Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2018 16:03:19 GMT
I think the increasingly uncomfortable seating on trains and now affecting the Underground network is becoming a bigger bone of consternation than LU or TfL may think.
It is becoming a regular coffee break whinge amongst people at work and after work. Backache being the single most common ailment in the UK and affecting 45% of over 40s
I have certainly noticed it on some trains and as most tube users know. It is not the smoothest of rides on lots of sections.
I find it hard to believe that a gamble is taken on making seating uncomfortable for all passengers including disabled and those carrying children, as well as those who are older or quietly carrying on with back ailments, over a rather tiny amount of unreported issues with springs coming through seats.
After all how many hundred years have tube trains and underground trains had sprung seats? How much more comfortable were they in the past? And how different is the suspension of tube trains of the 1950s and now. Better, but certainly not a radical enough improvement to justify making passengers journeys less comfortable to the point of discomfort and pain inducing.
I do wonder just why they cannot be straight and admit it is a shortcut and cost cutting practice rather than find a tenuous excuse.
But the backlash is growing and there will probably be a lot more litigation around the corner than there ever was over a cushion spring.
This simply negates all the improvements to trains that have cost £££££££s.
As long as it's clean, comfortable and works properly & safely, Passengers or customers are more than happy.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 9, 2018 16:15:34 GMT
The excuses made about crashworthiness and fire retardance don't really stand up to inspection. Car seats have to meet similar criteria, but are much more comfortable than train seats.
And I'd rather spend three hours in a car than in many modern train seats, even if I do have to drive the thing. (Although, interesting, modern train drivers' seats are quite well appointed. Time was that every train passenger could expect a cushioned seat, and the driver was expected to stand. How the tables are turned!
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Apr 9, 2018 16:29:38 GMT
(Although, interesting, modern train drivers' seats are quite well appointed. Time was that every train passenger could expect a cushioned seat, and the driver was expected to stand. How the tables are turned! Certainly NOT comfortable on S Stock ! we were promised 4 new trial seats after many complaints ensued but these have yet to materialise.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Apr 9, 2018 16:34:03 GMT
In terms of suspension, in the mid 80s when NSE were soliciting 1938ts, LT were of the impression that the ride of the 38s was amongst the best on the system. Given the wholesale fleet changes since, take that as it is. - Thats from a discussion on London Reconnections
I do wonder whether any research has taken place to see if deep, comfortable sprung seating has any scope for cost reduction without reducing the quality?
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Apr 9, 2018 17:13:51 GMT
Comfort is subjective. Always has been, always will be. I'm not a fan of deep sprung seats and find that many older seats cause me more problems than any modern seat. And that's coming from someone who has zero 'natural' cushioning...
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 9, 2018 17:45:13 GMT
Comfort is subjective. Always has been, always will be. I'm not a fan of deep sprung seats and find that many older seats cause me more problems than any modern seat. And that's coming from someone who has zero 'natural' cushioning... I may have rather too much "natural cushioning" as you put it but the revised seats on the refurbed Jubilee and Northern line trains are horrendous. The original seating wasn't marvellous but was at least tolerable. You might as well provide a wooden plank as use the "seats" that are on those refurbed carriages. I can just about put up with the Vic Line seats and those on the Overground / S Stock but they're not exactly what you'd call "plush". Ironically the 72 stock on the Bakerloo, where the seats have been replaced with the revised moquette, remain decent to use. They were dreadful before that though - worn out and filthy. Straying very slightly from LU I don't use main line trains very often but last year used a GWR HST with those high backed seats. What a dreadful backwards step they are - you can't see a d*mn thing around you. I'm used to being able to look around and see the rest of the carriage. Not on those things. I've had one short ride on the infamous class 700s on Thameslink. While I wasn't crippled by the seat cushion I certainly spotted the other inadequacies such as poor leg room and footwell encroachment. I'm no engineer but you'd think that with 150 years of accumulated experience of designing and building rail vehicles someone would be able to get it right by now and at an affordable cost. And yes I know it boils to what the customer specifies but, again, you'd hope there was suitable knowledge and experience on that side of the buyer / supplier equation.
