The Sunday Times: 'Ironing board' seats

[Mathew S]

Just for the sake of putting a contrasting point of view, since I have one... I've travelled several times on a class 700 from St Pancras to Brighton and back. Now, I'm a pretty large guy and bring plenty of my own cushioning with me as a matter of course, but I have to say that other than one occasion when it was packed to the rafters, I've found them a very comfortable way to travel... and yes, that includes the seats.
I'll grant you, my normal stomping ground is Northern Pacers and Sprinters, so frankly pretty much anything is an improvement on what I'm used to, but I certainly don't have any complaints about the trains, or the seats.

 

[Taunton]

I thought the public had decisively voted against the ironing board seats in the Northern seat roadshow !

As ever, what has that got to do with any decision!

 

[class387]

Reminds me of what you often see on buses in China. The modern air conditioned ones are often double the fare (40p instead of 20p!) So the poor use the old ones with knackered hard plastic seats and bring their own piece of foam to sit on.

Meanwhile the even more 'expensive' (50p!) metro have hard plastic benches with a width of about 12 inches.

 

[yorksrob]

There’s a reasonable picture on the bottom right corner of the first page covering the Mallard conversion here:
https://acumen-da.com/media/GNER-2005_Rail-Magazine_Review.pdf

To be honest, I don't recall having any issue with the old Mk 4 seats. I'm guessing they must have been quite ergonomically designed.

 

[bramling]

I think that you're referring to the Taunton sleeping car fire in 1978. Twelve people died and repercussions had a huge influence on the design of the mk3 sleeper under development at the time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taunton_sleeping_car_fire

Anyway, noone other than the mad or very drunk would manage to sleep on a Class 700, so I think that being overcome by fire is the least of their worries.

Thankfully I don't have to use the ghastly things very often but I did post on the Thameslink thread a few weeks ago that I'd noticed that the cushion front edges were already starting to show signs of wear in a carriage that appeared to be brand new in every other respect. I half jokingly wondered if the squabs were so hard and sharp edged that they were causing this deterioration themselves but this brought a flurry of indignation about people putting their feet on seats etc etc. That would be a lot of feet very early on - I think that they might be wearing through just because they're fabric covered 'concrete' digging into passengers' thighs.

The Class 319 was a basic (and noisy) way to travel from Bedford to Brighton but was just about an acceptable compromise for the job it needed to do. The 700 almost feels like it's a deliberate attempt to demean and dehumanise its passengers, and I think that awful grey blue upholstery combined with the grey exterior and the grey everything else reinforces that. It's really quite dystopian, so just right for something stipulated by the DfT.

A trip on a 707 on the other hand is nearly always shorter and the SWT red doesn't insult the user in quite the same way as Thameslink grey. Even District Line trains feel more welcoming and comfortable than these things.

On the plus side, the WCs are great and the aircon is brilliant. Not praise that you could ever heap on a 319.

But those seats are an unnecessary punishment.

Great post. Dystopian sums up the class 700s in one word.

 

[43096]

1). I believe it was in 1963/64. The customary procedure then was to lock the doors of sleeper trains to prevent somnambulists hurting themselves.
Dirty linen was piled up against a heater and 16 people died. Nothing to do with seats directly.

I presume you are referring to the Taunton sleeping car fire, which killed 12 in July 1978.

 

[DarloRich]

I notice that GTR are taking some flak on twitter over the seating issue. They are trying to blame DfT but customers aren't taking that as an excuse. Good for them!

 

[class387]

I notice that GTR are taking some flak on twitter over the seating issue. They are trying to blame DfT but customers aren't taking that as an excuse. Good for them!

They're telling the truth though. It isn't GTR's fault.

 

[LLivery]

Using Thameslink often I find the seats very bad. The lack of leg room is appalling and the lack of tables (which we're still waiting to be fitted) is stupidity at its finest.

The class 345 seats on Crossrail seems to be far more comfortable than the seats on 700s. Presumably the same fire regulations, cost pressures etc.

Just saying....

I travelled on one from Liverpool St to Romford. Found it just as uncomfortable

 

[DarloRich]

They're telling the truth though. It isn't GTR's fault.

So? It is GTR on the side of the trains and GTR to whom they pay their tickets. It sounds like a cop out to the average person and they don't seem to want to be fobbed off.

