LNER Azuma (Class 800/801)

[800001]

Planning a trip to the States in January for 2 Weeks (via Gatwick so travelling south)can't help think the luggage space is inferior to that of the 225's, especially for larger luggage. Point shown here a weekend suitcase and a small backpack on the luggage rack.

The rucksack will easily go in overhead luggage rack, or under the seat still leaving you plenty of legroom.

 

[ainsworth74]

Joe Public simple don't like having heavy items above their heads.

We must be travelling on different trains! I've seen plenty of large and heavy items in overhead luggage racks!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Joe Public simple don't like having heavy items above their heads. Ever had a case or bag dropped on you when someone was taking down their stuff.

Joe Public really don't care, as most of Joe Public are not health and safety officers. They are just too bone-idle to put it up there.

 

[ashkeba]

Joe Public really don't care, as most of Joe Public are not health and safety officers. They are just too bone-idle to put it up there.

Or we have mobility problems that aren't always visible but make it difficult to balance on a moving train while lifting a bag above our head

 

[Darandio]

Joe Public simple don't like having heavy items above their heads. Ever had a case or bag dropped on you when someone was taking down their stuff.

We must have reached the point now where there is nothing further to complain about with these trains because it's already covered. So now we need to make stuff up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or we have mobility problems that aren't always visible but make it difficult to balance on a moving train while lifting a bag above our head

"Excuse me, but would you mind putting my bag up for me please?"

The majority of people are just being lazy, though, or are trying to save a seat by putting the bag on/in front of it.

 

[ashkeba]

"Excuse me, but would you mind putting my bag up for me please?"

Please think that through: then what happens later? I have to beg someone else to get it down for me before my stop, or risk injury if the coach has no-one (or no-one more able than me) left aboard?

The majority of people are just being lazy, though, or are trying to save a seat by putting the bag on/in front of it.

Oh yes, bags on seats are the devil, one step short of feet on seats, but there's no evidence that the majority of people don't put heavy bags onto overhead racks because they're lazy, is there? No heavy luggage space above shoulder high, please!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Please think that through: then what happens later? I have to beg someone else to get it down for me before my stop, or risk injury if the coach has no-one (or no-one more able than me) left aboard?

It's not begging, it's just asking. But anyway, if those who did not have a disability put their bags up, there'd be space for yours on the low-level rack.

Oh yes, bags on seats are the devil, one step short of feet on seats, but there's no evidence that the majority of people don't put heavy bags onto overhead racks because they're lazy, is there? No heavy luggage space above shoulder high, please!

I think there's plenty of evidence that that is the case. Most people do not have disabilities. And most bags are not that heavy, they are full of clothes, not bricks.

 

[ashkeba]

It's not begging, it's just asking.

That's not how it feels when basic services are closed off to you unaided.

But anyway, if those who did not have a disability put their bags up, there'd be space for yours on the low-level rack.

You may be right. Hard to say for sure.

I think there's plenty of evidence that that is the case. Most people do not have disabilities.

Plenty of evidence and yet for some reason, none is named.

16% of people meet the rather strict government definition of disabled (including 45% of state pensioners), plus as some cannot use some other transport, we're probably more likely than average to use the railways. Then on top of that, we can add people who aren't officially counted as disabled but can't lift a case above their head.

The main thing lazy here is the assumptions that passengers are to blame yet again.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The main thing lazy here is the assumptions that passengers are to blame yet again.

Who else is responsible for putting their bags in the right place?

 

[Starmill]

I have received a response from LNER following my short, polite email which set out that I thought that the interior on the new train I was on was much less comfortable than the usual interior for their trains.

Thank you for contacting London North Eastern Railway

I am sorry to hear about your recent experience while travelling with LNER, to Leeds.

After checking the specifications for your service, I can see that this was an Azuma (our new services). These are brand new trains that have just been released on 15th May; these will slowly be taking over the older services; making the older trains extinct.

I understand that you are unhappy with the comfort of the seats, but they are ergonomical for your posture. This means the seats support your back, for the duration of your journey and should leave your posture feeling better once you have stood up. Further to this, the padding of the seats is brand new so it will be firmer for now.

