Class 800 - Updates

[Ron Ron Ron]

Another article in the Telegraph yesterday, although it's centred around the Thameslink Class 700's .

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/17/train-companies-claim-uncomfortable-ironing-board-seats-due/

 

 

 

..

[Coryton]

And unlike the days of yore, when seats were designed by a draftsman in the carriage drawing office, modern day seats are designed by people who know a lot more about accommodating the human frame, to the extent that one can cope with its myriad variations. Then, there is the small matter of having to comply with much more stringent fire standards than used to be, which constrains the amount and types of padding that can be used.

 

Jim

 

Genuine question:

 

Do trains have far more stringent fire standards than other forms of transport?

 

I've yet to travel on a modern coach or plane with such bottom-numbingly hard seats.

[D854_Tiger]

And unlike the days of yore, when seats were designed by a draftsman in the carriage drawing office, modern day seats are designed by people who know a lot more about accommodating the human frame, to the extent that one can cope with its myriad variations. Then, there is the small matter of having to comply with much more stringent fire standards than used to be, which constrains the amount and types of padding that can be used.

 

Jim

 

The somewhat random rule of thumb approach of a draftsman in a drawing office does have the advantage of at least producing seats that some people (maybe even most people) find very comfortable. The trouble with applying science and trying to accommodate and please all the people (whatever their size) is that you can end up pleasing none of them.

 

Then if (when) I need a lesson in correct posture, I will go see a physiotherapist, not buy a train ticket and be told what is good for me by some H&S wallah and that I'm going to get it whether I like it or not. When I go out for Sunday lunch and stretch my waistline to accommodate a 12" ice cream sundae, paid for with my own money, I don't expect a f*****g health lecture before doing so.

 

Fair enough in these litigious days, companies have to watch their backs, but there is a feeling here that they got Doreen in from the Campaign For Better <fill in as necessary> made up charity and let her off the leash just to keep her quiet. That's the trouble with this country nowadays too many interfering busybodies telling us what is good for us and we must have it, whether we like it or not, whatever happened to the concept of a free country. 

 

Then I bet they didn't tell the drivers what kind of seats they are getting and they can lump it.

[david.hill64]

Another article in the Telegraph yesterday, although it's centred around the Thameslink Class 700's .

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/17/train-companies-claim-uncomfortable-ironing-board-seats-due/

 

 

 

..

The key in this article is the reference to capacity requirements. The implication is that the seats could be made more comfortable but there would be fewer of them.

 

I find the references to fire standards to be potentially misleading: the BS standard for fire safety of rail vehicles was very stringent - more stringent than the equivalent standards elsewhere in Europe. While I cannot claim current domain knowledge, given that the French and (especially) the German standards were much less restrictive than the UK standard, I find it difficult to believe that the TSI has made compliance with fire requirements more difficult than compliance with the BR/BS standard. This would mean that Europe has put a standard in place that requires compliance with far stricter requirements than applied before. If we were able to provide trains with reasonably comfortable seats that complied with the already stringent BS requirements, it must be possible to provide them now. The answer - as Roger Ford alludes to in the Sunday Times article - is that it is about money and capacity.

[jim.snowdon]

The somewhat random rule of thumb approach of a draftsman in a drawing office does have the advantage of at least producing seats that some people (maybe even most people) find very comfortable. The trouble with applying science and trying to accommodate and please all the people (whatever their size) is that you can end up pleasing none of them.

 

Then if (when) I need a lesson in correct posture, I will go see a physiotherapist, not buy a train ticket and be told what is good for me by some H&S wallah and that I'm going to get it whether I like it or not. When I go out for Sunday lunch and stretch my waistline to accommodate a 12" ice cream sundae, paid for with my own money, I don't expect a f*****g health lecture before doing so.

 

Fair enough in these litigious days, companies have to watch their backs, but there is a feeling here that they got Doreen in from the Campaign For Better <fill in as necessary> made up charity and let her off the leash just to keep her quiet. That's the trouble with this country nowadays too many interfering busybodies telling us what is good for us and we must have it, whether we like it or not, whatever happened to the concept of a free country. 

 

Then I bet they didn't tell the drivers what kind of seats they are getting and they can lump it.

There are two fundamentals. One is that you can never please all of the people all of the time, and that doesn't matter whether the designer was a carriage DO draftsman, or a specialist in seat design. I haven't found any difficulty with the seats on modern rolling stock, 800s excepted because I haven't had the need to ride on one yet. The second is that people will only ever complain about uncomfortable seats, they never publicly praise good ones, and good news doesn't sell newspapers.

