80x, basically) this can be worked around by slouching a bit, though if TfW's legroom isn't up to the job then that's an extra issue.

There is no phrase for this base frame issue but "cheap rubbish".

It is possible however that TfW have specified a better base cushion, as this issue doesn't exist on the two First Class applications of the seat I know, namely the Thameslink 700s and the ScotRail 385s, but I'm not that optimistic.

* I actually like "ironing board" seats. Yes, even the older, cheaper non-contoured version used by Southern - I've done 2 hours on Electrostars fitted with them from East Croydon to Bletchley and not found them an issue. But while they do have a very hard base, it actually has something under it so you can't feel the framework under your thigh.

 

[Irascible]

That's another set of rail routes going on my "avoid - take the car" list then. I couldn't id a seat if you showed me one but I'm pretty sure I know these from the description...

That's more important than having seats which are soft, thick, cushy and prevent your backside from aching after a while!

Ah yes, modern thinking. Legs may not function by the time you need to get off, but at least your back is the right shape! that's assuming you haven't spent the journey contorted into increasingly unergonomic shapes in an attempt to avoid cramp & other orthopaedic issues. Or you padded the seat with clothing & made it's shape into a nightmare & destroyed any semblance of legroom.

 

[irish_rail]

While the MML is one of the shorter IC routes, London to Nottingham/Sheffield is certainly IC.

Agreed, but BR would take a look at London to Nottingham and London to Penzance and no doubt decide the better seating should go on the 5 hour trip, not the 90 minute one, that's my point.

 

[py_megapixel]

That's another set of rail routes going on my "avoid - take the car" list then. I couldn't id a seat if you showed me one but I'm pretty sure I know these from the description...

They're the same ones on the Great Western 800s and 802s, if that means anything to you? (I was assuming that as your profile says "South-West" you've probably at least seen them if not been on one)

 

[Irascible]

They're the same ones on the Great Western 800s and 802s, if that means anything to you? (I was assuming that as your profile says "South-West" you've probably at least seen them if not been on one)

Yes, thought so - lovely

 

[Devonian]

'hard and uncomfortable' seats people go on about are there for a reason - to offer good back/posture support and so help prevent back problems. That's more important than having seats which are soft, thick, cushy and prevent your backside from aching after a while

This is a brilliant argument for hard, upright seats - as long as the passenger sits bolt upright in one position for their entire journey.

The trouble is that real people move and slump and wriggle, so they aren't actually comfortable except for the times when they happen to sit in the precise position the designer intended. In particular, the angle of the back is far too upright on Sophias fitted in the 80x series for long-term seating: your head is a heavy thing, and unless you are leaning slightly backwards its centre of gravity is forward of your spine and will tend to throw your shoulders forward, which isn't comfortable at all, makes your body leave those carefully designed ergonomic contours, and causes people to slump in the seats to try to get comfy. That's been an established factor in ergonomics for years, but has been ignored in the specification for the 80x Sophias. I seem to recall that First East Coast Trains specifically mentioned an improved seat-back angle for their new fleet at one stage.

As for softness: the only part of a seat that the passenger is guaranteed to be in contact with, no matter what their shape, size and posture, is the seat, so that part really ought to have enough padding to be comfortable on the posterior, no matter what the back is made of. A layer of softer foam over a harder base foam works well as a compromise, providing softness for lighter passengers and support for passengers who, er, bring their own padding...

As a low cost seat, the Sophia might be appropriate for the more 'regional' nature of this fleet at a time when money is tight - but adjusted with a slightly more reclined back, better seat padding and less cushion shaping around the top to avoid the shoulders of long-torsoed people. All those should be possible within a contract, surely? I'll wait and see - but not hold my breath.

 

[Philip]

I suppose it's worth also considering that these trains will not be used on 'intercity' routes, only regional really. Manchester to South Wales might be a long journey, but the nature of the service is more inter-urban, with many stops en route. Yes a fair few passengers will travel between Manchester and Cardiff; some will go further or all the way, but the majority don't make these journeys and use the service for more regional journeys. Manchester to Cardiff is nothing like as big as Manchester to London, Edinburgh, Leeds and Birmingham for example.

With this in mind, the trains making these journeys don't need super comfy seats and there is an even argument to deliberately make them not too comfy to help prevent people falling asleep and missing their stop on these regional, frequent stopping services.

I think good legroom and a clean and reasonably comfy interior with good seat-window alignment are the most important things for regional express routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is a brilliant argument for hard, upright seats - as long as the passenger sits bolt upright in one position for their entire journey.

Which of course I can't in the Sophia because the "wings" are just a bit too low. It's not the first seat with that problem, though - the "winged" BR Mk2 seats were awful for that, and the Class 170 seat is very comfortable if I slouch but pushes my shoulders forwards if I sit upright. And the seat used on the Merseyrail 777s is worse still, with the base of the headrest sticking out, so it will pose a problem for most adults - a truly idiotic piece of design.

It's odd, really. If you look at it, the Sophia looks an amazingly comfortable and well-shaped seat, very similar in concept to the Grammer E3000 Desiro seat, which I've done 4 and a bit hours in on several occasions with no discomfort at all - for a budget offering (E = economy, I think) it really is very good. And that's with GWR's drab grey interior - the TfW interior on the mock-up actually looks quite luxury. As such I had great expectations of the Sophia until I first tried one. Then the dislike started

 

[DB]

Fainsa Sophias are never the right choice.

Quite!