I sincerely do apologise that you find the older services to be comfier and I have recorded this in my final report.

I hope this has not hindered your thoughts of travelling with LNER again

I am bamboozled that their response is, essentially, 'you are wrong'. Instead of apologising and explaining that they have tried to please as many people as possible with the standard of comfort, they have instead implied that I am to blame for not appreciating the seat! Describing it as ergonomical for my posture is a bit patronising too.

I always think it is better to try to make ones concerns known maturely and privately by email to the company, so that they get a right of reply before being publically slammed with criticism. But if LNER's response to polite feedback is simply 'you have got this wrong, not us' then I am not so sure!

 

[ashkeba]

Who else is responsible for putting their bags in the right place?

How are they responsible for the "right place" being out of their reach?

 

[Bantamzen]

I have received a response from LNER following my short, polite email which set out that I thought that the interior on the new train I was on was much less comfortable than the usual interior for their trains.



I am bamboozled that their response is, essentially, 'you are wrong'. Instead of apologising and explaining that they have tried to please as many people as possible with the standard of comfort, they have instead implied that I am to blame for not appreciating the seat! Describing it as ergonomical for my posture is a bit patronising too.

I always think it is better to try to make ones concerns known maturely and privately by email to the company, so that they get a right of reply before being publically slammed with criticism. But if LNER's response to polite feedback is simply 'you have got this wrong, not us' then I am not so sure!

I'm unclear what you were expecting here? An apology and promise that they would get right on with ripping the seats out, and asking you for your preferred specifications? Now if enough people find them uncomfortable to complain about it, and we would be talking thousands here, they might just look at the issue again. I haven't used a 80x yet, so I can't comment on what I think about them, but how seats are designed on trains (and indeed planes*) has changed dramatically over the years, and I imagine they aren't going to suddenly say they got the design wrong on your demand I'm afraid.

(* Having flown in Ryanair's old and new 737-800 cabins, I would be massively surprised if the Azuma's seats are less comfortable than those, and the Azumas don't have to deal with turbulence where you cannot get up and walk around. However they choose their interiors based on budgets, so perhaps the Azumas of LNER and GWR are installed for the same reasons?)

 

[westv]

Not sure about the other coaches but it looks like these are the seats to avoid in coach B due to restricted outside view.

11/12/13/14
39/40/41/42
73/74/75/76

Plus the first two rows at either end.

 

[Ethano92]

I have received a response from LNER following my short, polite email which set out that I thought that the interior on the new train I was on was much less comfortable than the usual interior for their trains.



I am bamboozled that their response is, essentially, 'you are wrong'. Instead of apologising and explaining that they have tried to please as many people as possible with the standard of comfort, they have instead implied that I am to blame for not appreciating the seat! Describing it as ergonomical for my posture is a bit patronising too.

I always think it is better to try to make ones concerns known maturely and privately by email to the company, so that they get a right of reply before being publically slammed with criticism. But if LNER's response to polite feedback is simply 'you have got this wrong, not us' then I am not so sure!

I think the many on this forum know the real answer is "this is the only seat the DfT have approved for the speed these trains do, we can't do anything about it" or something along the lines of that, (unless I've been misinformed and I am in fact wildly incorrect)

Not that I don't agree an apology wouldn't have been too much to ask.

 

[ashkeba]

I'm unclear what you were expecting here? An apology and promise that they would get right on with ripping the seats out, and asking you for your preferred specifications? Now if enough people find them uncomfortable to complain about it, and we would be talking thousands here, they might just look at the issue again. [...]

I think that a non-committal reply including the above sentance about looking again if enough complain would have been a far better reply than the one basically telling the passenger that their opinions are wrong and implying nobody cares.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How are they responsible for the "right place" being out of their reach?

It's not the right place for those who cannot put them up there, unless they ask someone to do so which on a busy train they should. However, if someone can put the bag up there, that is where it should go, if for no reason other than to ensure lower-down space is available for those who cannot.

Generally: I have all the time in the world for those who cannot, but none at all for those who will not. (This doesn't just relate to baggage on trains, it's general).

