Class 800 - Updates

[Karhedron]

I would've agreed with you about the pillars but on the modern railway at least that stops me seeing anything that annoys me...

 

I thought the pillars blocked the windows, not the other passengers.

[Coryton]

Mk4s are also higher speed, never mind TGVs etc, and I don't recall those having laughable porthole windows.

 

 

Yes but both built under different safety regulations to Pendolinos (Pendolini?)

 

Personally I prefer airline style seating to tables. I get more legroom of my own (rather than a negotiation with a stranger) and it feels more like a kind of personal space. Though I realise not everyone else feels that way, I suspect most commuters would agree with me. It's a thankless task designing one train interior for so many different users, the balance is probably just about impossible to find...

What I can't stand is having seats that line up with pillars rather than windows. But that seems to be a fact of life these days. There are probably even people who prefer those seats...

 

OK but I really doubt that the balance between airline and table sets on most trains is set by trying to match seating type to demand.

 

Generally the aim seems to be to cram as many seats in as possible while - perhaps - retaining a few token tables.

 

As for 'windowless' window seats - I expect some people would prefer a seat with no window as the sun doesn't shine on their laptop screen.

[Richard E]

As for 'windowless' window seats - I expect some people would prefer a seat with no window as the sun doesn't shine on their laptop screen.

And at times I'd like to suggest some of those laptop users should put their laptops where the sun don't shine ....

[Coryton]

And at times I'd like to suggest some of those laptop users should put their laptops where the sun don't shine ....

 

Why?

[Zomboid]

OK but I really doubt that the balance between airline and table sets on most trains is set by trying to match seating type to demand.

 

Generally the aim seems to be to cram as many seats in as possible while - perhaps - retaining a few token tables.

Most likely true, but even if they did try to match seating with demand it would probably end up pleasing nobody.

On which basis may as well just pack 'em in. Most people who prefer a table would probably rather have an airline style seat than stand.

[Titan]

Why?

Perhaps there is a shortage of laptops in Wales?

[woodenhead]

If there had been an RMWeb in 1960 do you think this thread would have been about the merits of a Deltic versus the existing Pacifics.

[Bon Accord]

If there had been an RMWeb in 1960 do you think this thread would have been about the merits of a Deltic versus the existing Pacifics.

 

If it had been then it certainly would have been an entirely one sided "we hate Deltics" thread, at least amongst the enthusiast fraternity.

For a grease driven engine Deltics are impressive, but nothing compared to an LNER pacific - yes, even the Thomson abominations.

[Jaggzuk]

Table seats are a vital mix of the offering to customers, not everyone traveling is on their own. I quite regularly see groups of 3 or 4 at a table enjoying the face to face time, both business and social travellers akike. Imagine a family of 4 being split on to airline seats!

 

You cannot work very well on an airline seat table anyway. The tables on planes are far better, much bigger and more square unlike MK4 coaches with their little metal tablets sized offerings

[phil-b259]

Table seats are a vital mix of the offering to customers, not everyone traveling is on their own. I quite regularly see groups of 3 or 4 at a table enjoying the face to face time, both business and social travellers akike. Imagine a family of 4 being split on to airline seats!

 

You cannot work very well on an airline seat table anyway. The tables on planes are far better, much bigger and more square unlike MK4 coaches with their little metal tablets sized offerings

 

Conversely I have heard tales of some deliberately selecting airline seating on the basis of the privacy it offers. Lets face it if you are looking at someone face to face there is a great temptation by some to talk to those sitting opposite - fine if you are up for it but most distracting if you have work to do or want to sit there, headphones on listening to music / audiobooks or watch a DVD. And for those who think this is a new phenomenon there is plenty of footage from the 60s / 70s / 80s with seats all facing each other and with every single person hidden from the person opposite by a stonking great big newspaper!

 

As plenty of experts in sociology have noted the desire for younger generations to not engage in direct social interaction, but happy to do so by social media even - in close proximity to each. Such behaviours actually encourage the adoption of airline style seating on trains and as such claims by a bunch of railway modellers that train companies are not catering for what passengers want looks increasingly outdated.