 

[DaveN]

BUT will the shabby seats lose passengers? no as most people have no choice to use these trains.

Someone I know used to buy a monthly season from Harlington to London. He didn't like the 387 seats because they were so hard. When the 700s came to the services he used, he negotiated with his employer to only come to the office once a week.
The railway is losing £3400 a year as a result.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be honest, I don't recall having any issue with the old Mk 4 seats. I'm guessing they must have been quite ergonomically designed.

Possibly so. Cheers to FOH for the link.

 

[Bletchleyite]

OTOH, I already pay an extra £100 to go first class, and might hope that a comfortable seat is already included in this fare.

Not on one of the new ScotRail AT200 EMUs...the 1st seat is the same as the Class 800 Standard seat. Another one to add to the list of trains where I'd pay extra to sit in Standard.

 

[bramling]

Someone I know used to buy a monthly season from Harlington to London. He didn't like the 387 seats because they were so hard. When the 700s came to the services he used, he negotiated with his employer to only come to the office once a week.
The railway is losing £3400 a year as a result.

-2 season tickets to London from my household, and -1 from my neighbour -- mainly as a result of Thameslink / 700s.

+3 more cars on the A1(M).

 

[jon0844]

-2 season tickets to London from my household, and -1 from my neighbour -- mainly as a result of Thameslink / 700s.

+3 more cars on the A1(M).

+ 3 more seats on the trains, potentially..

 

[Sleepy]

A GWR insider tells me IEP seats are to be replaced !!!

 

[Spamcan81]

The seats are ok for short distance journeys and I am sure if you are lucky enough to get a seat for a few stops through the Thameslink core they will be no problem. I don't think they are suitable for long distance communing. All of the guff about regulations and vandalism is just a smoke screen for the true reason: Cost. Both the TOC's and DfT are more than happy to scrimp on passenger comfort to save a few quid. We as paying passengers don't count.



OR they could have just got on the train, looked at the shape of the seat and thought: that looks like the ironing board stood up against my kitchen wall.



Because there are many neophyte's who believe anything new is the "best ever". I have said for a long time ( and been attacked by the usual suspects) for daring to say that new trains have less comfortable seats than the trains they replaced.

Couldn't agree with you more. Seems there is a race to the bottom these days with each new unit more uncomfortable to its predecessor.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A GWR insider tells me IEP seats are to be replaced !!!

Covers and possibly foams. But to be fair that will, if they are the right shape, solve the issue - there's nowt wrong with the frame itself.

 

[class387]

So? It is GTR on the side of the trains and GTR to whom they pay their tickets. It sounds like a cop out to the average person and they don't seem to want to be fobbed off.

So they shouldn't be blamed for something that isn't their fault.

 

[goblinuser]

So they shouldn't be blamed for something that isn't their fault.

The railways are set up in a very fragmented way.
Every time there is an issue it turns into a blame game, rather than everyone asking "how can we rectify this?".
The public can't, don't and shouldn't be expected to have an in depth understanding of the industry, all its fragmented sectors. It is confusing. With this in mind, brushing off customers views because they're directed at a slightly wrong area of the railway is wrong.

 

[Mikey C]

Are you talking about the height of the seat or the pitch

Both but specifically the height of the backrest which is far too short for most people. The legroom is more understandable on a commuter train

 

[43096]

So they shouldn't be blamed for something that isn't their fault.

Doesn't excuse the 387s though. Procured and specified by GoVia.

 

[Muzer]

A GWR insider tells me IEP seats are to be replaced !!!

Ooh, I'll believe it when I see it, but I'm hopeful!

 

[physics34]

Someone I know used to buy a monthly season from Harlington to London. He didn't like the 387 seats because they were so hard. When the 700s came to the services he used, he negotiated with his employer to only come to the office once a week.
The railway is losing £3400 a year as a result.

Tell this to the DfT..more pressure more pressue!!!!

 

[DarloRich]

So they shouldn't be blamed for something that isn't their fault.

the reason is given below

The railways are set up in a very fragmented way.
Every time there is an issue it turns into a blame game, rather than everyone asking "how can we rectify this?".
The public can't, don't and shouldn't be expected to have an in depth understanding of the industry, all its fragmented sectors. It is confusing. With this in mind, brushing off customers views because they're directed at a slightly wrong area of the railway is wrong.