 

[Bletchleyite]

(* Having flown in Ryanair's old and new 737-800 cabins, I would be massively surprised if the Azuma's seats are less comfortable than those

The legroom is vastly better, but they are less comfortable than any plane seat I have ever used, the main cause being the hard low-down wings and metal bar under the thighs, though the newer cushions are not as bad with regard to the latter.

 

[yorksrob]

I have received a response from LNER following my short, polite email which set out that I thought that the interior on the new train I was on was much less comfortable than the usual interior for their trains.



I am bamboozled that their response is, essentially, 'you are wrong'. Instead of apologising and explaining that they have tried to please as many people as possible with the standard of comfort, they have instead implied that I am to blame for not appreciating the seat! Describing it as ergonomical for my posture is a bit patronising too.

I always think it is better to try to make ones concerns known maturely and privately by email to the company, so that they get a right of reply before being publically slammed with criticism. But if LNER's response to polite feedback is simply 'you have got this wrong, not us' then I am not so sure!

When I had a similar discussion with Northern at one of their 'meet the manager' sessions regarding the new 158 seating, they said they'd felt the same at first (that the new seats were uncomfortable), but apparently they become softer with use !

I remain to be convinced.

 

[gsnedders]

I think the many on this forum know the real answer is "this is the only seat the DfT have approved for the speed these trains do, we can't do anything about it" or something along the lines of that, (unless I've been misinformed and I am in fact wildly incorrect)

As far as I'm aware, the regulations haven't changed since the e320 was introduced, and that has substantially more comfortable seats on a substantially quicker train.

 

[Starmill]

I find it hugely frustrating that some people think that basically explaining that you as the customer have got it wrong is a good idea. Normally if there is a complaint about the interior or onboard service on a train the response recognises that the experience wasn't as good as it should have been, apologises and explains that the best has been done, and will be done in the future. It's true that one cannot actually please everyone. But instead, this response doesn't recognise that, it just basically says that the seat is already as good as it could possibly be, and that if you don't get that, you've made a mistake. It might be a subtle difference, but there is a huge gulf in meaning and I think it betrays the attitude - they are in denial, and react defensively, because they know the product is significantly substandard.

What's more, a pretty significant amount of money has been spent on this, both from my pockets and from the taxpayer's (so, everyone's!). We should expect to get it almost perfect under the circumstances. Telling the customer that it's their fault that the seat was uncomfortable is simply bizarre, and very difficult to excuse. It is almost word-for-word the same thing that GWR have been saying.

I'm unsure why the seats in budget aircraft come up so much here because you are probably only going to be spending a couple of hours sat in one of those, not 4 or 5 as these trains have been specifically designed for. Still, my experiences of the seating on Ryanair and a Flybe Dash 8 Bombardier aircraft were of significantly more comfy seating than an 800 (even though the space and legroom onboard the former is much more limited, of course).

The legroom is vastly better, but they are less comfortable than any plane seat I have ever used, the main cause being the hard low-down wings and metal bar under the thighs, though the newer cushions are not as bad with regard to the latter.

My message did specifically say that I noticed there was 'more legroom than usual'. This is of no consolation to me personally though that the seat made my back hurt after my short half an hour journey, and was very uncomfortable while sat in it. From my direct experiences, the old seating was much preferable, even with it's rather less generous legroom.

 

[43096]

I find it hugely frustrating that some people think that basically explaining that you as the customer have got it wrong is a good idea. Normally if there is a complaint about the interior or onboard service on a train the response recognises that the experience wasn't as good as it should have been, apologises and explains that the best has been done, and will be done in the future. It's true that one cannot actually please everyone. But instead, this response doesn't recognise that, it just basically says that the seat is already as good as it could possibly be, and that if you don't get that, you've made a mistake. It might be a subtle difference, but there is a huge gulf in meaning and I think it betrays the attitude - they are in denial, and react defensively, because they know the product is significantly substandard.

What's more, a pretty significant amount of money has been spent on this, both from my pockets and from the taxpayer's (so, everyone's!). We should expect to get it almost perfect under the circumstances. Telling the customer that it's their fault that the seat was uncomfortable is simply bizarre, and very difficult to excuse. It is almost word-for-word the same thing that GWR have been saying.

