What is it about train seat comfort?

[Mogz]

As I’ve mentioned before, my job takes me all over the UK by rail, so I get to ride on quite a variety of rolling stock.

It seems to me that as the stock gets newer, the leg room gets better but the seat comfort itself gets worse.

Today I’ve had the joys of plenty of legroom in a hard ironing board seat and a hard Elizabeth line seat (whatever those ones are) and am now sitting in a 20 year old CrossCountry Voyager seat that is plush and well upholstered but has rubbish leg room.
Is there no happy medium?

 

[yorksrob]

The mk4's seem to be the best of the bunch at the moment.

 

[RailWonderer]

The class 175s and 180s come close to the mk4s for the best balance between comfort and legroom. 158s and 159s with original seating in airline have great legroom but very poor in the bay seats. Some trains have better bay legroom than airline and vice versa.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Yes exactly how much do they save by skimping on the foam? I have a bad back and 40 mins on these seats isn’t good.

 

[Intercity 225]

Is there a reason why so many modern train seats have such low amounts of padding?

I seem to remember reading that it was something to do with fire safety but there are several fire-safe materials that decent padding could be manufactured from so surely it can’t just be that?

 

[Neptune]

158s and 159s with original seating in airline have great legroom

As someone a smidge over 6’0” I find the original 158 seats appalling for legroom in the airline seats and poor for comfort on top of that (the back is too raked back).

My bad back of 30 years appreciates the modern upright firm back of seats but I do prefer a foam filled seat base otherwise I end up with a numb bum for journeys over an hour.

 

[geoffk]

Is there a reason why so many modern train seats have such low amounts of padding?

I seem to remember reading that it was something to do with fire safety but there are several fire-safe materials that decent padding could be manufactured from so surely it can’t just be that?

I don't remember fire safety on passenger stock being an issue when trains were steam-hauled and many passengers smoked on board.

 

[43096]

The mk4's seem to be the best of the bunch at the moment.

Agreed, for the UK.

The best rail vehicle I've been in during the last week was a ČD restaurant car...

 

[PaulHarding150]

Is there no happy medium?

Everyone has a view and opinion. You will never please everyone all the time.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

I guess it's highly subjective but I don't get the love for 175s, the seat back is too short for my liking. The FGW HST seats, also used on the TfW 158s is by far the best IMO, but again, highly subjective.

 

[Eastern Farmer]

In all honesty most of my travels are on either mk4s or Azumas but I do find both of them rather comfortable to sit on both comfort wise and legroom wise. Saying that I had a trip on a gc 180 a year or so ago which I could not complain about one bit either.

 

[greyman42]

My bad back of 30 years appreciates the modern upright firm back of seats but I do prefer a foam filled seat base otherwise I end up with a numb bum for journeys over an hour.

Regarding the seat base, the solution would be to put springs back in them.

I don't remember fire safety on passenger stock being an issue when trains were steam-hauled and many passengers smoked on board.

And i don't recall them bursting into flames on a regular basis.

 

[Mikey C]

The Chiltern 168s and Southeastern 375s (4 abreast) have very nice seats. Indeed the turn of the century seems to have been a good period for train seating, which then started declining with later Electrostars...

 

[John Webb]

Is there a reason why so many modern train seats have such low amounts of padding?

I seem to remember reading that it was something to do with fire safety but there are several fire-safe materials that decent padding could be manufactured from so surely it can’t just be that?

The DfT in connection with the introduction of class 700s on the trains through St Pancras claimed it was for 'fire safety reasons' when complaints arose about their 'ironing-board' seats. Most people, including myself, discarded this as a very poor excuse as decent fire-resistant coverings and fire-retarded foams have been available for several decades, following Regulations for domestic furnishings introduced in 1988. It was concluded that it was simply DfT trying to get trains on the cheap by penny-pinching (bottom-numbing?) reductions.....

I don't remember fire safety on passenger stock being an issue when trains were steam-hauled and many passengers smoked on board.

The coverings and horse-hair stuffing, coupled with the use of springs in cushions, were reasonably resistant to ignition by cigarette stubs etc.,

Regarding the seat base, the solution would be to put springs back in them.


And i don't recall them bursting into flames on a regular basis.

