longitudinal bench seats.

[plugwash]

On many threads in this forum I have been told there are a whole bunch of crashworthyness rules on train seats for new trains.

Yes the new thameslink and Crossrail trains were built with londitudanal bench seats which seem to provide no protection whatsoever in the event of a crash.

What gives?

 

[swt_passenger]

On many threads in this forum I have been told there are a whole bunch of crashworthyness rules on train seats for new trains.

Yes the new thameslink and Crossrail trains were built with londitudanal bench seats which seem to provide no protection whatsoever in the event of a crash.

What gives?

You’re completely wrong about Thameslink at least. They have normal 2+2 seating.

 

[507020]

You’re completely wrong about Thameslink at least. They have normal 2+2 seating.

The Tyne and Wear Metro will have longitudinal seating.

 

[plugwash]

Looks like on Thameslink the Londitudanal seats are jumpseats rather than fixed benches still the same argument applies.

ThamesLink Class 700 Interior Styling

All images subject to copyright. If you wish to use any images displayed please contact us directly via email. With safe, light and spacious interiors, passenger focused information systems and optimised access for passengers, the Class 700 provides comfortable travel and an enjoyable journey...

www.coroflot.com

Crossrail seems to have fixed benches

What Are The New Crossrail Trains Like?

No toilets, but there is wi-fi.

londonist.com

 

[swt_passenger]

The Tyne and Wear Metro will have longitudinal seating.

Of course. All about the standing capacity isn’t it. Clearly it is not considered a safety issue on any trains built that way such as Crossrail’s 90 mph trains, or the LO 378s or 710s.

 

[Kingspanner]

Of course thanks to TWPS and similar the risk has changed. Trains are less likely to be involved in heavy end-on collision and an accident is more likely to involve a derailment where the mechanism of injury is the train toppling over and passengers falling through broken windows onto the ballast and being dragged along(e.g. Grayrigg, Ufton Nervet) . It is probably very difficult to assess whether longitudinal seats are better or worse in that situation.

 

[LLivery]

I actually thought about this recently - this mixed with open gangways doesn't fill me with a huge amount of confidence. Fortunately, the railway is much safer than it used to be, but heavens forbid an accident on a 90mph+ main line with open gangways, longitudinal seating, and no luggage space...

Edit: I'm sure this has all been assessed, but I'd rather be sitting in a bay seat near the gangway of 387/80x in this unlikely scenario.

 

[mmh]

You’re completely wrong about Thameslink at least. They have normal 2+2 seating.

Apart from the longitudinal seats they have, you're correct. Or rather, completely wrong, as you say.

 

[swt_passenger]

Apart from the longitudinal seats they have, you're correct. Or rather, completely wrong, as you say.

They’re not longitudinal throughout the train though? If we‘re going to include short lengths of flip down seats we’ll have to worry about 450s, 350s, etc etc. I’m suggesting it isn’t seen actually as a safety risk, or the relevant stock wouldn’t be in service…

 

[507020]

Of course thanks to TWPS and similar the risk has changed. Trains are less likely to be involved in heavy end-on collision and an accident is more likely to involve a derailment where the mechanism of injury is the train toppling over and passengers falling through broken windows onto the ballast and being dragged along(e.g. Grayrigg, Ufton Nervet) . It is probably very difficult to assess whether longitudinal seats are better or worse in that situation.

None of the train windows broke at Grayrigg though, which was what led to Richard Branson saying the Pendolinos he ordered were like tanks.

 

[DanNCL]

Looks like on Thameslink the Londitudanal seats are jumpseats rather than fixed benches still the same argument applies.

Virtually every train on the UK rail network has a few longitudinal tip up seats, even some HSTs have them these days near the wheelchair spaces.

 

[valenta100]

None of the train windows broke at Grayrigg though, which was what led to Richard Branson saying the Pendolinos he ordered were like tanks.