[Ken.W]

If there had been an RMWeb in 1960 do you think this thread would have been about the merits of a Deltic versus the existing Pacifics.

No, in 1960 the discussion would have still been on how poor the EE type 4 performance was compared to the A4s

(Deltics came along couple of years later!  )

 

If it had been then it certainly would have been an entirely one sided "we hate Deltics" thread, at least amongst the enthusiast fraternity.

For a grease driven engine Deltics are impressive, but nothing compared to an LNER pacific - yes, even the Thomson abominations.

Was about to click 'agree' - until I came to the Thomson bit

 

[andy stroud]

Such behaviours actually encourage the adoption of airline style seating on trains and as such claims by a bunch of railway modellers that train companies are not catering for what passengers want looks increasingly outdated.

 

To me it seems pretty obvious that train seating is configured in order to squeeze in as many seats as possible. Simple as that. Yes some people prefer it this way or that way whatever, but if the seating was laid out with a view to customer satisfaction as you suggest, , then we would have a better mix of airline and table seating, all with plenty of legroom and good window views. On a heritage railway, it tends to be  the compartment stock that gets occupied first, often with just two or three people per compartment. I cant see the train companies taking too much notice of that popular trend.

Edited July 6, 2017 by andy stroud

[Gerald Henriksen]

To me it seems pretty obvious that train seating is configured in order to squeeze in as many seats as possible. Simple as that. Yes some people prefer it this way or that way whatever, but if the seating was laid out with a view to customer satisfaction as you suggest, , then we would have a better mix of airline and table seating, all with plenty of legroom and good window views. On a heritage railway, it tends to be  the compartment stock that gets occupied first, often with just two or three people per compartment. I cant see the train companies taking too much notice of that popular trend.

 

It is also popular (I would assume) to be able to get a seat on the train and not have to stand for your journey, and that means putting as many seats as possible into each train or coach.

[andy stroud]

It is also popular (I would assume) to be able to get a seat on the train and not have to stand for your journey, and that means putting as many seats as possible into each train or coach.

I agree. but I was responding to a different issue, that being the prefered seating layout for various peoples social requirements. post 1135

 

What would be popular, would be to have enough carriages in the train in the first place.

Edited July 6, 2017 by andy stroud

[Richard E]

One set, for those that haven't seen it in the flesh yet, is running Newark - Peterborough shuttle on test today arriving back in Donny at about 16:15.

 

Additionally there is a set running down (or is it up) to North Pole depot leaving Donny at 18:53 and a third set (there are at least 5 at Donny now) working to Darlington at 22:33.

 

Several moves again tomorrow - Doncaster - http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/DONCIEP/2017/07/14/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

and a couple of movements at North Pole although these may not be the 800 class units - http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/NPLEIEP/2017/07/14/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=ZZ

[ejstubbs]

I quite regularly see groups of 3 or 4 at a table enjoying the face to face time, both business and social travellers akike.

 

This will no doubt be an unpopular viewpoint but IMO this is a good reason for not having table seats in quiet coaches at all.  Too many people seem to be unable to have a conversation at a civilised volume when seated across a table from each other.  When the other 80% of the people in the coach are being quiet, it makes involuntary eavesdropping almost unavoidable.  Noise-cancelling headphones can help a bit - but why should one have to use them to get a bit of peace and quiet in the quiet coach?

 

Imagine a family of 4 being split on to airline seats!

 

Families of four seem to manage OK on actual airlines.  Granted, those are usually three across but a family of four still ends up with an odd one out.  I don't see much evidence of it being an unbearable burden for people.

 

You cannot work very well on an airline seat table anyway. The tables on planes are far better, much bigger and more square

 

I think that very much depends on which airline you are flying with, and in which class.  There didn't seem to be any significant size difference between the seat-back tables on my last Easyjet flight and my last journey on VTEC (both in June this year).  That view is based on how precarious and cramped the accommodation said table afforded for my book/tablet/meal (depending on which one I wanted to have in front of me at any one time) appeared to be in each case.

