Train Seat Guide

[Roger100]

And going back a bit further to 1912, GWR Churchward Auto Trailer No. 92.

 

[LOL The Irony]

And going back a bit further to 1912, GWR Churchward Auto Trailer No. 92. View attachment 44649

Looks like an early stab at a paceresque train

 

[Class 317722]

Also found in 357s, and 319/2, arriva 142s & 143s, 150s and 153s.

And 317/7 units

 

[class387]

Also found in 360s however not a comfortable material. (too rough)

(pic is large so took it out of quote)

Edited

 

[Mikey C]

It's worth remembering what the seats looked like when the new generation of commuter trains arrived in the 70s, as the seats fitted were terrible, unsupportive and thin. The cushions tended to come off too!

Class 313

Class 455

 

[Martin222002]

They are the ones on the EMT 158, but I the 222 is a different type (I don't know the make).

Also in 458/5 first class.

The first class seats on the 458/5s are the first class variant of the Grammer IC3000, with the others being the standard/second class variant.

As for the seats fitted on the 222s, I believe they are a one-off design specially made for them, but I am unaware of who made them.

 

[class387]

The first class seats on the 458/5s are the first class variant of the Grammer IC3000, with the others being the standard/second class variant.

As for the seats fitted on the 222s, I believe they are a one-off design specially made for them, but I am unaware of who made them.

I'm pretty sure the 458/5 first seat is still the standard Grammer, just with a large headrest cushion added on by SWR. There is a first version which can be seen in Europe, that is wider and designed for 2+1 spacing.

 

[Martin222002]

I'm pretty sure the 458/5 first seat is still the standard Grammer, just with a large headrest cushion added on by SWR. There is a first version which can be seen in Europe, that is wider and designed for 2+1 spacing.

They always seemed just that bit wider than the others to me, larger headrest aside, but given I have never personally seen one of the first class one's in Europe I know it could be mistaken.

 

[corsaVXR]

Fainsa 'ironing board':

Found in: Class 377/6, 377/7, All 387s, 700s, 707s and other classes yet to enter service

Pros: Very good posture, very supportive, comes with good legroom in Electrostars
Cons: Lack of padding can cause discomfort, seat spacing problems in the 700

MY OVERALL RATING: 7/10 (Highly subjective, many would disagree strongly on this)

One thing to point out about the Fainsa seats, is that on some trains (700 at least), they have a cantilever construction out from the wall of the train, instead of being supported by a pillar underneath the inboard seat. Much better for legroom and cleaning.

 

[387star]

The 377 have lots of variation in the softness of the seat

Even among the small batch with 2+2 throughout it seems yoh can break those down further with some having far more padding on the back support as well as the base

Those pacers really look like relics

 

[Willr2094]

"Mallard" standard class seats

(not my photo)

Found in all standard class Mark 4 coaches, most VTEC HSTs, and all CrossCountry HSTs

I would say the "Mallard" style of seating does have the following pros and cons:-
Pros: Very deep cushioning, good angle with the window, decent amount of legroom.
Cons: Not an awful lot of elbow room on window seats, cushioning eventually wears down after a few years use.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would say the "Mallard" style of seating does have the following pros and cons:-
Pros: Very deep cushioning, good angle with the window, decent amount of legroom.
Cons: Not an awful lot of elbow room on window seats, cushioning eventually wears down after a few years use.

Con by original design: hurts some peoples' backs because the base cushion slopes the wrong way and so doesn't give any underthigh support.

I believe the VTEC refurb fixes this by using a two piece cushion, though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The first class seats on the 458/5s are the first class variant of the Grammer IC3000, with the others being the standard/second class variant.

Having just looked at a picture the First Class seats are the Standard variant as found in GWR HSTs (though possibly with a recliner) while the Standard seats are not Grammer anything, they are the seats they had when built but respaced to 2+2 using aftermarket brackets.

There are two types of Standard class IC3000. The GWR HST ones have the big headrest, the ATW 158s have the small headrest which is less claustrophobic but less comfortable (still not bad, though).

ATW version

 

[Willr2094]

View attachment 44629 View attachment 44630 The other 142 style.

I would say they have the following advantages and disadvantages.

Pros: Good angle with the window - almost unimpeded visibility out.
Cons: Very minimal padding, backrest reclines too far back and is too low, making it impossible not to slouch and appalling leg room, especially if the passenger is tall (apart from the facing seats midway down the coach)

 

[Willr2094]

Last one for now:

Ashbourne:

(not my photo)

Found in: Ex-BR units including classes: 150, 319, 320, 321, 322

Pros: Well sprung and padded.
Cons: Seats too low to ground and leans back too much, so bad posture, unsupportive.

MY OVERALL RATING: 3/10

Another downside from the seat leaning back too much is that (in some seating positions) if you want to look out of the window you have to physically lean forward - as often you are sat so far back you are away from the window - note image above. Also rather cramped on the face to back seats.

 

[Marton]

Con by original design: hurts some peoples' backs because the base cushion slopes the wrong way and so doesn't give any underthigh support.

I believe the VTEC refurb fixes this by using a two piece cushion, though.

Maybe it’s me, or the first class seats, but I always found them comfortable.

A pity the VTEC refurb didn’t repair the seats.