But as Branson said at the time, "Our driver could have run from his seat and dashed to the next carriage, where he might well have been safe. Instead, he tried to steer the train to safety.".......

 

[physics34]

But as Branson said at the time, "Our driver could have run from his seat and dashed to the next carriage, where he might well have been safe. Instead, he tried to steer the train to safety.".......

Lol i'll never forget that

Tests have been done which prove that longitudinal seating doesnt really increase capacity that much as legs sticking out are not taken into account. Plus of course having to sit opposite people and not make eye contact is difficult lol

 

[40129]

IMHO another problem with trains having all longitudinal seats is that sideways seems to be the worst direction to travel after having a few drinks.

I remember that when I lived in West London and socializes in the West End I would quite often travel home (facing forwards)via Ealing Broadway via either the Bakerloo line and Paddington, or the District line, rather than sit sideways on the Piccadilly line to Northfields.

Thankfully, AFAIK neither TFW, Merseyrail nor Northern are planning to abolish transverse seating anytime soon.

 

[Dspatula]

Lol i'll never forget that

Tests have been done which prove that longitudinal seating doesnt really increase capacity that much as legs sticking out are not taken into account. Plus of course having to sit opposite people and not make eye contact is difficult lol

These tests seem dubious to me, have your foot stepped on a few hundred times in Japanese rush hour and you soon learn to tuck your feet in. There's a mountain of electronic devices to solve the eye contact issue these days and there's always the classic newspaper to fall back on.

 

[507020]

IMHO another problem with trains having all longitudinal seats is that sideways seems to be the worst direction to travel after having a few drinks.

I remember that when I lived in West London and socializes in the West End I would quite often travel home (facing forwards)via Ealing Broadway via either the Bakerloo line and Paddington, or the District line, rather than sit sideways on the Piccadilly line to Northfields.

Thankfully, AFAIK neither TFW, Merseyrail nor Northern are planning to abolish transverse seating anytime soon.

It’s interesting how Merseyrail currently have a total of 2 non-folding transverse seats in the trailer cars.

 

[Mordac]

These tests seem dubious to me, have your foot stepped on a few hundred times in Japanese rush hour and you soon learn to tuck your feet in. There's a mountain of electronic devices to solve the eye contact issue these days and there's always the classic newspaper to fall back on.

The eye contact thing is only a problem if you're a Londoner/Southerner.

 

[edwin_m]

A lot of research was done on crashworthiness a few years back, resulting in things like less aggressive shapes for hand grips and partitions to stop luggage sliding on overhead racks. I don't believe there was any mention of longitudinal seats being more dangerous.

It's arguable that in a sudden deceleration those in longitudinal seats would just tip sideways, probably hitting the next person but unlikely to sustain serious injury. In a face-to-back seat there is a risk of head impact with the seat in front or body impact with the tray table (the latter and probably the former of which were improved in later designs following said research).

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s interesting how Merseyrail currently have a total of 2 non-folding transverse seats in the trailer cars.

507/508 have always had those in the larger "door pocket" of the middle coach.

A lot of research was done on crashworthiness a few years back, resulting in things like less aggressive shapes for hand grips and partitions to stop luggage sliding on overhead racks. I don't believe there was any mention of longitudinal seats being more dangerous.

It's arguable that in a sudden deceleration those in longitudinal seats would just tip sideways, probably hitting the next person but unlikely to sustain serious injury. In a face-to-back seat there is a risk of head impact with the seat in front or body impact with the tray table (the latter and probably the former of which were improved in later designs following said research).

I believe one reason they are very rare in cars now is that they are dangerous when a seat belt is worn, as a collision forces the spine sideways, and travelling in cars without seat belts is not now acceptable. Buses, which don't generally have seat belts, almost always have some.

 

[physics34]

A lot of research was done on crashworthiness a few years back, resulting in things like less aggressive shapes for hand grips and partitions to stop luggage sliding on overhead racks. I don't believe there was any mention of longitudinal seats being more dangerous.