I'm unsure why the seats in budget aircraft come up so much here because you are probably only going to be spending a couple of hours sat in one of those, not 4 or 5 as these trains have been specifically designed for. Still, my experiences of the seating on Ryanair and a Flybe Dash 8 Bombardier aircraft were of significantly more comfy seating than an 800 (even though the space and legroom onboard the former is much more limited, of course).


My message did specifically say that I noticed there was 'more legroom than usual'. This is of no consolation to me personally though that the seat made my back hurt after my short half an hour journey, and was very uncomfortable while sat in it. From my direct experiences, the old seating was much preferable, even with it's rather less generous legroom.

Fully agreed.

Maybe the response to LNER’s view that the passenger is wrong is a simple “Yes, I am. I shouldn’t have used your service and won’t make the same mistake again. Goodbye.”

 

[Starmill]

Fully agreed.

Maybe the response to LNER’s view that the passenger is wrong is a simple “Yes, I am. I shouldn’t have used your service and won’t make the same mistake again. Goodbye.”

To be fair this may well be their attitude these days, as a quasi-public sector company in a highly government-dictated environment which does not have to actually turn a profit to survive: "your business is secondary to us, and we have lots of other passengers prepared to pay more in exchange for lower standards, nearly all of our services will be full with the trains we have got, and many other customers will continue to pay us much higher fares than you would". They may not be a firm that faces any strong incentives to improve their service, or to chase new revenue. It's not easy to see how this rolling stock has been specified with that in mind. It will not appeal to those who are accustomed to long-distance travel by car or plane at all.

 

[The Nomad]

Surprised no-one (that I saw) commented on "[the seat] should leave your posture feeling better once you have stood up."
Paraphrase: you'll appreciate standing up more.

 

[Starmill]

Surprised no-one (that I saw) commented on "[the seat] should leave your posture feeling better once you have stood up."
Paraphrase: you'll appreciate standing up more.

I don't even understand what they thought they meant in that part of the sentence to be honest!

 

[Bantamzen]

I find it hugely frustrating that some people think that basically explaining that you as the customer have got it wrong is a good idea. Normally if there is a complaint about the interior or onboard service on a train the response recognises that the experience wasn't as good as it should have been, apologises and explains that the best has been done, and will be done in the future. It's true that one cannot actually please everyone. But instead, this response doesn't recognise that, it just basically says that the seat is already as good as it could possibly be, and that if you don't get that, you've made a mistake. It might be a subtle difference, but there is a huge gulf in meaning and I think it betrays the attitude - they are in denial, and react defensively, because they know the product is significantly substandard.

What's more, a pretty significant amount of money has been spent on this, both from my pockets and from the taxpayer's (so, everyone's!). We should expect to get it almost perfect under the circumstances. Telling the customer that it's their fault that the seat was uncomfortable is simply bizarre, and very difficult to excuse. It is almost word-for-word the same thing that GWR have been saying.

I'm unsure why the seats in budget aircraft come up so much here because you are probably only going to be spending a couple of hours sat in one of those, not 4 or 5 as these trains have been specifically designed for. Still, my experiences of the seating on Ryanair and a Flybe Dash 8 Bombardier aircraft were of significantly more comfy seating than an 800 (even though the space and legroom onboard the former is much more limited, of course).


My message did specifically say that I noticed there was 'more legroom than usual'. This is of no consolation to me personally though that the seat made my back hurt after my short half an hour journey, and was very uncomfortable while sat in it. From my direct experiences, the old seating was much preferable, even with it's rather less generous legroom.

Nowhere did I say that LNER's response was either a good idea or the right one. What I was wondering was what response you were expecting. I have little doubt that LNER had braced themselves for criticism about the seats, they will surely be aware of the long running debates on seat quality in forums such as these. So whilst being defensive may not be the right response, it might have been a more predictable one given that the seats had been condemned by some long before they had entered passenger service.

