Why are the Ironing Boards taking over?

[AM9]

... I suppose it is possible that there are those who prefer modern seating, but it really isn't an out-pouring of nostalgia that motivates my opinion that, at least in this the old days were better!

It is actually true that many prefer the better posture that seats designed for it have. It is also true that the appearance of seats with deeper padding gives an illusion of comfort, which may or may not exist in reality. Given the different needs of the very intensive services we now have, the imperatives of weight-saving, easy cleaning, good passenger posture and of course with a railway run for profit, - low cost of ownership are paramount.

 

[talltim]

If the seats get too uncomfortable they cause danger, even if they are the 100% safe, because people will drive instead

 

[AM9]

If the seats get too uncomfortable they cause danger, even if they are the 100% safe, because people will drive instead

What a ridiculous strawman argument. Train seats that some find uncomfortable are no more responsible for road accidents or additional deaths caused by more pollution from increased traffic that might arise from displaced rail commuters. You may as well argue that the hospitals will be packed with additional patients who have chronic back issues from poor posture caused by soggy 'comfy' seats.

 

[Philip C]

It is actually true that many prefer the better posture that seats designed for it have. It is also true that the appearance of seats with deeper padding gives an illusion of comfort, which may or may not exist in reality. Given the different needs of the very intensive services we now have, the imperatives of weight-saving, easy cleaning, good passenger posture and of course with a railway run for profit, - low cost of ownership are paramount.

Thank goodness the railway companies are not responsible for car seats, office furniture or fitting out my lounge.

You state "It is also true that the appearance of seats with deeper padding gives an illusion of comfort, which may or may not exist in reality." I will agree with that; the comfort 'may or may not exist in reality'. However, may I assure you that, by comparison with the latest offerings on the Central Division, the final generation of slam-door main-line stock (with the exception of the refurbished CEP compartments and their poor arm-rests) really was much more comfortable - it is not a figment of my imagination!

I do not require a railway franchise operator to provide me with uncomfortable seating in the interests of my posture - I am altogether too old for a nanny! In any case my 600 miles per week, over 27 years, of sitting in CIGs and BEPs and VEPs has done my posture no harm, whilst fifteen minutes on the modern seats under discussion brings pains to my nether regions!

I don't doubt that there are reasons why these appalling seats have been chosen, but don't try to tell me that I am imagining the more comfortable past.

The world is a big enough place to accommodate some who actually prefer the new seating. That I accept, and you may be one of them, but I think them to be a small minority - I've yet to meet one in person.

Could I end with a proposition? Why don't you write to the Palace and suggest that the Royal Saloon is refurbished with these wonderful, new, comfortable seats?

 

[Master29]

Kind of like the Hille schools chairs that have been around for yonks. Ergonomic, may not look too good but are surprisingly comfortable.

 

[MrCub]

These high backed ironing boards are terrible. Hideously uncomfortable and create claustrophobic train interiors. I've heard ghastly reports about the ones on the new Thameslink 700s being worse again. Bring back the IC seats, I say!

 

[AM9]

We can all express our personal wishes in respect of seats but at the end of the day, they are just personal wishes. All new Electrostars/Aventras and all Desiro Citys either already have, or will most likely to have seats that have been designed in line with the latest recommendations for good posture. I doubt that any amount of complaining by a few passengers will persuade either the DfT/TOC/RoSCo ordering them or the manufacturers subcontracting them cancel them and to specify styles that were appropriate 30+ years ago. The current seats are acceptable to the majority of passengers so they will stay. Those who don't like them have three choices, 1) stand, 2) upgrade to 1st class or 3) find another route or mode of transport.
That will make for a quieter (and maybe more spacious) journey for those who are happy with them.

 

[spargazer]

They also exist on buses, seat belts on these are impracticable in cars, I have a view that sideways seats are very dangerous

 

[AlterEgo]

If the seats get too uncomfortable they cause danger, even if they are the 100% safe, because people will drive instead

Hilarious.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They also exist on buses, seat belts on these are impracticable in cars, I have a view that sideways seats are very dangerous

Sideways seats in cars are dangerous, you don't get them in new cars any more (to ban them retrospectively would be a can of worms, as there are things about old cars that are far more dangerous than side-facing seats). Sideways seats on trains are not really, because trains don't crash very often. The key difference between trains and cars is that the primary safety approach with trains is to prevent them hitting each other.

