Train seats

[Blamethrower]

My list:

Good:

222 Meridian Std + 1st - best use of minimum space + comfy - really quite worn out in std tho
175 ATW - std comfy, headrests you can sleep in
VTEC HST - std+1st - really comfy, great big bucket like seats in 1st
MK4 refurbished coaches
GW refurbished HSTs

Bad:

Pretty much every commuter train
all unrefurbished HSTs
anything 3+2
pendolinos with their plasticky noisy narrow rubbish
voyagers its the seat height that is wrong
387/2s which are somehow harder than 387/1s
All chiltern stock
All northern stock, everything, awfully maintained, dirty, disgusting uncomfortable seats
All 319's except the Switzerland ones (which ever sub-class they were)
All 321s


I qualify all this by being 6ft tall, wide shoulders and averagely fat. I also have laxity in shoulders and hips which means I get uncomfortable much quicker than others.

So for me, nowt beats the 222s and 175s for standard. Virgin always do the best first class.

All the rest is truly truly awful. When we're all getting larger, how is making the seats smaller a positive move?

I noticed that on 387s, due to the seat not having much padding, your bum moves around less meaning that you are actually more comfortable. By that i mean that as the train shakes around, you are using your muscles less to stabilise you, which means you last longer before the numb bumb takes over.

There is however not one genuinely comfortable train in the UK for me right now

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I suppose I'll do a list then...

Best:
Ex-TPE 158s, as found in Northern MS vehicles.

Good:
Original 158 seats, assuming cushions haven't worked loose.
185 standard, if you're lucky enough to get a seat at all.
VTEC mk3s.
ATW 158s.
Ex Northern Spirit 156s.

Satisfactory:
Merseyrail 507/508s.
SWT 455s.
Ex Northern Spirit 142s, since the refresh.
333s.
Ex Alphaline 158s.
144s in non-airline layout, or priority seats.
VTEC Mk4s.
Northern 321/322.

Needs imrovement:
GC 180s.
Ex Central 158s.
Northern 153/155s.
All varieties of Northern 150.
142 bus benches.

Please, please make it stop, I'd rather D-lock myself to a container flat!:
378s.
Miserytravel 142s.
377/6s.

 

[physics34]

still dont know how people can say a 377/6 and 387 seat is comfortable when we used to have this on the BML.......

and in fact the earlier CIGs were even more comfortable

 

[shaun]

Page decided to refresh when I had finished my list, so it was erased. But to summarise (IC)...

Great: FGW HSTs (best in the uk)
Excellent: XC/VTEC stock
Good: Anything with IC70s still, Meridians & 180s
Ill-suited: Pendos (1st is ok) & Voyagers

IC70s only great when slouching, have had their day. FGW have set the benchmark with their Green HST (ok maybe more tables would be nice but this is about seats)

Looking forward to the 800, find the 395s very comfy don't understand the negative comments about a train nobody has tried out yet. At least it looks spacious!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

still dont know how people can say a 377/6 and 387 seat is comfortable when we used to have this on the BML.......

and in fact the earlier CIGs were even more comfortable

That they were, from a seating point of view. Bit bouncy at high speed though! Ambience-wise I don't miss them at all on longer distances. Same goes for the MK2s.

 

[168lover]

All chiltern stock

What even the Mark 3s and 168s?

 

[southern442]

With regards to the ironing board seating;

I have gone on for ages about how bad they are etc. A lot of people agree with me, there are a few who like the seats and I can sort of understand why, but I could say relatively confidently that they are in the minority or at least say that more people dislike them than like them. I believe that these seats are now regulation. This means that all new trains will be fitted with the ironing board seating. Currently the sets that have them are the 387's, some 377's, the refurbished 317 demonstrator, the 321 demonstrator, and the pacer demonstrator. That's not very many at the moment. However so far there has not been a single new train that has not had these seats. The IEP's have them, the 700's have them, the 707's have them, the new 385's have them, the Crossrail stock are due to have them fitted and the new 313 replacements will probably have them put in too. The new trains are not being designed with comfort in mind despite what all the TOC's are telling you.

 

[156443]

One I like

Northern Rail 156 (since refurbishment)

Northern Rail 142 (high backed seats)



Ones don't like

Scotrail 156

142 bench seats


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk

 

[physics34]

Page decided to refresh when I had finished my list, so it was erased. But to summarise (IC)...

Great: FGW HSTs (best in the uk)
Excellent: XC/VTEC stock
Good: Anything with IC70s still, Meridians & 180s
Ill-suited: Pendos (1st is ok) & Voyagers

IC70s only great when slouching, have had their day. FGW have set the benchmark with their Green HST (ok maybe more tables would be nice but this is about seats)

Looking forward to the 800, find the 395s very comfy don't understand the negative comments about a train nobody has tried out yet. At least it looks spacious!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


That they were, from a seating point of view. Bit bouncy at high speed though! Ambience-wise I don't miss them at all on longer distances. Same goes for the MK2s.

bouncy was a good thing

 

[yorksrob]

still dont know how people can say a 377/6 and 387 seat is comfortable when we used to have this on the BML.......

and in fact the earlier CIGs were even more comfortable

Indeed. Please (hopefully) find an interior shot of a phase 1 1964 CIG here:

 

[physics34]

Indeed. Please (hopefully) find an interior shot of a phase 1 1964 CIG here:

a bit small, ha ha...... they were great

 

[yorksrob]

a bit small, ha ha...... they were great

Indeed - I've had difficulties trying to upload the pic from this website. tiny and huge seem to be the only options !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ambience-wise I don't miss them at all on longer distances. Same goes for the MK2s.