There were several serious train fires in the late 1940s/early 1950s caused, not by lack of fire-resistance in seats, but by the use of cellulose lacquer finishes on compartment partitions. These lacquers turned out to be highly flammable and were ignited by cigarette ends or hot embers from engine chimneys. See:
https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Penmanshiel1949.pdf
https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Beattock1950.pdf
https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Huntingdon1951.pdf
A further fire occurred in March 1952 but was not the subject of a MoT report.

In 1983 a fire occurred in foam in a corridor connection between two coaches:
https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_Cadder1983.pdf

The 1978 Taunton Sleeper fire was caused by wrongly leaving dirty linen in a bag against a wall-mounted heater.

So in none of these was ignition of a passenger seat the start of a fire.

 

[AJDesiro]

Is there a reason why so many modern train seats have such low amounts of padding?

I seem to remember reading that it was something to do with fire safety but there are several fire-safe materials that decent padding could be manufactured from so surely it can’t just be that?

I believe it’s something to do with using a different foam, which presumably costs much more than older stuff. It can be made comfortable, the Fainsa Sophia’s in the 197s demonstrate that we can have comfortable seats (they have much better padding than the IET examples), it’s just many TOCs/DfT won’t fork out the money for a variety of reasons.

I don't remember fire safety on passenger stock being an issue when trains were steam-hauled and many passengers smoked on board.

I remember reading somewhere that the new regulations were related more to arson than anything else, though who knows for sure?!

 

[Flying Snail]

Regarding fire concerns, from the above linked report to the 1983 Mk3 fire, the following was noted:

33. The Fire Technology Team report points out that the polycarbonate windows in the half
partitions at the middle of both coaches had melted onto the seats beneath them, indicating a temperature
in excess of 18S°C, but that the seats, which are specially protected, had not caught fire

I think any notion that seats need to be rock-hard for fire safety reasons can be dismissed as utter nonsense and nothing more than a convenient excuse for ordering cheap and nasty junk.

 

[Taunton]

If you want comfortable train seats go to a heritage railway ...

 

[Sun Chariot]

If you want comfortable train seats go to a heritage railway ...

You beat me to it!

Mothers Day 2020, my wife, son and I enjoyed time at the Mid Hants / Watercress Line. We decamped to a former first class compartment in the BCK, unpacked a home-made picnic and revelled in the sumptuously comfortable cushions, whilst the Black 5 toiled up "the little Alps", sending dreamy smoke wisps past our compartment window.

 

[Deepgreen]

I don't remember fire safety on passenger stock being an issue when trains were steam-hauled and many passengers smoked on board.

Indeed, but furniture and public vehicles/spaces in general have become hugely more 'fire-aware' since then. However, I don't see why a thicker fire-resistant filling can't be used. The risk must be extremely low with smoking banned and the materials being fire-retardant anyway.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed, but furniture and public vehicles/spaces in general have become hugely more 'fire-aware' since then. However, I don't see why a thicker fire-resistant filling can't be used. The risk must be extremely low with smoking banned and the materials being fire-retardant anyway.

Having done a bit of work on mk1 vehicles, it seems to me that the bouncy cushions were filled with foam anyway. Surely a fire resistant bouncy foam can be found somewhere.

 

[greyman42]

I think any notion that seats need to be rock-hard for fire safety reasons can be dismissed as utter nonsense and nothing more than a convenient excuse for ordering cheap and nasty junk.

That's pretty much it.

Having done a bit of work on mk1 vehicles, it seems to me that the bouncy cushions were filled with foam anyway. Surely a fire resistant bouncy foam can be found somewhere.

Originally and up to them being taken out of B.R. service, they had a spring in them. The spring had horse hair round it and then a calico cover, before the final moquette cover. I have no idea what heritage lines do with them. I would imagine that once the springs become damaged or lost it would be difficult to source new ones and foam might then be used.

 

[yorksrob]

That's pretty much it.


Originally and up to them being taken out of B.R. service, they had a spring in them. The spring had horse hair round it and then a calico cover, before the final moquette cover. I have no idea what heritage lines do with them. I would imagine that once the springs become damaged or lost it would be difficult to source new ones and foam might then be used.

It's hard to see how moquette and springs (plus the cloth later underneath the moquette) could be a massive fire hazzard.

I once ventured into a very neglected mk1 carriage that had been left for some time. I sat on a cushion which I'd assumed to be horse hair filled and it felt like a solid lump.

