New train seats better or worse (in the past)

[Mikey C]

Class 376 seats are absolutely awful!

I don't mind them for short journeys, but the seating does seem unnecessarily tall and thin, seeing that the legroom in the airline seats is massive

 

[superalbs]

I've changed my mind about the Fainsa ironing boards a la 387s, they actually aren't that bad. However I really do not get along with the Quantum M100 - as on the 700s - which is basically a cheaper, harder clone.

The seats on Class 387s and Class 700s are both the same Fainsa model of seat.

Quantum M100/M101/M104/whatever they're calling it today, can be found on the Class 321 Renatus Demonstrator, and the Class 321 Renatus final product only. They have not had any further orders as far as I can tell.

 

[387star]

I dislike 3+2 seating on 377s

The seats are too hard with the velcro on the bases frequently on display- presumably the idea being they can be ripped off and replaced

Some seats are positioned in the corridor which means the metal sides are covered with scrapes which looks unsightly and the metal trays as well as being horrifically squeaky have bare metal showing where the finish has flaked off which extends to the grab handles... not aware of this on the desiros although they have rubber handles

 

[urpert]

For completeness I’m currently on a 374. Seat base is too short but the height and width of the headrest is very welcome, as is the pitch. But I loved the 373 seats (and don’t get me started on a comparison of the ride...)

 

[Taunton]

If you want a comfortable train seat, try your local railway heritage centre. Old Mk 1, or even before that Bulleid stock or (in particular) the 1935 GWR excursion open stock at Didcot are way beyond what current manufacturers are capable of - and this is with them standing out in the open for most of the last 80 years.

All this waffle about modern seat manufacturers justifying their huge prices by saying how well regarded by their users, when they are quite plainly not, is just Emperor's New Clothes stuff.

 

[mushroomchow]

I notice a lot of the argument these days is less about the hardness of the seats as their height. There are very few "springy" seats on the network at all these days - it's far more about the contours of the seat than anything - a quick feel will reveal that even the most seemingly plush seats have very little material on them.

I'm still in the IC70 camp, mostly because I prefer a low seat back without resorting to a bus seat a la a pacer, and the armrests don't bother me too much. But I'm warming to IC3000 Grammers too - I've grown to appreciate how they cocoon you, though their height makes getting a decent window seat a gamble.

Shoutout to whatever seat is currently in EMT's 156s, as well. I recently took a journey on one in which the engine on my coach was out for most of the journey, and without the rumble of the engine I grew to appreciate that, actually, they're very comfortable and well-proportioned trains when well maintained, as this one was (internally at least!) It was a real shame when the driver managed to get our coach's engine going for the final stretch!

I'd still way rather sink into a Mk. 1 compartment if I had the choice though.

Finally, here's a radical idea - adjustable headrests on trains!

(Though I suspect it would be a vandal's dream...)

 

[Taunton]

Does anyone know when wooden seats and open carriages were no longer in use on the railways? I seem to recall they were used for fifth class but I could be wrong about that.

The very last wooden seated stock was in South Wales, used on miners' trains from collieries which still had no pithead baths, and withdrawn in the late 1950s. I seem to recall a magazine article about them at the time. They also had no heating, and oil lamps.

The last mainstream use was on the substantial suburban services from London Broad Street to Finsbury Park, and up the Enfield and Welwyn lines, withdrawn in 1939. These trains provided about half the suburban service on these lines. Although mostly on the LNER, these were all provided by the LMS from Broad Street due to an old agreement which went back to North London Railway days. The LMS had no incentive to provide anything attractive, and used their oldest stock, wholly dating back to NLR times. After the war, when the service was resumed, the LNER provided the stock itself.

I believe the old Manchester-Bury electric units, dating from 1915 and replaced in 1960, had woven cane seats, which is a variation on wooden.

 

[gsnedders]

IC70s I remember liking as a child (and that wasn't that long ago), but now as an adult I find them some of the least comfortable seats.

I'm fond of the seats on the refurbished ScotRail 158s (are those IC3000s?), much more so than the original 158 seats. (I don't know what the "other" version of the IC3000 is like, without the contoured cushion, so I can't comment on that… I don't pay enough attention to seat design. If it's what's in the 380s, then I find it a touch hard, but well-shaped.)

The Class 390 seats I quite like in standard, but in first the bolstering I just find silly (it's way too far apart to actually hold me in the seat, and makes leaning to one side and trying to nap hard!).

 

[Bletchleyite]

IC70s I remember liking as a child (and that wasn't that long ago), but now as an adult I find them some of the least comfortable seats.

The fundamental issue with them is the armrests, which are uncomfortable for any larger adult. If they had liftable armrests they'd be fine (though I'd still prefer modern seats). I never had an issue with the Mk2 variant which fitted the IC70 cushions into the centre-armrest-less old style Mk2 seat shell.