Far better ambience than anything modern IMO. Just the thing for a trip to the coast !

 

[Bevan Price]

For standard class only. Consideration has been given to legroom, seat width, and "comfort" of seat material. Includes only classes I use fairly often.

Good:
Classes 168, 175, 180, 222, Mark 3 (Chiltern).

Adequate:
Classes 156 (most), 158, 142 (2+2 refurbished), 150 (2+2), 170, 185, 350/1, 507, 508.
Mark 2 (DRS)

Not bad in terms of seat material, but too narrow and/or not enough legroom:
Classes 319, 323, most 150, 153, 155, 172, 220, 221, 390, 142 (most), 144, plus some seat positions in Class 156.

Poor:
Merseyrail 142

However none of the above get anywhere near the comfort of Bulleid Open Seconds or 4-COR emus.

 

[TheNewNo2]

My bad list:

379s
VTEC

 

[Bletchleyite]

My bad list:

379s
VTEC

I don't like the old VTEC Standard seats and the First ones are only comfortable because they are so big. Sloping a seat base up rather than down towards the back is madness.

 

[northwichcat]

Good:
LM 350/1 Standard and First.
TPE 350 Standard and First.

Bearable:
SWT 450 Standard
LM 350/2 Standard

It partly depends how far you're travelling. I rather be on a 350/2 travelling from Milton Keynes to Bletchley than on a 350/4 travelling from Manchester to Edinburgh. The LM 350/1 interiors currently look worn out making the 350/3 and 350/4 interiors better.

Good:
ATW 150

Awful:
GWR 143 Standard

Those are the same type of seats. The lack of armrests and tables changes the seating from good to awful in your opinion?

 

[Blamethrower]

What even the Mark 3s and 168s?

Why aye.

HST's still use the same seat carcasses as far as I am aware.

I found 168 seats to be way too narrow for my broad frame. The armrests really play havoc with my shoulders too. Not much legroom either.

And to qualify, I don't like any "classic" HST seating. Just like all other BREL seats from that era, they are too low and the pitch is all wrong plus the armrests cannot be moved and thus kill my shoulders

 

[lincolnshire]

I don't like the old VTEC Standard seats and the First ones are only comfortable because they are so big. Sloping a seat base up rather than down towards the back is madness.

Been on a refurbed Virgin East Coast twice now and can now travel from Kings Cross to Doncaster without ending up with a numb bum from then seats.

The reds a bit ? jurys out on colour and last ability of fabric and and how long they will look good, but the are much better to sit on after just adding that bit extra on the front edge in padding and the padding in the rest of the seat so that you now sit better in the seat with as against before. Considering they are stuck with the same seat body shell they seem to have done a good job.

But still like Hull trains seats better and even the tip up ones in the entrance are better than the old east coast seats.

Just have to wait and see what the next generation of train seats will be like when they appear on the scene.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The IEP seats (being the same as the AT200 First Class seats in the ScotRail mockup) seem decent enough to me, though they won't suit those who don't like hard seats (I do).

 

[northwichcat]

The IEP seats (being the same as the AT200 First Class seats in the ScotRail mockup) seem decent enough to me, though they won't suit those who don't like hard seats (I do).

The Germans all like hard seats, or at least DB think they do!

 

[greaterwest]

It partly depends how far you're travelling. I rather be on a 350/2 travelling from Milton Keynes to Bletchley than on a 350/4 travelling from Manchester to Edinburgh. The LM 350/1 interiors currently look worn out making the 350/3 and 350/4 interiors better.



Those are the same type of seats. The lack of armrests and tables changes the seating from good to awful in your opinion?

I think it may be the fact that the ride on the 143 is far more rough than the 150 (Barnstaple to Exeter on the 143 vs Llandudno Junction to Blaenau Ffestiniog on the 150; I know which I'd rather do, and they are similar length journeys)

The lack of tables doesn't particularly help matters on the 143, though that wasn't a deciding factor.

 

[Kentish Paul]

The Germans all like hard seats, or at least DB think they do!

Surely these trains are Japanese.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Those are the same type of seats. The lack of armrests and tables changes the seating from good to awful in your opinion?

Normally if the centre armrest is omitted the space available to the passenger reduces by about an inch and a half, as the seats are jammed next to each other (and to the wall). This makes a massive difference to the larger bloke.

Indeed, I find most bus seats uncomfortable *because* they are always jammed up against the wall.

 

[northwichcat]

Surely these trains are Japanese.

That was meant in response to when Neil Williams said about not all people liking hard seats.