 

[superkev]

Perhaps the mod could make this rather usefully guide more permanent.
K

 

[Willr2094]

IC70:

(not my photo)

Found in: Chiltern, Greater Anglia etc. Mk3s, Mk2 Short sets, EMT (and two VTEC) HSTs

Pros: Very well padded and sprung, good width, seats low meaning good view
Cons: Seats low, therefore unsupportive, posture encourages slouching, especially if tall, fixed armrests a nuisance and limit shoulder space

MY OVERALL RATING: 5/10

A particular downside of the fixed armrests is they make accessing/exiting the window seats difficult, especially the ones round a table.

 

[Willr2094]

Maybe it’s me, or the first class seats, but I always found them comfortable.

A pity the VTEC refurb didn’t repair the seats.

I have always found the Standard Class "Mallard" style seats perfectly comfortable. They were certainly a huge improvement over the rather firm and upright BR ones that MK4 standard class coaches had until GNER refurbished the sets between 2003 and 2005 - which I always found rather tiring to sit on for a long time.

 

[SEClass375]

Can someone answer the following:

1. Are those are Compin seats?

2. What sort of ironing board seats these are?

3. What type of seats these are as they do not look like Ashbourne seats?

Sorry for the large pictures as they are not mine and from Wikipedia.

 

[DanNCL]

3. What type of seats these are as they do not look like Ashbourne seats?

I'm not sure what the name for them is but they're only used on Networkers, Turbos and 323s, which would suggest that it is a British Rail design of some sort, probably a follow on to the Ashbourne design.

 

[class387]

Can someone answer the following:


1. Are those are Compin seats?


2. What sort of ironing board seats these are?


3. What type of seats these are as they do not look like Ashbourne seats?

Sorry for the large pictures as they are not mine and from Wikipedia.

1. They are made by Compin, though I don't know the exact type. They can also be found on various trains in France.

2. Ironing board seats usually refer to the Fainsa seats in the 700 etc. which these are not. Don't know the make though.

 

[class387]

Compin:


(Not my photo)

Found in: Class 375, 377, Class 350 and 450 First Class

Pros: Good padding and sprung on early seats, decent on rest, good width
Cons: Bad posture, armrests uncomfortably high, unsuitable when used as first class seat.

MY OVERALL RATING: 5/10

 

[SEClass375]

I think I have a good tip for those who don't know to identify the best seats on an electrostar e.g. Compin seats that are sprung:
If the poles in the vestibule bend straight down (more common with 2+2 seating than 3+2), where it is 2+2 seating, the seats are sprung.
If the poles in the vestibule curve on the way down (more common with 3+2 seating than 2+2), where it is 2+2 seating, the seats are not sprung.

 

[class387]

I think I have a good tip for those who don't know to identify the best seats on an electrostar e.g. Compin seats that are sprung:
If the poles in the vestibule bend straight down (more common with 2+2 seating than 3+2), where it is 2+2 seating, the seats are sprung.
If the poles in the vestibule curve on the way down (more common with 3+2 seating than 2+2), where it is 2+2 seating, the seats are not sprung.

The only 377s with sprung seats are:

377101—377119 (throughout)
377120—377139 (only at carriage ends, the rest is 3+2)
377301—377328 (throughout)

On 375s, I think the /3s, /6s and /7s have sprung seats but these might have been removed at refurbishment.

 

[SEClass375]

The only 377s with sprung seats are:

377101—377119 (throughout)
377120—377139 (only at carriage ends, the rest is 3+2)
377301—377328 (throughout)

On 375s, I think the /3s, /6s and /7s have sprung seats but these might have been removed at refurbishment.

I don't think they have. I have been on one post refurb and it felt comfier in the back and base compared to a /8

 

[Hadders]

The interior of a class 365. I know I'm biased but it offers a far better level of comfort compared to the class 700. And a decent aisle width too. The 700s would've been much better with this style of seating layout.

(Not my photo https://www.mattypsrailwaypics.com/class-365.html)

 

[Mikey C]

Having gone up to Leeds yesterday in a Mallard Mk4 and come back in one of the HST/Mk3s with IC70s seats, as someone who's tall I have to say I much preferred the former, which I thought was really comfortable. The low back of the IC70 made it really hard to relax when I fancied a dose, plus being mounted too low it restricted foot room underneath (in airline formation). I came out feeling cramped, whereas I came out feeling refreshed from the Mallard.

The IC70 does give a better view out though, and may suit shorter people better, so I think the answer is to have a mixture of Mallard and IC70s seats in each carriage so that everyone is happy

 

[ValleyLines142]

These are the Chapman Richmond seats - also found on the Class 144.

In terms of personal opinion I'd say I'll agree with class387; satisfied with the Grammer and Fainsa seating, and very much pleased to be seeing a lot less of the Ashbourne now.

I've been on a couple of GWR 153s and 158s with the Richmond seating, and I found that the seat pad leans somewhat forward so that my bum slips off the seat! Usually in the 158s they only tend to be found in Carriage C which I'd avoid, except for 158952 which has them fitted in every carriage!

What's the name of the other style of seats found on GWR and some Northern 158s? They are very comfy, especially on the refurbed GWR 158s, however my only issue is that the legroom on them is tiny and ideally I need a priority seat!

 

[superalbs]

Does anybody know who provided the Class 374 seats?