Edited July 13, 2017 by ejstubbs

[Coryton]

Families of four seem to manage OK on actual airlines.  Granted, those are usually three across but a family of four still ends up with an odd one out.  I don't see much evidence of it being an unbearable burden for people.

 

Of course families manage without sitting round a table on planes, as well as in coaches and of course cars.

 

But - being able to sit round a table is one of the things that can make rail travel much more pleasant than the alternatives. It might be a luxury that today's railways can't afford, but I don't see what's wrong with recognising that rather than trying to argue that nobody really wants a table anyway when it's pretty clear to anybody who uses trains that lots of people do.

 

I would hope that comfort on trains is not now being determined on the principle that all that has to be avoided is unbearable burdens. Commuters would still use trains if we replaced upholstered seats with vandal-proof wipe-clean hard plastic, so does that mean the TOCs should do that to save money?

 

 

As plenty of experts in sociology have noted the desire for younger generations to not engage in direct social interaction, but happy to do so by social media even - in close proximity to each. Such behaviours actually encourage the adoption of airline style seating on trains and as such claims by a bunch of railway modellers that train companies are not catering for what passengers want looks increasingly outdated.

 

Well I'm not an expert in sociology but I'm not used to seeing a group of young people get on a train in silence all poking away at their phones. They're usually using their phones and chatting noisily to each other at the same time. What I do see is families sitting round a table all absorbed in their own electronic device. But they still seem to like sitting at a table to do it, and why not?

 

If tables are really an outdated concept only wanted by a few eccentric enthusiasts then I should have no trouble getting a table to myself on part loaded trains with a few tables in each carriage no matter when I get on. It doesn't work like that. As the train fills, the small number of tables get occupied while there are plenty of airline seats going begging (often with one person to a table).

 

I find claims that the near abolition of tables on many modern trains is because of changing passenger requirements, and not because TOCs are under pressure to get ever more seats into a carriage, rather bizarre. (Though I do agree that a mix of airline and table seats is probably a good thing, rather than all tables as we used to have).

[RJS1977]

It probably depends who you ask. If you ask people standing in the aisles at 8:30 in the morning whether they'd rather travel on a train with fewer seats and more tables or one with more seats and fewer tables, you'd almost certainly get a different answer to if you ask a mid-day leisure traveller.

[phil-b259]

I agree. but I was responding to a different issue, that being the prefered seating layout for various peoples social requirements. post 1135

 

What would be popular, would be to have enough carriages in the train in the first place.

 

Which then makes the train too long to platform share and as a consequence LESS trains can run overall. While this does not apply to all routes and at some locations this can be alleviated by station expansion, at the biggest hubs for Cross Country services (which are the ones people most like to bitch about on here) this option does not exist.

 

It has been well proved that long trains do not encourage more people to travel - but more FREQUENT trains do, so if we want to encourage more folk to get out of their cars, or just generally travel by train then more trains have to be run, but at reduced lengths.

[phil-b259]

Of course families manage without sitting round a table on planes, as well as in coaches and of course cars.

 

But - being able to sit round a table is one of the things that can make rail travel much more pleasant than the alternatives. It might be a luxury that today's railways can't afford, but I don't see what's wrong with recognising that rather than trying to argue that nobody really wants a table anyway when it's pretty clear to anybody who uses trains that lots of people do.

 

I would hope that comfort on trains is not now being determined on the principle that all that has to be avoided is unbearable burdens. Commuters would still use trains if we replaced upholstered seats with vandal-proof wipe-clean hard plastic, so does that mean the TOCs should do that to save money?

 

 

 

Well I'm not an expert in sociology but I'm not used to seeing a group of young people get on a train in silence all poking away at their phones. They're usually using their phones and chatting noisily to each other at the same time. What I do see is families sitting round a table all absorbed in their own electronic device. But they still seem to like sitting at a table to do it, and why not?

 

If tables are really an outdated concept only wanted by a few eccentric enthusiasts then I should have no trouble getting a table to myself on part loaded trains with a few tables in each carriage no matter when I get on. It doesn't work like that. As the train fills, the small number of tables get occupied while there are plenty of airline seats going begging (often with one person to a table).