 

[Kentish Paul]

That was meant in response to when Neil Williams said about not all people liking hard seats.

Apologies, just read the post again. Must concentrate.

 

[HowardGWR]

I agree about SWT class 159 seats, having travelled down from Clapham Jcn this morning. I understand that there are three units that have different, and I think I got one of those once; indeed those are not comfortable in a train that calls at very farm yard to Exeter and takes over three hours.

The good ones give good lumber support and are plush. My only criticism is that the armrests are puny and not padded. I almost reluctantly left mine at AXM.

Are these excellent seats to a known design? Doe anyone know the make? Having transferred to them from the rammed Southern ones from Gatwick to CLJ, the difference was very marked. They were also better than a lot of DB seats (regional and ICE) that we sampled.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And to qualify, I don't like any "classic" HST seating. Just like all other BREL seats from that era, they are too low and the pitch is all wrong plus the armrests cannot be moved and thus kill my shoulders

IC70 seating is a classic piece of terrible design. Fixed armrests mean the window seat is harder to access at a table seat. In airline seats, the pitch is good, but the fixed armrests force a taller passenger's legs straight forward, straight into the table supports, which are pointed and too low. The redeeming feature is the large table itself - but I can't use it!

Much as every thread leads to 442s, they really are the ultimate Mk3 evolution - the original seating used in the 442 fixes all the problems with the IC70 (and, a bit OT, the lighting, vestibule doors etc).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That was meant in response to when Neil Williams said about not all people liking hard seats.

FWIW I find the DB Regio standard hard seats very comfortable, though they lack a middle armrest.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree about SWT class 159 seats, having travelled down from Clapham Jcn this morning. I understand that there are three units that have different, and I think I got one of those once; indeed those are not comfortable in a train that calls at very farm yard to Exeter and takes over three hours.

Which seats do the 159s have - the originals? They aren't terrible - only problems are that they are a bit low and the supporting pillars go where my knees do. The Class 175/180 seat is better in this regard - the thick support is in the middle where peoples' knees don't go.

 

[HowardGWR]

Which seats do the 159s have - the originals? They aren't terrible - only problems are that they are a bit low and the supporting pillars go where my knees do. The Class 175/180 seat is better in this regard - the thick support is in the middle where peoples' knees don't go.

Fair point, although that is about the tables, not the seats. I actually witnessed two hefty pax, clashing knees, discussing that this morning. I don't know what is 'original' and what isn't. A previous poster mentioned the series 159101 -103 as being those with the poorer quality seats.

I don't get the 'low' remark -I don't seee how high backs are more comfortable, but perhaps that was another point, not related to comfort.

If the 159 service to Exeter stopped just at the main points, (Woking for Heathrow, then Salisbury and Yeovil) with a change at Woking and Yeovil for the smaller towns, then this service with this standard of seating comfort, would be a very fine service indeed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fair point, although that is about the tables, not the seats.

No, it's the seats. I'm referring to the thick support pillars for the seat backs themselves, on an airline seat, being at the outer sides of the seat rather than the middle.

Compare (these are original Class 158/159 seats with new cushions):

with (class 175 seats):

and notice how the Coradia seat tapers away from the seat behind towards the outer edges of the seat (where knees tend to go) rather than the thick supports being in that location as per the original Class 158 design.

 

[Phil.]

I agree about SWT class 159 seats, having travelled down from Clapham Jcn this morning. I understand that there are three units that have different, and I think I got one of those once; indeed those are not comfortable in a train that calls at very farm yard to Exeter and takes over three hours.

The good ones give good lumber support and are plush. My only criticism is that the armrests are puny and not padded. I almost reluctantly left mine at AXM.

Are these excellent seats to a known design? Doe anyone know the make? Having transferred to them from the rammed Southern ones from Gatwick to CLJ, the difference was very marked. They were also better than a lot of DB seats (regional and ICE) that we sampled.

159s are fine if you're a midget. If you're proper sized like me - 6' 3", fourteen stone - it's impossible to sit properly because the seats are too close together. G.W. HSTs are fine except - as someone else has posted - it's difficult getting in and out because of the fixed armrests.
The original dark blue seats in the Southern 377s were lovely, soft yet supportive. So "they" took them out and replaced them with the hard light blue ones.
442s are the most comfortable seats - for me - on any train in the UK. I know lots of people who agree with me on that.
When it comes to trains seats size really does matter.

 

[Deepgreen]

159s are fine if you're a midget. If you're proper sized like me - 6' 3", fourteen stone - it's impossible to sit properly because the seats are too close together. G.W. HSTs are fine except - as someone else has posted - it's difficult getting in and out because of the fixed armrests.
The original dark blue seats in the Southern 377s were lovely, soft yet supportive. So "they" took them out and replaced them with the hard light blue ones.
442s are the most comfortable seats - for me - on any train in the UK. I know lots of people who agree with me on that.
When it comes to trains seats size really does matter.

Try the GWR HST first class 'armchairs' - a greater contrast with Southern's ludicrous 'first' class is hard to imagine!