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,255
|
Post by roythebus on Apr 9, 2018 18:00:58 GMT
Fortunately I live well outside London and have little chance to use the Underground. I do however drive rail replacement buses for one of the independent London operators and I must say some of the passenger seating on newer buses leaves very much to be desired, especially if there is a standby duty which involves a lot of sitting around. 8 hours on a GRP moulding with a thin bit of moquette is probably one of the most uncomfortable jobs there is!
I also read that Network Rail trains are similarly uncomfortable. Have you ever tried a 313 from Portsmouth harbour to Brighton all-stations? The only plus things are the trains ride well and the fares are cheap.
As part of my son's railway safety management degree course they had to devise ergonomic comfortable seats, so maybe there is SOME hope!
The old stock with sprung seats was certainly more comfortable even when worn out, but earlier District Railway coaches had wooden seats!
|
|
|
Post by countryman on Apr 9, 2018 18:11:58 GMT
At least in the UK we have some kind of moquette, unlike in New York which is completely unpadded plastic. Also many buses abroad have unpadded seats, the disadvantage is that the coefficient of friction is very much lower, which resulted in me witnessing a lady fall off her chair in an enthusiastically cornered bus in Florence.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,399
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 9, 2018 21:50:10 GMT
And yes I know it boils to what the customer specifies but, again, you'd hope there was suitable knowledge and experience on that side of the buyer / supplier equation. In the case of the 700s and the GWR IEPs at least, the seats were specified by the DfT, for whom things like customer satisfaction is not a significant concern.
|
|
|
Post by waysider on Apr 9, 2018 21:55:26 GMT
And yes I know it boils to what the customer specifies but, again, you'd hope there was suitable knowledge and experience on that side of the buyer / supplier equation. In the case of the 700s and the GWR IEPs at least, the seats were specified by the DfT, for whom things like customer satisfaction is not a significant concern. But already it seems the seats are putting people off using the trains ....letters saying 'never again ...i'd sooner drive' ...not a good start to Graylings bi-modal dream
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Apr 9, 2018 22:43:05 GMT
Given the attitude and decisions Grayling has made in general about the railways, it is doubtful uncomfortable seats even come close to his top twenty faux pas. Perhaps that is his preferred scenario though - balls things up enough such that any need for, or ability to accommodate change vanishes. A sort of anti-reaction reactionary! However, to be fair, cheap uncomfortable seating has a pedigree long pre-dating him.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 9, 2018 23:49:28 GMT
And yes I know it boils to what the customer specifies but, again, you'd hope there was suitable knowledge and experience on that side of the buyer / supplier equation. In the case of the 700s and the GWR IEPs at least, the seats were specified by the DfT, for whom things like customer satisfaction is not a significant concern. Maybe not yet but as Waysider has said there is some level of negative passenger reaction to the new trains. If this translates into permanently lost revenue and patronage then DfT will be concerned because bidders will have to take that into account meaning lower premium payments in any new franchises. It remains to be seen whether the murmurings on social media and parts of the railway press translate into any sort of meaningful pressure on the DfT. Given they are already incurring extra costs due to weak demand they're unlikely to find the money to retrofit large fleets of brand new trains. One place where it may get interesting is the East Coast where IEPs have yet to enter service and it is known Stagecoach are not keen on the poor seating. Whether some sort of deal covering seat design changes is concocted as part of a management contract for Stagecoach to keep running the East Coast service will be worth watching. Grayling won't want to bring ECML services back "in house" if he can avoid it which gives Stagecoach some degree of leverage about what is "right" for the franchise (and the new trains) notwithstanding the delays to Network Rail's infrastructure changes on the route. The apparent desired "invest excess profits back into the franchise" mechanism could be used to revamp the IEP seats. That doesn't fix the issues with GWR but we have to wait to see what the DfT decide to do with that franchise. I wonder if First Group will adopt the standard seats for their IEPs on both Transpennine and for Hull Trains. I rather suspect they won't as they have more of a free hand - especially for Hull Trains which is open access.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 10, 2018 6:29:10 GMT
it is known Stagecoach are not keen on the poor seating [on the IEP, which are already in use by First]. Interesting that on the SWR it is the other way round - Stagecoach ordered the class 707s, and when First MTR took over the franchise they decided they were not good enough.