 

There is, of necessity, an assumption in the design of a seat that its occupants actually sit properly. Observation of passengers indicates that a lot of passengers, especially the younger ones, adopt a slouching posture that I would defy any sensible seat to accommodate comfortably.

 

Jim

[Coryton]

There are two fundamentals. One is that you can never please all of the people all of the time, and that doesn't matter whether the designer was a carriage DO draftsman, or a specialist in seat design. I haven't found any difficulty with the seats on modern rolling stock, 800s excepted because I haven't had the need to ride on one yet. The second is that people will only ever complain about uncomfortable seats, they never publicly praise good ones, and good news doesn't sell newspapers.

 

There is, of necessity, an assumption in the design of a seat that its occupants actually sit properly. Observation of passengers indicates that a lot of passengers, especially the younger ones, adopt a slouching posture that I would defy any sensible seat to accommodate comfortably.

 

Jim

 

Well maybe I don't sit the right way for modern train seats or I'm just the wrong shape, but I'm fairly sure that if they were softer I wouldn't have a numb behind after a couple of hours.

 

As I said previously, I've yet to experience this on planes or coaches and I'd be curious to know why trains are different.

[D854_Tiger]

Well maybe I don't sit the right way for modern train seats or I'm just the wrong shape, but I'm fairly sure that if they were softer I wouldn't have a numb behind after a couple of hours.

 

As I said previously, I've yet to experience this on planes or coaches and I'd be curious to know why trains are different.

 

Then, when it comes to packing them in, the airlines are the experts.

[wombatofludham]

Well, I found the old Mk1 coach seats very uncomfortable on long railtours, inducing both back and leg ache, and as for the Intercity 70 seats as first installed in the over-fetishized Mk3 coach, I found them uncomfortable just between Wolverhampton and Birmingham, with pressure points in all the wrong locations. The Class 304 bouncy castle seating, combined with the poor riding Gresley bogies, were utterly abysmal and I was glad when they were replaced by the 323s in the Midlands. By comparison, the last time I travelled on a Pendolino I deliberately chose Standard to see if the seats were really as bad as some make out on this forum and was more than happy, no numbness or back ache whatsoever, all of which makes me think that a lot of enthusiasts have selective false memory and an "it's new therefore it's rubbish" syndrome.

 

The one thing I will agree with though is that modern trains are designed more for capacity, but what do you expect, additional coaches cost money so if you can get more people in one coach what would you do if you were running a business? Don't think BR wouldn't have done the same, back in the early 1980s they tried out a Mk3 coach with something like 80 seats in it, 8 more than the then 72 seat norm, to address overcrowding on HSTs but back then the public weren't ready for an all-airline seated Intercity coach and so they "compromised" on the 76 seat layout. Today's 80+ seater Mk3s are just applying what very nearly happened over 30 years ago under BR.

[D854_Tiger]

Well, I found the old Mk1 coach seats very uncomfortable on long railtours, inducing both back and leg ache, and as for the Intercity 70 seats as first installed in the over-fetishized Mk3 coach, I found them uncomfortable just between Wolverhampton and Birmingham, with pressure points in all the wrong locations. The Class 304 bouncy castle seating, combined with the poor riding Gresley bogies, were utterly abysmal and I was glad when they were replaced by the 323s in the Midlands. By comparison, the last time I travelled on a Pendolino I deliberately chose Standard to see if the seats were really as bad as some make out on this forum and was more than happy, no numbness or back ache whatsoever, all of which makes me think that a lot of enthusiasts have selective false memory and an "it's new therefore it's rubbish" syndrome.

 

The one thing I will agree with though is that modern trains are designed more for capacity, but what do you expect, additional coaches cost money so if you can get more people in one coach what would you do if you were running a business? Don't think BR wouldn't have done the same, back in the early 1980s they tried out a Mk3 coach with something like 80 seats in it, 8 more than the then 72 seat norm, to address overcrowding on HSTs but back then the public weren't ready for an all-airline seated Intercity coach and so they "compromised" on the 76 seat layout. Today's 80+ seater Mk3s are just applying what very nearly happened over 30 years ago under BR.

 

 

There's a lot of truth there, in what you say, but the situation with these new trains is that there seems to be enough people with sore a***s out there for this to have made the pages of the Telegraph, so I'm thinking there has been a screw up as other modern (pack them in) designs have not been met with quite the same reception.