 

[xotGD]

The fundamental issue with them is the armrests, which are uncomfortable for any larger adult. If they had liftable armrests they'd be fine (though I'd still prefer modern seats). I never had an issue with the Mk2 variant which fitted the IC70 cushions into the centre-armrest-less old style Mk2 seat shell.

I once had one on an overnight - double seat to myself but unable to lie down to doss due to centre armrest.

 

[Mikey C]

With all the talk about how good the Mk1 seats were in the old days, personally I hated the seats in the 415/416s, which I found bouncy and uncomfortable

Seats I did like were the ones in the refurbished 411s, there were a real treat on their once daily journeys via Dartford

 

[Harpers Tate]

Harpers Tate's pet hate:
Seats where the backs are so high that you can't see over them. EMT refurbished 158s, fundamentally good trains and nice looking, suffer from this quite badly, as do many others. Coupled with a cram-as-many-in-as-possible layout, it makes for a claustrophobic onboard experience regardless of how much padding there is. And on that note, a thinner seat means more room for people at any given pitch/capacity.

 

[lincolnshire]

Virgin East Coast seats must be at the top of the list when it comes to sitting on crap seats in my book, went from Doncaster to Edinburgh the other week and was glad to get off as I was suffering from numb bum from them seats, just as bad the other day to Doncaster to london and back again num bum after sitting. Give me an ex. East Midlands train set with there seats or a Hull Trains 180 set any day or even the seat out of a Sprinter or Pacer.
The problem with the seats is the front edge of the seat at the back on the knee,s is about the same height as the back of the seat or the same where your bum goes. Nearly all seats are usually higher behind the knee.s and slope down to the back thus your in a far better sitting position. Even wooden garden seats and station platform seats are more comfortable and thats without any padding / cushions.
Also you cant lift the arm rest on the window side of the seat next to the window and I find that sticks in you when you fidget about because of the hard seat.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The refurb 411s appear to be IC70s with a different (three rather than two piece) cushion.

 

[class387]

The refurb 411s appear to be IC70s with a different (three rather than two piece) cushion.

GA 317/5s still have this in (often declassified) First, as did GN 317s before they were withdrawn. I think they are far better than normal IC70s, but the problem with fixed armrests still reside.

 

[Mikey C]

GA 317/5s still have this in (often declassified) First, as did GN 317s before they were withdrawn. I think they are far better than normal IC70s, but the problem with fixed armrests still reside.

Yes the armrests are annoying, but when you see those big comfy seats, with their nice padded headrests plus their perfect window alignment...

 

[yorksrob]

With all the talk about how good the Mk1 seats were in the old days, personally I hated the seats in the 415/416s, which I found bouncy and uncomfortable

Seats I did like were the ones in the refurbished 411s, there were a real treat on their once daily journeys via Dartford

Personally I found the ones in the top picture vastly superior to the ones in the bottom picture.

Although the refurbished CEP ones are a lot better than a lot of what passes for a train seat today.

 

[gsnedders]

The fundamental issue with them is the armrests, which are uncomfortable for any larger adult. If they had liftable armrests they'd be fine (though I'd still prefer modern seats). I never had an issue with the Mk2 variant which fitted the IC70 cushions into the centre-armrest-less old style Mk2 seat shell.

I just don't like the cushioning; the armrests aren't great but I can live with that. Maybe I've only ever had bad examples as an adult.

 

[Ianno87]

Class 376 seats are absolutely awful!

The carriage end luggage racks are comfier by quite some margin!

For pre-privatisation units, the original Class 150 3+2 airline seats aren't great.

Best post-privatisation are Class 159 seats.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I miss slammers. The seats were lovely.

 

[yorksrob]

Best post-privatisation are Class 159 seats.

Class 159's are BR !

 

[Lukespenceruk1]

My favourite seats are networkers and 171, 375 377.

 

[satisnek]

If you want a comfortable train seat, try your local railway heritage centre. Old Mk 1, or even before that Bulleid stock or (in particular) the 1935 GWR excursion open stock at Didcot are way beyond what current manufacturers are capable of - and this is with them standing out in the open for most of the last 80 years.

All this waffle about modern seat manufacturers justifying their huge prices by saying how well regarded by their users, when they are quite plainly not, is just Emperor's New Clothes stuff.

I tend to agree. Although I rate the BR Mk2 seats very highly, this is actually where the rot started. These seats were intentionally 'ergonomically designed', ie, shaped to fit the human body. Trouble is, no two human bodies are identical, so they have to aim at an average. Me, I'm fractionally too tall for them.

The original Mk3 seats were the first to be designed down to a budget, dispensing with the fancy headrest arrangement of those in Mk2s.

Since then it has been a race to the bottom trying to make seats 'ergonomic' while at the same time using the minimum amount of material and taking up the minimum amount of floor space.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm afraid the only way to get around the issue of different body shapes and sizes is to have deep bouncy cushions which mould to whatever shape the body is.