|
|
|
Post by blackhorsesteve on Apr 10, 2018 6:35:53 GMT
Using c2c to commute I take steps to avoid using the 387s specifically to avoid the uncomfortable seating which is quite important over an hour-long journey. The 357s are a much more enjoyable experience.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 10, 2018 7:52:39 GMT
Honestly - people are not going to use a train because of the quality of the seats? Have train services in London changed so dramatically since I regularly commuted using first Northern and later Met/Jubilee - when finding any empty seat was a bonus.. The amble out to West Finchley was frequently well over an hour too, but often standing room only to Finchley Central.
Sadly I doubt the introduction of S8 stock has eliminated my pet hate of ingrates putting feet on seats - hence I prefer the S7 type longitudinal seating where, apart from the odd giraffe, the seats opposite were generally too far away for people to bother trampling on the seats.
Perhaps before grumbling about the vaguely comfy seats, people should try out the really budget seats on the Rome Metro. The seats seem to be designed to allow the whole interior to be cleaned with a pressure washer, and supplied by the same evil firm who make rock solid plastic school hall chairs. It is a real shame they cannot be bothered to pressure wash off the exteriors, but shows just how far any metro system can descend when the locals are not prepared to invest in keeping things in good order and importantly swiftly tackle anti-social behaviour.
If the seats in London are really are so evil, perhaps people should consider standing up or carrying a cushion?
1st world problems or what.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724
|
Post by class411 on Apr 10, 2018 7:52:55 GMT
Comfort is subjective. Always has been, always will be. I'm not a fan of deep sprung seats and find that many older seats cause me more problems than any modern seat. And that's coming from someone who has zero 'natural' cushioning... I find it depends on the length of journey. The seats on the old 4-SUB's were the most comfortable ever, if you were only using them for a few minutes. I hate to think what they'd do to your back if you were on them for an hour. The seats on the Electrostars (4 across versions) are superb, and remain comfortable for at least two hours. They are far more comfortable than any car seat in terms of having the ideal compromise between support and superficial comfort. I don't really pay much attention to seat comfort on underground trains but the S-Stock were no problem when I went from Ealing to Upminster.
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Apr 10, 2018 9:46:17 GMT
Fortunately I live well outside London and have little chance to use the Underground. I do however drive rail replacement buses for one of the independent London operators and I must say some of the passenger seating on newer buses leaves very much to be desired, especially if there is a standby duty which involves a lot of sitting around. 8 hours on a GRP moulding with a thin bit of moquette is probably one of the most uncomfortable jobs there is! I also read that Network Rail trains are similarly uncomfortable. Have you ever tried a 313 from Portsmouth harbour to Brighton all-stations? The only plus things are the trains ride well and the fares are cheap. As part of my son's railway safety management degree course they had to devise ergonomic comfortable seats, so maybe there is SOME hope! The old stock with sprung seats was certainly more comfortable even when worn out, but earlier District Railway coaches had wooden seats! Outside of London I have generally found that newer buses are much more comfortable that modern trains. Maybe I have been spoilt by Arriva Max and Sapphire services and the Oxford Park and Ride. Tube seating isn't too bad for the length of journey but the latest models on NR are not only as hard as ironing boards but also as narrow. It is the width and lack of leg room that I find most uncomfortable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2018 14:09:11 GMT
1st world problems or what. Some people just like to whinge. I recon 99.99% of passengers don't care (I know I don't).