 

[jon0844]

If we had those seats from 30 years ago on modern trains, just how many seats would have to be removed I wonder?

I am sure in an ideal world, we'd all want the old 319 'snug' carriages to become the standard. Commuters step on, find a cosy seat or crash on a real sofa, sipping their cappuccinos and pondering about what jobs they have to do that day.

I wonder why the Orient Express didn't bid for the TSGN franchise?

 

[Philip C]

We can all express our personal wishes in respect of seats but at the end of the day, they are just personal wishes. All new Electrostars/Aventras and all Desiro Citys either already have, or will most likely to have seats that have been designed in line with the latest recommendations for good posture. I doubt that any amount of complaining by a few passengers will persuade either the DfT/TOC/RoSCo ordering them or the manufacturers subcontracting them cancel them and to specify styles that were appropriate 30+ years ago. The current seats are acceptable to the majority of passengers so they will stay. Those who don't like them have three choices, 1) stand, 2) upgrade to 1st class or 3) find another route or mode of transport.
That will make for a quieter (and maybe more spacious) journey for those who are happy with them.

Please don't get me wrong. I am well aware that these seats will become more common over time and that there is nothing I can practically do to prevent this happening.

I refuse to stand for 90 minutes. First Class is becoming as bad. And, yes, for the present I can find less uncomfortable seating on South Eastern. My general reaction though is to travel less frequently and this may be a common reaction here on this stretch of the Costa Geriatrica.

I note your rudeness in implying that there is a positive correlation between acceptance of state imposed good posture and quietness when travelling.

 

[westv]

It's all very well saying the seats are designed for "good posture" but wouldn't "good posture" for someone 6' tall be a different seat layout to someone 5' tall?

 

[Clip]

It's all very well saying the seats are designed for "good posture" but wouldn't "good posture" for someone 6' tall be a different seat layout to someone 5' tall?

Yes but you have to find a happ[y medium as you simply cant please everyone of all heights and sizes.

 

[jon0844]

Would most people have to stand the whole way on one of the trains with these new seats? On TL, surely anyone going through the core could secure a seat then pretty much guaranteed.

Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's all very well saying the seats are designed for "good posture" but wouldn't "good posture" for someone 6' tall be a different seat layout to someone 5' tall?

Quite possibly. Though at least the "ironing boards" are usable by those over about 6' tall without having to slouch or getting back/shoulder pain. These:

and these:

...are no good for tall people at all, as the "wings" are too low and so dig into the shoulder.

Chiltern originally offered some variety by having those with "wings" in the centre section and a different design with a high, non-winged headrest in the end sections.

 

[richieb1971]

Anyone seen the Queens carriages from the inside?

I wonder what her seating layout is like?

 

[DasLunatic]

Anyone seen the Queens carriages from the inside?

I wonder what her seating layout is like?

It's 3+2 on ironing boards. It's the only way they can fit her security detail onboard

 

[AM9]

... I refuse to stand for 90 minutes. First Class is becoming as bad. And, yes, for the present I can find less uncomfortable seating on South Eastern. My general reaction though is to travel less frequently and this may be a common reaction here on this stretch of the Costa Geriatrica.

It's public transport and it has to effect a balance between capacity, comfort and cost. For most, what we have is the best (or least worst) compromise. There will always be those who don't like whatever is done in such circumstances. Just like the race to the bottom in cheap airline seats, I can't (and won't attempt to) squeeze into a 28inch pitch seat even if it is barely legal. My solution, use airlines that don't choose that business path. The same applies to land travel. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.

I note your rudeness in implying that there is a positive correlation between acceptance of state imposed good posture and quietness when travelling.

'state imposed good posture'... well that's almost as good as the comment upthread about the seats being not to some peoples likes causing an increase in road deaths. You need to relax, maybe then the seats will be a little more comfortable. You have misread my post, - there is no rudeness, either real or implied in it.

 

[Philip C]

It's public transport and it has to effect a balance between capacity, comfort and cost. For most, what we have is the best (or least worst) compromise. There will always be those who don't like whatever is done in such circumstances. Just like the race to the bottom in cheap airline seats, I can't (and won't attempt to) squeeze into a 28inch pitch seat even if it is barely legal. My solution, use airlines that don't choose that business path. The same applies to land travel. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.