 

[AM9]

+ 3 more seats on the trains, potentially..

More importantly, three more seats for the 'poor commuters' waiting at Hitchin and/or Stevenage. Then a few more will decide that the A1 & A1(M) is getting beyond a joke and a (subsidised) 30 minute trip in a firm seat (or even standing) is better than the ever-increasing time in the personal luxury of their car sat in a queue.
The fact is: what goes around, comes around. GTR and the DfT know that and so does much of the commuting public. Without infinite budget for rail and roads, there have always been winners and losers on the commuting stakes. Nobody can expect their service to be better at the expense of others' all of the time.

Someone I know used to buy a monthly season from Harlington to London. He didn't like the 387 seats because they were so hard. When the 700s came to the services he used, he negotiated with his employer to only come to the office once a week.
The railway is losing £3400 a year as a result.

Despite losing a £3400 subsidised ticket sale, it is gaining about £1500 pounds for less than 50 full-priced journeys and four return trips with space for an extra passenger.

 

[maniacmartin]

I don't really have much to add to my comment in previous threads on these seats.

The thickness of the foam is not the only problem with the fitout of these trains. The narrowness, lack of armrests and general pitch makes them very uncomfortable. The window is also higher than in a 377 and more flush so you can't rest your elbow on the windowsill either. The massive heating equipment takes up the space where one of your feet should go, with a slanted top so you can't even rest your feet on it. Then there's the diagonal seat support bar, instead of a usual vertical one, which is in the way of where you'd put your other foot. I would (and do) stand in preference to sitting on these seats.

Whilst commuting is still mostly a captive market, off-peak leisure travel is not. These trains are one of the reasons I usually drive for weekend leisure travel around Surrey and Sussex lately, which is money lost to the railways

 

[Bletchleyite]

The thickness of the foam is not the only problem with the fitout of these trains. The narrowness, lack of armrests and general pitch makes them very uncomfortable. The window is also higher than in a 377 and more flush so you can't rest your elbow on the windowsill either. The massive heating equipment takes up the space where one of your feet should go, with a slanted top so you can't even rest your feet on it. Then there's the diagonal seat support bar, instead of a usual vertical one, which is in the way of where you'd put your other foot. I would (and do) stand in preference to sitting on these seats.

I certainly agree that the Class 377 version is superior, FWIW. The ScotRail version with the contoured base (as Northern will be getting, and I *think* the GWR EMUs may have) is better still. And the back is just near-flat, which (like the IC70 back[1]) will annoy almost nobody. Contoured seats are all very well but they are only contoured to one back length/width. Though at least if you put the headrest high up as on the Grammer IC3000 it might be useless to some but doesn't cause pain to others.

[1] The thing I dislike about IC70s is the fixed armrests, as will most people with a waist greater than about 34" or anyone even with a waist smaller than that who has "cyclist's legs". I have no particular issue with any other part of the design, indeed I used to find the Mk2s which had a version of the IC70 cushion fitted to the old Mk2 shell without a centre armrest reasonably acceptable.

 

[jon0844]

It's becoming like Brexit. You're either in support of the seats, or not... and there's little to no middle ground.

I don't mind them and don't find them uncomfortable (I also don't mind the 387 seats either FWIW). My wife doesn't care (a seat is a seat) but my son hates them saying they're uncomfortable, ye tolerates them and has never refused to sit.

The one thing more people can perhaps agree on is that it's tight with a window seat. Yet even then, not everyone has a problem or has to turn at awkward angles.

 

[class387]

The railways are set up in a very fragmented way.
Every time there is an issue it turns into a blame game, rather than everyone asking "how can we rectify this?".
The public can't, don't and shouldn't be expected to have an in depth understanding of the industry, all its fragmented sectors. It is confusing. With this in mind, brushing off customers views because they're directed at a slightly wrong area of the railway is wrong.

I wasn't brushing off customer views. I was replying to the "good for them" directed at GTR.

Doesn't excuse the 387s though. Procured and specified by GoVia.

I have no problem with the 387s or the seats themselves. My problem is with the tight layout on the 700s.