 

I find claims that the near abolition of tables on many modern trains is because of changing passenger requirements, and not because TOCs are under pressure to get ever more seats into a carriage, rather bizarre. (Though I do agree that a mix of airline and table seats is probably a good thing, rather than all tables as we used to have).

 

I was speaking more widely than train travel. There is plenty of research to show that just the growth in electronic gadgets and the advent of social media HAS reduced social interaction between young people generally. Just because you have not personal observed it happening on a train does not mean the trend does not exists, nor is it unreasonable to draw conclusions as to how this trend will impact on society at large in the years to come.

 

The reason tables tend to fill up first because of LEGROOM issues. I have no problems with airline seating in general, but I don't want to spend a long journey with my knees pressed into a seat back if I can help it. As such it is natural for travellers to seek out seating bays (with or without tables on commuter EMUs) for increased comfort rather than a big desire to talk / have sight of someone opposite.

 

Of course the change in seating layout is about providing more seats per carriage - with record growth in passenger numbers (and limited infrastructure intervention  to cater for it) then something has to give - and in the short term that is the interior fit out of the trains themselves. However unlike the 1950s, where 'airline' seating would be completely unacceptable to the majority of the population, the advent of cheap air fares has meant society at large has got used to airline seating, which (assuming enough legroom is provided) works well for certain types of traveller.

[Siberian Snooper]

On airlines and coaches all the seats face forward and when you look at the airline seats on trains it's usually the rearward facing ones that remain empty or fill last. Another point is that table seats tend to have a whole window, rather than being stuck with a pillar.

[andy stroud]

Which then makes the train too long to platform share and as a consequence LESS trains can run overall. While this does not apply to all routes and at some locations this can be alleviated by station expansion, at the biggest hubs for Cross Country services (which are the ones people most like to bitch about on here) this option does not exist.

 

It has been well proved that long trains do not encourage more people to travel - but more FREQUENT trains do, so if we want to encourage more folk to get out of their cars, or just generally travel by train then more trains have to be run, but at reduced lengths.

 Of course people like frequent trains, but that shouldn't mean they have to be short. Perhaps I might suggest a whole new phenomenon for this country - frequent trains but with enough carriages to actually accomodate people with some degree of comfort?  XC trains are very long distance  and are usually no longer than 4 or 5 coaches because of a platform capacity issue at just one or two stations on the whole network?  Sorry but I am not persuaded that this cannot be overcome somehow. I guess the old money tree will need a bit of a shake though.

Edited July 15, 2017 by andy stroud

[Coryton]

On airlines and coaches all the seats face forward and when you look at the airline seats on trains it's usually the rearward facing ones that remain empty or fill last. Another point is that table seats tend to have a whole window, rather than being stuck with a pillar.

 

If only...!

[Reorte]

It probably depends who you ask. If you ask people standing in the aisles at 8:30 in the morning whether they'd rather travel on a train with fewer seats and more tables or one with more seats and fewer tables, you'd almost certainly get a different answer to if you ask a mid-day leisure traveller.

I'm sure many would want a seat with a table. They certainly get occupied quickly at rush hour times on my local line when the usual 150 has a 156 with it. Of course most people would prefer no tables to not getting a seat at all, but when that becomes the only practical choice it's just a sign of rail travel becoming more unpleasant (even if it is the only remotely practical solution - not having an alternative doesn't make something good!)

[Coryton]

It probably depends who you ask. If you ask people standing in the aisles at 8:30 in the morning whether they'd rather travel on a train with fewer seats and more tables or one with more seats and fewer tables, you'd almost certainly get a different answer to if you ask a mid-day leisure traveller.

 

Which is not the same question as whether they prefer to sit at a table or in an airline seat. 

 

It is pretty clear that tables are rare these days because they take up precious seating space.

 

Some people seem to think that few passengers these days would want to sit at a table anyway and that therefore we should remove most tables from trains even if there was space for them. I disagree.