It's arguable that in a sudden deceleration those in longitudinal seats would just tip sideways, probably hitting the next person but unlikely to sustain serious injury. In a face-to-back seat there is a risk of head impact with the seat in front or body impact with the tray table (the latter and probably the former of which were improved in later designs following said research).

There was the awful crash of a transit minibus on the m40, where many school kids were killed, late 80s i think. Longitudinal or bench seating was banned thereafter.

 

[edwin_m]

There was the awful crash of a transit minibus on the m40, where many school kids were killed, late 80s i think. Longitudinal or bench seating was banned thereafter.

Referring to post above yours, were they wearing seat belts?

The very fact that seat belts are (now) required in road vehicles except buses shows how much more likely it is that violent accelerations can arise. In a train that won't happen unless it derails or collides, but a road vehicle can throw unrestrained occupants around even from hard braking or cornering with no actual accident. So the level of risk is far lower in a train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Referring to post above yours, were they wearing seat belts?

The very fact that seat belts are (now) required in road vehicles except buses shows how much more likely it is that violent accelerations can arise. In a train that won't happen unless it derails or collides, but a road vehicle can throw unrestrained occupants around even from hard braking or cornering with no actual accident. So the level of risk is far lower in a train.

Seat belts don't work properly on longitudinal seats, which is why they are deprecated in cars/minibuses where belts are required. If you wear a belt, it causes the neck and back to bend sideways with considerable force, which is not natural and can cause severe injury.

You can still have them in a minibus if the vehicle had them when built, but it's illegal to carry children in them. As minibuses are mostly used for carrying children, they've more or less died out.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

An often forgotten example of longitudinal seating on trains was the front third of each vehicle of the class 141s- something which definitely added to their "Eastern Bloc" vibes. However those units generally struggled to reach their permitted top speed of 75mph without a downhill and a strong tailwind, so the likelihood of the direction of the seating being an aggravating factor in any incident would be fairly small.

 

[Bletchleyite]

An often forgotten example of longitudinal seating on trains was the front third of each vehicle of the class 141s- something which definitely added to their "Eastern Bloc" vibes. However those units generally struggled to reach their permitted top speed of 75mph without a downhill and a strong tailwind, so the likelihood of the direction of the seating being an aggravating factor in any incident would be fairly small.

All other Pacers had a sideways 2.5-seat (!) bench each side by the end doors (total 4) though some refurbs removed it.

 

[edwin_m]

150s as built had longitudinal seating between the doors and the cab at one end, that could be tipped up to turn into a bike or luggage area.

Seat belts don't work properly on longitudinal seats, which is why they are deprecated in cars/minibuses where belts are required. If you wear a belt, it causes the neck and back to bend sideways with considerable force, which is not natural and can cause severe injury.

You can still have them in a minibus if the vehicle had them when built, but it's illegal to carry children in them. As minibuses are mostly used for carrying children, they've more or less died out.

That's why I asked the question about whether they were fitted in the one that crashed back in the 1980s.

 

[whoosh]

@plugwash

I think what you may possibly be thinking of is that after the Polmont derailment in the 1980s (train hit a cow with Mk2 driving trailer the leading vehicle), passengers were not permitted in the leading vehicle if it was built to exceed 100mph. This is why Driving Van Trailers were built for the West Coast (Mk3s for 110mph) and East Coast (Mk4s for 125mph - or even 140mph as envisaged!)

This was later relaxed (with Voyagers and Pendolinos being the first) to the first third of the leading car having no passenger seating, and then a significant number of rows of seats facing rearwards, with eventually the possibility of some forward facing seats further towards the rear of the vehicle.

Thameslink trains have some longitudinal tip-up seats, but in the middle of the train. Crossrail and London Overground trains have vast amounts of longitudinal seating throughout. All of these do not go over 100mph, so have never had to meet any restrictions of rearward facing seating only (which rules out longitudinal seats) in certain positions.