Why are the Ironing Boards taking over?

[Clansman]

*This has popped up on various thread but I wanted to ask on a separate thread to prevent the same question being raised over and over*

Just wondering why these Fainsa seats, aka "Ironing Boards", are popping up on new trains around London and gradually spreading across the UK? Is this a requirement for all London Suburban TOCs - is it to maximise the space within the train in terms of luggage and standing room?

The Ironing Boards are currently in place on the following:

Class 144* (Demonstrator) - Northern
Class 317* (Demonstrator) - GA
Class 387 (All units) - GTR, GWR, C2C
Class 385 (All units) - SR
Class 700 (All units) - GTR
Class 707 (All units) - SWT
Class 321 (Refurbished Units) - GA

and counting...

 

[superalbs]

I really like the thread title, it made me laugh!

 

[Domh245]

You would think that given their prevalence, Fainsa (the manufacturer of them) was paying Train manufacturers to use them! In all likelihood though, it'll probably be because they are a cheap seat that can be procured quickly whilst meeting modern safety standards. And in spite of the moaning on here they are in fact ergonomically designed and not unsafe for Human use.

 

[DarloRich]

cheap, bought in bulk and take up limited space.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You would think that given their prevalence, Fainsa (the manufacturer of them) was paying Train manufacturers to use them! In all likelihood though, it'll probably be because they are a cheap seat that can be procured quickly whilst meeting modern safety standards. And in spite of the moaning on here they are in fact ergonomically designed and not unsafe for Human use.

I like them, though not as much as the GWR "tombstones". Both seats are good for tall people in that it is possible to rest your head on the headrest.

Not clear what it has to do with luggage or standing space? The Electrostars featuring them are 2+2 with armrests (so not narrow) and have better spacing than the airline-seated 3+2 ones using the older design (as the airline seating doesn't insert an extra row other than a side-facing seat that takes almost no space).

 

[jon0844]

I think they're fine too, but as mentioned in the 700 thread, my four year old son finds them really uncomfortable. He weighs less than 20Kg.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think they're fine too, but as mentioned in the 700 thread, my four year old son finds them really uncomfortable. He weighs less than 20Kg.

I'd imagine most adult-sized seats are uncomfortable for a 4-year-old, particularly those which have a deep enough base to provide an adult with proper under-thigh support.

 

[jon0844]

I guess he can't complain too much though, given he doesn't pay to travel. But from next year...!

 

[DarloRich]

they are fine for short journeys but can very quickly lead to numb bum! MKC - Clpaham is starting to get uncomfortable ( if it ever runs again!)

 

[Alfie1014]

The seats in the ScR 385s and Renatus 321s are from a different manufacture Quantum Seating of Rugby. If you look at the attached video about the Hitachi AT200 you'll see that basically the design is to meet current safety legislation in the event of a collision.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLbnXgMWwL4

 

[AM9]

Despite having a spine issue, (or maybe because of), I find then perfectly comfortable both for short/medium journeys and longer ones. Having travelled in a brand new 387121 from Bedford to Brighton and from Bedford to Blackfriars in 700109, there were no problems.
The fact is that train ride has improved markedly with the advent of almost universal welded tack and compensated coach suspension designs. There is no need to have seats with bouncy springing which wouldn't last long if subjected to the sort of use that modern seats get.
Much more important is the posture and the ability of the seat to retain that good posture through its serviceable life.
With the obligation to provide seating that was fit for purpose, good durable compact designs are bound to be the default choice for TOCs acquiring stock on routes with average journey times of 1-2 hours.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Well I dont care about any of the above * I want to be cumfy and to me these arnt. Every seat should be like the ones fitted to the 158s when new. Have to agree with Neil though the Toombstones on GWR and in 25 of Scotfails 158s are rather good too.

*Not dissing anyones oppinions just wishing safety didnt get in the way of a decent seat

 

[PHILIPE]

*This has popped up on various thread but I wanted to ask on a separate thread to prevent the same question being raised over and over*

Just wondering why these Fainsa seats, aka "Ironing Boards", are popping up on new trains around London and gradually spreading across the UK? Is this a requirement for all London Suburban TOCs - is it to maximise the space within the train in terms of luggage and standing room?

The Ironing Boards are currently in place on the following:

Class 143* (Demonstrator) - Northern
Class 317* (Demonstrator) - GA
Class 387 (All units) - GTR, GWR, C2C
Class 385 (All units) - SR
Class 700 (All units) - GTR
Class 707 (All units) - SWT
Class 321 (Refurbished Units) - GA

and counting...

Not Northern 143. They haven't got any. Just ATW and GWR

 

[Bletchleyite]

The seats in the ScR 385s and Renatus 321s are from a different manufacture Quantum Seating of Rugby. If you look at the attached video about the Hitachi AT200 you'll see that basically the design is to meet current safety legislation in the event of a collision.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLbnXgMWwL4

Yet the IEP seats are much, much lower - the same as the AT200 First Class ones.

 

[AM9]

Well I dont care about any of the above * I want to be cumfy and to me these arnt. Every seat should be like the ones fitted to the 158s when new. Have to agree with Neil though the Toombstones on GWR and in 25 of Scotfails 158s are rather good too.