 

[Energy]

An important part of the seat is how it looks, if the seat looks uncomfortable then the passenger's mind has already decided that it probably is and will try and justify that to itself. Same way that if food looks horrible the mind has already decided, even if it tastes nice.

The base of the seat needs to be well padded, over a long journey you'll notice it being rock hard but the back you can get away with being thinner. However for this the back needs to be well designed for a variety of heights.

For example, the GWR IET seat often gets complaints about the seat base as it is too thin so gets noticeable on long journeys while the back varies as wasn't designed well for many heights with those about the right height (5''9 iirc) finding it fine. The cushions collapsing so the passenger can feel the metal bar underneath doesn't help either.

The GWR IET seats are in a boring shade of grey, so look uncomfortable while the LNER azuma seats are red so look comfortable enough. As such (and because the LNER ones haven't collapsed yet) they tend to get less complaints. The Thameslink seats with their very ironing board looking cushion (and a firm base) also get more complaints than the Northern seats which have the same frame but a better looking cushion and a better base.

The gold standard for new UK seats for me is the new Pendolino / 803 seats from Transcal. Their base is thick enough and their back is well designed so are comfortable for long journeys while their thinner back gives excellent leg room. The FISA LEAN is meant to be good (I'm yet to try one, should be catching a 196 and 755 soon!) but their thick backs take away from legroom.

 

[Taunton]

I do notice how pleasant the seats on Amtrak are. That's in Coach, the cheapest, as used on their shorter distance services. I can't believe that the USA is any less concerned about fire resistance than elsewhere.

 

[superalbs]

I do notice how pleasant the seats on Amtrak are. That's in Coach, the cheapest, as used on their shorter distance services. I can't believe that the USA is any less concerned about fire resistance than elsewhere.

USA rail safety isn't exactly great, though.

 

[Purple Train]

158s and 159s with original seating in airline have great legroom but very poor in the bay seats. Some trains have better bay legroom than airline and vice versa.

Last time I was on a 159, I found my airline seat pretty cramped in terms of legroom, which is quite an achievement as I'm around 5'5". For me Meridians and 458s are the gold standard, but a taller person may well have a slightly different opinion!

I also like the 720 seats, but that's because they suit my build and nobody else's! The EMR 170s I found pretty poor though, with the seat back being so sharply contoured on both an ex-GA and ex-ScotRail set. Might have suited someone under five feet tall and under 12 years old, but not anyone else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Regarding the seat base, the solution would be to put springs back in them.


And i don't recall them bursting into flames on a regular basis.

The London Underground S stock appears to use airbags, the actual cushion is quite thin.

 

[Taunton]

You beat me to it!

Mothers Day 2020, my wife, son and I enjoyed time at the Mid Hants / Watercress Line.

I went to Didcot and rode in their immaculate 1935 GWR excursion stock (ie built for the cheapest traffic) open vehicle, 85 years old, mostly spent in the open on sidings, certainly original-looking seats. Family in the next booth said how comfortable they were, and how they wished these seats had been put in their, presumably Class 800, train they had arrived in.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One thing of note is that you do need to get a decent number of seats in to be economic, so it is indeed either a thin back and legroom or a thick back and less legroom. Rake also affects legroom unless you've got very short lower legs.

However, nothing says you can't put a more comfortable base on a thin-backed seat, as Northern did with their ironing boards* and TfW have done with their Sophias. By modern standards (I've never liked deep-sprung seats) these are both perfectly decent.

* The Northern 158s show just how inefficient on space the original seats were - in the same layout with ironing boards the legroom is cavernous, compared to it being very poor with the originals. Same with the new Pendolino seats; the old ones were of a not dissimilar back design to the 158 seat.

 

[A0wen]

I don't remember fire safety on passenger stock being an issue when trains were steam-hauled and many passengers smoked on board.

Nor was fire safety and issue on the London Undeground... until there was at Kings Cross.

Just because "there didn't seem to be an issue" in the past is not a good basis on which to make such decisions now.

If you want comfortable train seats go to a heritage railway ...

Which is subjective - yes, they are springy and spongy - but I find those less comfortable as there's more a tendency to 'slouch' in the seat which causes back problems.

I much prefer a fairly firm, upright seat which I find more comfortable over any length of time.