The reason I brought in budget airline cabins us about economics. Companies like Ryanair don't just install their seats to annoy passengers, they do so to cut their costs to a minimum. Generally speaking, the comfier the seat, the heavier it is and the more it costs to lug it around. So it is entirely possible that LNER's choice was at least in part an economic one. In today's world these are realities that drive decisions. I don't necessarily agree with them, but there they are. Some customers of course will choose not to use their services as a result, but generally speaking most will make the best of it especially if they have taken advantage of a cheaper deal, which I assume will be something LNER will continue to make available through advance fares, limited time offers etc. Maybe as I said earlier if enough people made representation, in their thousands or tens of thousands, LNER might reconsider their decision.

By the way, there are plenty of low cost carrier flights that will see their passengers in their seats for 4 to 5 hours at least. many Greek islands, Cyprus, the Canary Islands have flight times in excess of 4 hours not including the time spent sitting on the apron, taxi-ing etc. Even my last Ryanair flight back from Malaga was 3h20m, and as we were almost first on the craft we were sat for almost 4 hours in total.

 

[Northhighland]

Nowhere did I say that LNER's response was either a good idea or the right one. What I was wondering was what response you were expecting. I have little doubt that LNER had braced themselves for criticism about the seats, they will surely be aware of the long running debates on seat quality in forums such as these. So whilst being defensive may not be the right response, it might have been a more predictable one given that the seats had been condemned by some long before they had entered passenger service.

The reason I brought in budget airline cabins us about economics. Companies like Ryanair don't just install their seats to annoy passengers, they do so to cut their costs to a minimum. Generally speaking, the comfier the seat, the heavier it is and the more it costs to lug it around. So it is entirely possible that LNER's choice was at least in part an economic one. In today's world these are realities that drive decisions. I don't necessarily agree with them, but there they are. Some customers of course will choose not to use their services as a result, but generally speaking most will make the best of it especially if they have taken advantage of a cheaper deal, which I assume will be something LNER will continue to make available through advance fares, limited time offers etc. Maybe as I said earlier if enough people made representation, in their thousands or tens of thousands, LNER might reconsider their decision.

By the way, there are plenty of low cost carrier flights that will see their passengers in their seats for 4 to 5 hours at least. many Greek islands, Cyprus, the Canary Islands have flight times in excess of 4 hours not including the time spent sitting on the apron, taxi-ing etc. Even my last Ryanair flight back from Malaga was 3h20m, and as we were almost first on the craft we were sat for almost 4 hours in total.

Your a bit in denial here. Ryan air seats are for a start more comfortable than either 800 variant. Also every time Ryan Air buy new aircraft they aren’t tapping my pocket to pay for it. That is a huge factor here. The new stock isn’t as good as that it replaced. That is the simple fact. Most passengers had a better experience on an HST. that is the truth of the matter from a passenger experience. New trains are no faster, no cheaper and less comfortable. Hardly a success.

 

[Bantamzen]

Your a bit in denial here. Ryan air seats are for a start more comfortable than either 800 variant. Also every time Ryan Air buy new aircraft they aren’t tapping my pocket to pay for it. That is a huge factor here. The new stock isn’t as good as that it replaced. That is the simple fact. Most passengers had a better experience on an HST. that is the truth of the matter from a passenger experience. New trains are no faster, no cheaper and less comfortable. Hardly a success.

I'm not sure I'm in denial here, just pointing out possible reasons why the seats were chosen. I did say earlier that I haven't been on a 80x yet so I can't comment on those seats. But the new Ryanair seats are considerably more firm than the older ones, so there may be some comparison to old and new LNER seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure I'm in denial here, just pointing out possible reasons why the seats were chosen. I did say earlier that I haven't been on a 80x yet so I can't comment on those seats. But the new Ryanair seats are considerably more firm than the older ones, so there may be some comparison to old and new LNER seats.

Nope, nothing like them.

I have never come across any other public transport seat of any kind that had the "supporting bar" issue that some of these have (albeit mainly those with the older cushion). It's not just a hard seat (I'd be fine with ironing boards), it's a flawed design.

 

[Bantamzen]

Nope, nothing like them.

I have never come across any other public transport seat of any kind that had the "supporting bar" issue that some of these have (albeit mainly those with the older cushion). It's not just a hard seat (I'd be fine with ironing boards), it's a flawed design.

Well I'll take others word on that until I use one myself.