*Not dissing anyones oppinions just wishing safety didnt get in the way of a decent seat

Safety is paramount, and not just because of the threat of litigation. I don't think there are many who genuinely want the days of 'common sense' (whatever that is) where safety issues are just assumed to be somebody else's responsibiltiy. 'Comfort' is far too subjective to let it drive designs for healthy passenger accomodation.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Im sorry but I couldnt disagree more

If I have paid money for a journey and seats are avialable then I want to be cumfy. Everyone is however entitled to their views though

 

[Deepgreen]

I suspect that the seats are designed to be very low maintenance and to increase the perceived 'legroom' factor (at the expense of comfort). I find them horrible, but acknowledge that everyone's perception differs according to body size, shape and condition!

 

[ComUtoR]

Im sorry but I couldnt disagree more

If I have paid money for a journey and seats are avialable then I want to be cumfy.

Would you pay extra for a more comfortable seat ? If so, how much more ?

 

[Blindtraveler]

Interesting one. I quite like the chinese 3 class system which I know wouldnt work over here but I do object to being able to buy a cheepo advance for a fiver on a service which I can also pay 50 quid for at another tome but still get the same qualitty seat.

I know a train ticket doesnt entitle you to a seat as such but the option of having one is nice.

I dont think First is always worth it but Id certainly pay a quid or two more for iether a more cumfy seat or to have the one next to me free.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also the ironing boards would be fine with more padding

 

[hassaanhc]

Im sorry but I couldnt disagree more

If I have paid money for a journey and seats are avialable then I want to be cumfy. Everyone is however entitled to their views though

But I do find them comfortable! More than the soggy Class 458 seats, which can cause back pain to flare up, and make me think twice now before using the Hounslow Loop instead of the other nearby rail lines.

 

[swt class 450]

The 377/6 and 377/7 trains also have these seats as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Im sorry but I couldnt disagree more

If I have paid money for a journey and seats are avialable then I want to be cumfy. Everyone is however entitled to their views though

Thing is I find they *are* comfortable. OTOH, InterCity 70 seats, beloved by some, do my back in and squash my backside.

It's such an individual thing.

That said, as regards classes, I do wonder if a "middle class" of 2+2 but wider spaced, more comfortable seats would be viable on InterCity type services.

 

[43096]

Not Northern 143. They haven't got any. Just ATW and GWR

It's pretty obvious it's a typo for 144.

 

[AM9]

Interesting one. I quite like the chinese 3 class system which I know wouldnt work over here but I do object to being able to buy a cheepo advance for a fiver on a service which I can also pay 50 quid for at another tome but still get the same qualitty seat.

I know a train ticket doesnt entitle you to a seat as such but the option of having one is nice.

I dont think First is always worth it but Id certainly pay a quid or two more for iether a more cumfy seat or to have the one next to me free.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also the ironing boards would be fine with more padding

To have an empty seat next to you would cost more than a couple of quid extra as you would be depriving another passenger of a seat. First class is probably representative of the likely cost. The alternative would be to travel in a lightly loaded train rather than the busiest ones. There is the added benefit of getting a cheaper ticket, although most season tickets are priced cheaper than normal off-peak returns so maybe you are getting a good deal already.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I've the supplier notes from Hitachi who say they're using Fainsa for IEP and AT200, not Quantum. What did Hitachi use in the AT200 demonstrator module for ScotRail ?

 

[edwin_m]

Safety is paramount, and not just because of the threat of litigation. I don't think there are many who genuinely want the days of 'common sense' (whatever that is) where safety issues are just assumed to be somebody else's responsibiltiy. 'Comfort' is far too subjective to let it drive designs for healthy passenger accomodation.

It's a question of proportionality, something a lot of people struggle to get their heads round. With accidents becoming much rarer it's questionable whether some of the safety features can really be justified, especially where they are very costly or make the train less attractive to use.

In relation to seats I would question the need for high backs, as TPWS has greatly reduced the likelihood sort of end-on impact where they make a difference (and even then they only help people who happen to be facing in a particular direction). Lowering the back would reduce costs as well as making the train more attractive to use (for most people, noting at least one exception above!).

 

[physics34]

Don't get me started

 

[Alfie1014]

I've the supplier notes from Hitachi who say they're using Fainsa for IEP and AT200, not Quantum. What did Hitachi use in the AT200 demonstrator module for ScotRail ?

The link I posted earlier was a direction from Quantum's own website so the assumption I made was that the seats in the AT200 prototype were theirs. Though it sounds that the went with Fainsa for the 385s.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The link I posted earlier was a direction from Quantum's own website so the assumption I made was that the seats in the AT200 prototype were theirs. Though it sounds that the went with Fainsa for the 385s.

Sorry, my fault. There are two AT200 demonstrator mock-ups, the AT200 one which was launched in 2014 (along with the AT100) and the more recent AT200/Class 385 mock-up for ScotRail.

You're definitely right that Quantum seats were in the original AT200, but appear to have been dropped from the ScotRail AT200 order.

 

[physics34]

1st class in an Outer SUburban 4VEP.

Just some cosy proper seats.