Most uncomfortable seating

[nathanclass323]

Despite my name suggesting that I like these units (which I do!), I reckon the seats on class 323s are poor

 

[alwaystouchout]

Despite my name suggesting that I like these units (which I do!), I reckon the seats on class 323s are poor

Agree on the 323s.

Don't think the seats on TPE 185s are much cop. Nor on EMT's 158s despite the fact I find them a charming old unit for some reason..

The Merseyrail 142s Northern were using around Manchester for a while were just awful.

 

[chorleyjeff]

Whilst getting off a Southern 455 at Victoria on Saturday morning, I noted 377601 sitting at the platform opposite waiting to leave for Caterham. Whilst I didn't get on it, I could see the seating and good word, did it look uncomfortable. Very, very thin seats.

So, it got me wondering, which stock has the most uncomfortable seating? From my observations, it would appear to be a tie between the 376s and the 377/6s (although I am yet to travel on either. )

Inb4 the suggestions of 142s and other Pacers.

GUVs. Sitting on the floor because there are no seats.
Used to happen on the Blackpool - Harwich train which was only about 4 rammed packed coaches long plus GUV which was used by passengers (oops I mean customers) joining from Chorley onwards to Salford.
How we longed for 150 luxury.

 

[Mark62]

All cross country non hst second class seats are unbearable uncomfy. Too small, not enough leg room.
EMT all non hst services to London in second class. Same as above plus shocking under floor engine noise and vibration.
Class 153 units that pop up between Matlock and Nottingingham. These trains surely have to least amount of leg room of any train I have been on. In the few tables they have, my knees almost touch the facing seat. I prefer to stand than struggle into these awful seats.
All 158 units airline seats are impossible to sit in for very tall people.
Northern rail pacers are dreadful full stop.

 

[higthomas]

It does disappoint me that in general it seems modern trains, however liked they are in other ways, such as the class 444, seem not to actually put any padding on seats. Really does make a journey seem more like a chore than a pleasure. On the other hand a well padded seat, such as those on the GA Mk III or the SWT 158/9s really do enhance a journey.

 

[kevconnor]

I wouldn't say they were uncomfortable as such but the springs in the seats on a class 150 Northern stock seem to have enough force in them to be able to launch the occupant clean out of the chair.

 

[Rapidash]

Alot of older stock seems to have been designed for Hobbits. I can't fit in the majority of seats on trains down here (I'm 6'3). My mind has been left boggled when I was on 444's and 377's recently. I could fit in Every. Single. Seat ou don't know you've lived untill your train takes less than half a minute to accelerate out of a station......

 

[plastictaffy]

The mark 2 desiro stock has awful seating - the 3+2 setup just doesn't work as well on those as it did on the Dusty Bins.

 

[phil281]

From the stock I travel on a regular basis, 450's by a long way. Travelling on these units in the rush hour is a horrible caustrophobic and cramped experience which results in achey shoulders as you have to curve them to sit down. As for the padding, a park bench has more. Dreadful, dreadful seats ruin what could be quite a nice unit otherwise (look at the 350/1's).

 

[davsarg]

Airline style seating on any ATW class 150. They're too close to the seats in front and for someone with long legs (like me) they're extremely uncomfortable to sit in

 

[185143]

I find the seats on Northern's 158/9s to be uncomfortable as they have too much padding so I end up sitting at an awkward angle. The ex Central 158s seem to have the best seating

I did Filey to Sheffield on one of those yesterday

 

[pemma]

Airline style seating on any ATW class 150. They're too close to the seats in front and for someone with long legs (like me) they're extremely uncomfortable to sit in

Well you'd hate the ex-FNW 150s at Northern even more then. Same type of seats but in 3+2 formation without armrests and even less leg room for most seats, unless you're sat in a bay with no-one sat opposite.

 

[Scotrail84]

Class 380. Horrendous.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The mark 2 desiro stock has awful seating - the 3+2 setup just doesn't work as well on those as it did on the Dusty Bins.

It doesn't work on 321s either. I actually prefer it on the 350/2 because the seats are more upright meaning legroom is at least adequate. But really the sensible solution for busy trains is to have 2+2 and a wide aisle for standing.

Neil

 

[kermit]

When I was young, I would sometimes travel on a Class 304 emu south of Manchester. Lovely, well-sprung seating. But were they too well sprung? Once they got above 40mph or so, a resonant frequency effect would lead to passengers bouncing about, sometimes to a ridiculous, unbelievable, comic degree.
So, a left-field nomination there - be careful what you wish for!

 

[Ash Bridge]

When I was young, I would sometimes travel on a Class 304 emu south of Manchester. Lovely, well-sprung seating. But were they too well sprung? Once they got above 40mph or so, a resonant frequency effect would lead to passengers bouncing about, sometimes to a ridiculous, unbelievable, comic degree.
So, a left-field nomination there - be careful what you wish for!

You've just jogged my memory there, that's exactly how I remember them in my young days. Living in Heaton Chapel (as I still do) used to travel on them often, e.g. to Manchester, Crewe, Macclesfield, etc. would imagine the mainly jointed track on the slow lines, especially between Stockport & Manchester contributed to that springy ride quality, used to think they were awful in those days, the 310s seemed light years ahead with their B4 bogies, double glazing, fluorescent lighting and suchlike, but what I would give now for a trip on a 304 again!