'state imposed good posture'... well that's almost as good as the comment upthread about the seats being not to some peoples likes causing an increase in road deaths. You need to relax, maybe then the seats will be a little more comfortable. You have misread my post, - there is no rudeness, either real or implied in it.

I understand your viewpoint and have acknowledged that I expect the future you defend to come to pass.

I think you understand my viewpoint and appear to accept that comfort is being traded off against other factors in current seat specification.

If you do not believe there to be rudeness in your postings then I will no longer take offense at that which I interpreted as offensive. In general terms I try to address my comments to the issues under discussion and avoid making presumptions about the people who make them. In this I'm not always successful!

For clarity's sake could I point out that the comments about road deaths were not mine nor have I knowingly previously alluded to them.

At this point I feel I have nothing further to add to our exchange of views which stands on the record for anyone interested.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Anyone seen the Queens carriages from the inside?

I wonder what her seating layout is like?

There are a few pictures here in this article from 2013:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...e-Royal-Train-as-it-faces-the-end-of-the-line

Due to the fact that it carries royalty, you would expect the Royal Train to be a rather impressive mode of transport, but in reality it's actually quite average.

 

[47271]

Quite possibly. Though at least the "ironing boards" are usable by those over about 6' tall without having to slouch or getting back/shoulder pain. These:

and these:

...are no good for tall people at all, as the "wings" are too low and so dig into the shoulder.

Chiltern originally offered some variety by having those with "wings" in the centre section and a different design with a high, non-winged headrest in the end sections.

I too am on the tall and hefty side but find the Turbostar seats shown very comfortable on Scotrail, the wings don't bother me. It's a long long time since I've been in a BR mk2 Standard Class seat.

I'm lucky in that I suffer no form of back pain so the seat back is less important to me, so long as it's there and more or less the right shape. Lack of leg room (Standard Class airline seats in 185s really make me suffer) and lumpy bottom cushions (unrefurbed Scotrail 158s) are the two things that wind me up.

 

[physics34]

...are no good for tall people at all, as the "wings" are too low and so dig into the shoulder.

Chiltern originally offered some variety by having those with "wings" in the centre section and a different design with a high, non-winged headrest in the end sections.

sorry but those 170s seats look nice and comfy even for me being 6ft 4

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have you sat in one?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Wookiee]

Anyone seen the Queens carriages from the inside?

I wonder what her seating layout is like?

Few people get to see the Queen's carriage from the inside. Prince Phillip, possibly...

 

[physics34]

Have you sat in one?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

not this particular guise, but ive sat in southern 171s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They look like the same seats. It probably depends more on body/leg proportions than pure height.

I agree the colour scheme looks very welcoming, though - rich, deep, warm colours are the way to go.

 

[physics34]

They look like the same seats. It probably depends more on body/leg proportions than pure height.

I agree the colour scheme looks very welcoming, though - rich, deep, warm colours are the way to go.

the legroom looks a bit tight on the 170 seats in that picture.

The seating does look comfier than southern 171 seats, maybe the awful astroterf covers are the reason.

 

[southern442]

I didn't realise there was a thread for this! I could go on for hours....

But I won't because a lot of people on the class 700 and 387 forums have heard it before. I'll try to briefly summarize:

I don't like them at all. It's not because of the posture, I like a lot of high-backed seating. I understand that these seats are cheap and easy to install and all that, but you would think a little bit of padding would make them nicer? I completely understand that some people think they are fine. I think they are bearable to sit on, but it would be nice to have some padding. It would be welcomed by everyone. I also don't like the fact that these seats are taking over, we need a bit of variety in life don't we?

What I'm asking for isn't necessary, but it's not something that would be difficult or expensive, and it would make everyone's journey better. I'm confident that even the people who like these seats would still like them as much and quite possibly even more with extra padding.

 

[spargazer]

Sideways seats in cars are dangerous, you don't get them in new cars any more (to ban them retrospectively would be a can of worms, as there are things about old cars that are far more dangerous than side-facing seats). Sideways seats on trains are not really, because trains don't crash very often. The key difference between trains and cars is that the primary safety approach with trains is to prevent them hitting each other.

Neither do aeroplanes crash very often but airliner operators have not put sideways seats in (the CAA have banned them)