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 10, 2018 14:15:20 GMT
1st world problems or what. Some people just like to whinge. I recon 99.99% of passengers don't care (I know I don't). Agreed that there is a whinge element in society, but seats have become more uncomfortable over the past few years. It’s hard to argue against that. Whether the level of comfort bothers you is another matter. It doesn’t overly affect me, but then again I don’t regularly spend hours on trains.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2018 16:36:17 GMT
Just took a 707 from Waterloo down to Hounslow, About half an hour. They're honestly not that bad. I used to hate them but now, not so much. The legroom still bothers me and in sure it would be a squeeze if someone was sitting next to me but as for cushioning, it's absolutely fine. The 700's cushioning also no longer bothers me but I don't take long trips on thameslink. Does anyone know if the 345s seats have worn in or were they built to be rock solid.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 10, 2018 17:11:32 GMT
Honestly - people are not going to use a train because of the quality of the seats? I think the original comment was made in respect of IEPs, where driving is perhaps more of an option than it is for commuting. The added hassle of getting to Paddington/King's cross, plus possibly the need for a taxi at the other end, makes train less attractive anyway - poor seating may well be the last straw.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724
|
Post by class411 on Apr 10, 2018 17:46:26 GMT
Honestly - people are not going to use a train because of the quality of the seats? I think the original comment was made in respect of IEPs, where driving is perhaps more of an option than it is for commuting. The added hassle of getting to Paddington/King's cross, plus possibly the need for a taxi at the other end, makes train less attractive anyway - poor seating may well be the last straw. What is an IEP? Checked the slang & abbreviations thread but it's not there. Even my mate google wasn't any help: Individual Education Programme? Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Institutional Evaluation Programme?
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 10, 2018 18:29:00 GMT
What is an IEP? Individual Education Programme? Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Institutional Evaluation Programme? Sorry, Intercity Express Peogramme - also known as classes 800, 801, and 802, or Azuma, or Nova 3, or Hitachi A-Train
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2018 9:38:42 GMT
I think it's something that has set the London Underground head and shoulders above most other Metro rail networks and mainline railways, right from the advent of the Frank Pick era.
We are "first world' because we strive to improve. The thought and the effort was put in. What is wrong with that? Why regress?
Just because others have poor standards does not mean we should drop to that level. We have a society built on respect and civility to all. it does not mean to the lowest common denominator.
Comfort and human interaction was very much the forethought of almost everything achieved in the Underground and on LT buses as well. Excellent signage, ergonomic seating, hand grips and rails, good seating for both height and weight ranges of people.
Al this was achieved without computers or consultancies and much gained simply from anecdotal feedback from employees, their families and passengers. Something that is really frowned upon now.
It's very sad to see so much achieved being (excuse the pun) UnPicked of late and much of the innovations that made the Underground what it is, starting to erode into mediocrity.
The excuses for seat comfort are lame. South West Trains (railway) have a large fleet of commuter trains with comfortable seats. But the latest additions are awful even on a 20 min trip.
All that work on track improvements and running gear is negated as the seats now transmit every bump and vibration. That's how poor the designs are. And they don't fit people of any build.
It would not be acceptable in even the lowest cost car or even a motor cycle.
The Surface stock seats are almost the same design as the Overground stock. But the S stock does have better support and cushioning. Not a patch on the previous types, but what I would describe as the absolute minimum acceptable.
The Overground has to be the worst for uncomfortable seating and these are largely slow journeys. Was it really such an innovation to have longditudal seats on trains that run ...er Overground with good views? A mix would have been better, and after a measure up, it's possible to increase seating by 8 per car without affecting the movement space or standing. which passengers hate. Even 1 in three cars would be an improvement. The North London line has passengers arguing over seats almost constantly, many are on the train for well over 45 mins standing. A shame as almost all other aspects of Overground are quite positive.
Then there's armrests, How did something as lethal as these even pass user safety tests ? Sharp edged, hard and far from ergonomic, They bruise and even damage clothing. Larger people are prevented from sitting down which is often too embarrassing for them. In an age of DDA compliancy, this is just as prejudiced and problematic as issues for wheelchair users.