 

[185143]

When I was young, I would sometimes travel on a Class 304 emu south of Manchester. Lovely, well-sprung seating. But were they too well sprung? Once they got above 40mph or so, a resonant frequency effect would lead to passengers bouncing about, sometimes to a ridiculous, unbelievable, comic degree.
So, a left-field nomination there - be careful what you wish for!

You've just jogged my memory there, that's exactly how I remember them in my young days. Living in Heaton Chapel (as I still do) used to travel on them often, e.g. to Manchester, Crewe, Macclesfield, etc. would imagine the mainly jointed track on the slow lines, especially between Stockport & Manchester contributed to that springy ride quality, used to think they were awful in those days, the 310s seemed light years ahead with their B4 bogies, double glazing, fluorescent lighting and suchlike, but what I would give now for a trip on a 304 again!

we'll be saying that about pacers in a few decades if they do ever go!

 

[nottsnurse]

I don't mind either of the seemingly much maligned EMT 222 or HST seating, I find them both very comfortable and I spend a fair bit of time in them, commuting 3-4 times a week from Nottingham.

I had the misfortune to use a Northern 158 to Leeds though last month and the seats were awful. If they'd had any structure left to them they'd probably have been ok but it seemed the padding had crumbled away and that I was sitting on the seat frame, with a layer of worn-out material doing its best to hold the remnants together.

 

[sadgit]

The seats in Desiro units aren't bad in 2+2 form but in 2+3 form, like the 350/2s and the 450s, they're pretty grim. No wonder the residents of Portsmouth did their nut when the 444s were moved to the Weymouth line and 450s brought in instead.

I went from Southampton to London on a 450 once. Never again. I'd rather just stay home.

 

[Ash Bridge]

we'll be saying that about pacers in a few decades if they do ever go!

I'll bet you're not far wrong there either there is another thread going currently about the the class 506 EMUs, believe me when I say they had a ride quality & most depressing interior that makes even a Pacer seem acceptable, just about the worst unit I ever rode, don't miss them at all!

 

[Deepgreen]

The refurbished SWT 456s have such astoundingly little legroom between facing sets of seats that I avoid them and head for the accompanying 455 for comfort!

 

[TEW]

The legroom is bad everywhere on refurbished 456s, but the worst seats have to be the airline seats directly behind the cab. I'm not tall by any stretch but even I find them incredibly uncomfortable.

 

[antharro]

In no particular order...
- 450s in standard. First is OK but nothing special.
- Voyagers in standard. Won't travel on them if I can avoid it unless there's a cheap upgrade to first class available; first is pretty good. Otherwise I'd prefer to be on an SWT 455.
- 458/0s in standard. Bearable, that's about it. After an hour of one I'd rather be somewhere else.
- 1995 and 1996 tube stock. Why on earth did TfL take out the comfortable seats and put in fabric covered wood boards?

 

[507021]

The most uncomfortable train I've been on by far is a 170. After an hour I was very uncomfortable and even at a table seat - with my friend sat opposite me who is of similar average height - the legroom was very poor. I'm not a fan of the 3+2 seating arrangement on the 350s either

The most comfortable class I've travelled on has to be the 175 (my favourite DMU class) - even after a long distance journey I was still comfortable and I always have plenty of legroom wherever I sit on a 175. Others I like for passenger comfort are the ex-FGW 142s, EM 158s, 507 and 508

 

[Goldfish62]

Anything with the Ashbourne seats, eg 319, 321. Just horrendous. Too low and too tilted back. The result is you splay your legs and get pushed forward.

 

[GodAtum]

On my journey I find the 450 quite narrow and prefer the 444. Also Pendalino seats in 1st are very narrow, compared to the luxury of an HST.

 

[D6975]

Generally 3+2 seating.
319s are particularly uncomfortable though, perhaps it's the height as others have mentioned.
2+2 in pendos are poor too, very cramped.

304s were quite funny to travel in, particularly if you were on the full width bench on the inner end of the driving coach. Bouncy, bouncy. Wolves-Stoke was an entertaining journey to do because there were several fast stretches that could almost have you off the seat. Going up to Stoke on a Saturday morning for the 20s on the Lludos, memories, memories.

 

[kermit]

304s were quite funny to travel in, particularly if you were on the full width bench on the inner end of the driving coach. Bouncy, bouncy. Wolves-Stoke was an entertaining journey to do because there were several fast stretches that could almost have you off the seat. Going up to Stoke on a Saturday morning for the 20s on the Lludos, memories, memories.

I often wondered if the drivers and guards on the 304s, with their quite different seating, had any idea about the passengers flying about behind / in front of them. I'm sure I can recall one instance of someone actually being bounced off their seat, the oscillations were so violent - it must have happened a number of times. Not sure whether it was confined to the 304s - were the Bury units as bad, or others?

 

[Ash Bridge]

I often wondered if the drivers and guards on the 304s, with their quite different seating, had any idea about the passengers flying about behind / in front of them. I'm sure I can recall one instance of someone actually being bounced off their seat, the oscillations were so violent - it must have happened a number of times. Not sure whether it was confined to the 304s - were the Bury units as bad, or others?

I think the 305s were much the same when they arrived to replace/supplement the 304s as they were vitually identical and rode on the same Gresley pattern bogies, likewise the Bury units.

 

[GodAtum]

I really despise the FGW Turbos, mainly because of the people that get on it, but also the seating too.