Even the extra-padding version of ironing boards on Northern 158/195/331 are better (those are a Fainsa product too - don't know what the model name is though).

I don't know anything about this type of seat, but the 'hard and uncomfortable' seats people go on about are there for a reason - to offer good back/posture support and so help prevent back problems. That's more important than having seats which are soft, thick, cushy and prevent your backside from aching after a while!

A good example of this is the Pennine 185 replacing the TPE 158s; the latter had softer and more cushy seats, but the 185 seats were firmer and much better for back support.

The 185s had new cushions with extra padding fitted when they were refurbished a couple of years ago.

As regards decent seats, the Primarius ones (Transcal now, I believe) fitted to EC HST/Mk4 sets, and the Grammer IC3000 (GWR HSTs, etc) and E3000 (185, etc) are all fine. Don't think I've encountered the Fisa ones yet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite!

Even the extra-padding version of ironing boards on Northern 158/195/331 are better (those are a Fainsa product too - don't know what the model name is though).

It's actually a really good seat in my view. No wings, so suitable for any height. Thin back, so good legroom. Relatively upright, so good posture (slouch if you want!) Thick, contoured and sloped base, so you don't get a sore backside.

The latter makes it completely different from the flat version used on Thameslink and Southern. ScotRail use it as well, the result of which being that Standard on the 385s is markedly more comfortable than 1st (bringing it into line with LNR, then ).

It's certainly my view that TfW has been "had" - extra money for a worse seat.

The 185s had new cushions with extra padding fitted when they were refurbished a couple of years ago.

Grammer E3000 bases do tend to collapse, but even when they have they aren't *uncomfortable*.

The original Class 158 seat was a terrible piece of design. Low and steeply raked back, so if you have long lower legs your knees clout the back. Difficult to get in and out because it is so low. Central "niche" with sharp edges, so unsuitable for the male anatomy (and men are taller on average). The 175 seats make better use of the "niche" idea by having it at the sides, where mens' knees go. The Northern "Connect" refurbs have contoured-base ironing boards in the same layout, and the legroom is excellent. The original 158 seat was no doubt fine for the short-legged, but for us taller people only table seats are an option.

As regards decent seats, the Primarius ones (Transcal now, I believe) fitted to EC HST/Mk4 sets

Those actually highlight how much difference the cushion makes. GNER installed them with a single-piece, quite hard cushion that had the base sloping the wrong way - downwards towards the front - meaning no underthigh support and back pain after an hour when I tried one. VTEC then replaced them on refurb with softer two-piece cushions, and then they were quite good.

So in principle there's nowt wrong with the Sophia frame (and it has some quite good features, like the pull-out table extension for laptops), just cheapo cushions. Which means TfW could get it right, but do I trust them...?

 

[superalbs]

I don't know anything about this type of seat, but the 'hard and uncomfortable' seats people go on about are there for a reason - to offer good back/posture support and so help prevent back problems. That's more important than having seats which are soft, thick, cushy and prevent your backside from aching after a while!

A good example of this is the Pennine 185 replacing the TPE 158s; the latter had softer and more cushy seats, but the 185 seats were firmer and much better for back support.

Funny that, every other country in Europe with a modern railway seems to have it figured out...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Funny that, every other country in Europe with a modern railway seems to have it figured out...

Have they? For example, the seats on the Swiss IC2000 double deckers are so narrow that I can't put the armrest down, and the legroom is appalling.

 

[superalbs]

They're the same ones on the Great Western 800s and 802s, if that means anything to you? (I was assuming that as your profile says "South-West" you've probably at least seen them if not been on one)

Slightly different, these appear to be the 385 variant, which is still very bad, though I've not used them for more than a few minutes.

Have they? For example, the seats on the Swiss IC2000 double deckers are so narrow that I can't put the armrest down, and the legroom is appalling.

I mean with regards to hard seats that are still perfectly supportive and comfortable.

 

[Philip]

Funny that, every other country in Europe with a modern railway seems to have it figured out...

They have probably gone with the design they have so that they can make the best use of capacity; seats that take up as little space as possible, so they can fit more in.

These trains are not tailored for the long distance market, rather for commuter and medium distance leisure travel. There are tables for people with long legs who might find the airline seats too uncomfortable.

 

[DB]

They have probably gone with the design they have so that they can make the best use of capacity; seats that take up as little space as possible, so they can fit more in.

These trains are not tailored for the long distance market, rather for commuter and medium distance leisure travel. There are tables for people with long legs who might find the airline seats too uncomfortable.

Doubt it - ironing boards take up less space, and with modern seats it's more the spacing between them which makes the difference.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They have probably gone with the design they have so that they can make the best use of capacity; seats that take up as little space as possible, so they can fit more in.

These trains are not tailored for the long distance market, rather for commuter and medium distance leisure travel. There are tables for people with long legs who might find the airline seats too uncomfortable.

To be fair even with the wonderful Grammer IC3000 I don't fit the airline seats on TfW 158s. My favoured 158 is actually the Northern ironing board version as I fit all the seats.

 

[43096]

I don't know anything about this type of seat, but the 'hard and uncomfortable' seats people go on about are there for a reason - to offer good back/posture support and so help prevent back problems. That's more important than having seats which are soft, thick, cushy and prevent your backside from aching after a while!

A good example of this is the Pennine 185 replacing the TPE 158s; the latter had softer and more cushy seats, but the 185 seats were firmer and much better for back support.

Here was I thinking that the railway is there as a transport service. How wrong I was. It's actually a travelling orthopaedic service.