Again, LT had perfectly good armrests with smooth edges and designed well. All ignored as though they never existed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2018 12:03:02 GMT
IEP (or IET now) seating on GWR is like sitting on concrete slabs. It's incredible how they can continue to make "cushions" harder with every new train. The 377/6s ruined Southern, and these are worse. Ridiculous how inner suburban stock has more comfortable seating than long distance trains.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 11, 2018 16:24:20 GMT
I think it's something that has set the London Underground head and shoulders above most other Metro rail networks and mainline railways, right from the advent of the Frank Pick era. We are "first world' because we strive to improve. The thought and the effort was put in. What is wrong with that? Why regress? Just because others have poor standards does not mean we should drop to that level. We have a society built on respect and civility to all. it does not mean to the lowest common denominator. Comfort and human interaction was very much the forethought of almost everything achieved in the Underground and on LT buses as well. Excellent signage, ergonomic seating, hand grips and rails, good seating for both height and weight ranges of people. Al this was achieved without computers or consultancies and much gained simply from anecdotal feedback from employees, their families and passengers. Something that is really frowned upon now. It's very sad to see so much achieved being (excuse the pun) UnPicked of late and much of the innovations that made the Underground what it is, starting to erode into mediocrity. The excuses for seat comfort are lame. South West Trains (railway) have a large fleet of commuter trains with comfortable seats. But the latest additions are awful even on a 20 min trip. All that work on track improvements and running gear is negated as the seats now transmit every bump and vibration. That's how poor the designs are. And they don't fit people of any build. It would not be acceptable in even the lowest cost car or even a motor cycle. The Surface stock seats are almost the same design as the Overground stock. But the S stock does have better support and cushioning. Not a patch on the previous types, but what I would describe as the absolute minimum acceptable. The Overground has to be the worst for uncomfortable seating and these are largely slow journeys. Was it really such an innovation to have longditudal seats on trains that run ...er Overground with good views? A mix would have been better, and after a measure up, it's possible to increase seating by 8 per car without affecting the movement space or standing. which passengers hate. Even 1 in three cars would be an improvement. The North London line has passengers arguing over seats almost constantly, many are on the train for well over 45 mins standing. A shame as almost all other aspects of Overground are quite positive. Then there's armrests, How did something as lethal as these even pass user safety tests ? Sharp edged, hard and far from ergonomic, They bruise and even damage clothing. Larger people are prevented from sitting down which is often too embarrassing for them. In an age of DDA compliancy, this is just as prejudiced and problematic as issues for wheelchair users. Again, LT had perfectly good armrests with smooth edges and designed well. All ignored as though they never existed. Agree with all of the above. I get sick of hearing "think yourself lucky you're not in X as they have Y" as an excuse for poor design. Regarding longitudinal seating, it doesn't really work that well anyway. Whilst it may well be the best compromise within the tight confines of a tube car, on surface stock it introduces the issue of two sets of legs being outstretched across the aisle -- something which is even more of an issue on walk-through trains, and very commonly seen on S stock. If anything the half and half arrangement on the S8 stock is a better compromise. Similar with the appalling class 700 trains - push the seats up against the sides of the train to allegedly maximise the aisle width, but then simply have people and belongings hanging over the edge into the aisle instead -- made worse on these trains by the ducting and cantilevers which intrude into the foot space of the window seats, again another piece of terrible design. And, yes, seat comfort does put people off. Some commuter journeys may be a largely captive market, but this certainly doesn't apply to all journeys. Even I find myself using the car more and more often in preference to the train, and seat comfort is certainly part of that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2018 17:34:35 GMT
On the subject of seat comfort does anyone remember the old HST Mark 3 seating? I never even used to bother upgrading as the seats were just as comfortable as the ones in first class lol. Ahh those were the days.
|
|
|
Post by antharro on Apr 11, 2018 22:07:19 GMT
BR's Class 442s had possibly one of the most comfortable seats I've ever used, both in standard and first. Travelling on them was a pleasure. Until Southern got their hands on them... and goodness only knows what SWR will do with them now.
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Apr 11, 2018 22:39:02 GMT
On the subject of seat comfort does anyone remember the old HST Mark 3 seating? I never even used to bother upgrading as the seats were just as comfortable as the ones in first class lol. Ahh those were the days. The original HST seating is still fitted to the East Midlands Trains fleet, and whilst they are ok enough to sit in, the fixed armrests are a nuisance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2018 18:36:48 GMT
EMT HSTs, 90-hauled MK3 stock on the Liverpool St - Norwich expresses, the loco hauled thing that runs through Wales, GWR's sleeper day coaches, and for some reason a handful of electric units out of Kings Cross. IC70s are still my favourite seats, although they obviously don't stand up to modern day crashworthiness standards. Never had a problem with the fixed armrests (and appreciate the rigidity), but then my rear has always fitted between them.
|
|