 

Whether this falls into the same small number of powerful vocal category as doing way with compartments and no more kippers for breakfast, type of complaint, we shall have to wait and see.

[D854_Tiger]

 

 

P.S. I never knew leather seats were flammable, last I checked the airlines were still using them and when was the last time a train seat, of any kind, caught fire with the passengers still in them.

 

It's like that whole debate over sprinklers in Grenfell Tower, which rather misses the point that a fire in a tower block should never spread in the first place, a high rise building that needs ten whole floors of sprinklers to be safe is a building I would rather not go into.

 

If were relying on seat design to stop a train from catching fire we are in trouble.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Was at Padd late Friday evening expecting to see lots of IETs in service - saw just one 5-car set. Another one sneeked-in on test (800031), with plastic sheets still covering the seats.

 

Yesterday I spent most of the day at either Airport Jn or Stockley Bridge, and only saw two 10-car sets in service.

 

Are they trying to avoid me? Plenty of HSTs though to compensate, including 43002 (in blue/grey) and 43185 (in Swallow livery).

[TEDDYBEAR D9521]

Was at Padd late Friday evening expecting to see lots of IETs in service - saw just one 5-car set. Another one sneeked-in on test (800031), with plastic sheets still covering the seats.

 

Yesterday I spent most of the day at either Airport Jn or Stockley Bridge, and only saw two 10-car sets in service.

 

Are they trying to avoid me? Plenty of HSTs though to compensate, including 43002 (in blue/grey) and 43185 (in Swallow livery).

 

There was a lot cancellations yesterday on the Bristol and S Wales route around about 40 trains due to no Drivers. 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

There was a lot cancellations yesterday on the Bristol and S Wales route around about 40 trains due to no Drivers.

At least the sun was shining........

[Coryton]

It's like that whole debate over sprinklers in Grenfell Tower, which rather misses the point that a fire in a tower block should never spread in the first place, a high rise building that needs ten whole floors of sprinklers to be safe is a building I would rather not go into.

 

If were relying on seat design to stop a train from catching fire we are in trouble.

 

I don't think the seats are supposed to stop the train from catching fire...but they do need to not produce toxic gasses if they are set alight.

 

Well, I found the old Mk1 coach seats very uncomfortable on long railtours, inducing both back and leg ache, and as for the Intercity 70 seats as first installed in the over-fetishized Mk3 coach, I found them uncomfortable just between Wolverhampton and Birmingham, with pressure points in all the wrong locations. The Class 304 bouncy castle seating, combined with the poor riding Gresley bogies, were utterly abysmal and I was glad when they were replaced by the 323s in the Midlands. By comparison, the last time I travelled on a Pendolino I deliberately chose Standard to see if the seats were really as bad as some make out on this forum and was more than happy, no numbness or back ache whatsoever, all of which makes me think that a lot of enthusiasts have selective false memory and an "it's new therefore it's rubbish" syndrome.

 

I don't think it's as simple as "new==bad".

 

The first seats that I found too hard were the ones used in the Mk 4 "Mallard" refurbishments, though I was only aware of it when I started doing long journeys (Edinburgh to London).

 

In contrast, when I'd go from Glasgow in a Pendolino I didn't have any complaints with the seats. (Plenty of other things to whinge about though).

 

(Edited to add:) Whereas I very much like the 800's....just not the seats. I'd still take them over a Pendolino any day, given the choice.

Edited February 18, 2018 by Coryton

[jjb1970]

I don't think the seats are supposed to stop the train from catching fire...but they do need to not produce toxic gasses if they are set alight.

 

 

Quite so, there have been incidents in the past where toxic smoke/fumes released by burning foam used in seat cushions was a greater hazard than flames. Fire safety requirements to counter that particular hazard (which are not limited to rail) would seem eminently sensible. However, it is possible to make foam which complies with applicable regulations which is still soft.

[Zomboid]

Pendolino, voyager and "Mallard" seats are all pretty good by me. I quite like the seats in the one 222 I've ridden, too. The seats in 800s are fine, though not exceptional.

 

And more comparable to 387s, I have no objection to the seats in any of the original Desiro family (444, 450, 350 etc). It's just these new, bolt upright granite ironing boards that I can't stand (or rather, sit).

[Geoff Endacott]

I remember when MkIII stock took over from MkII. I didn't like the new seats.

 

Nothing changes.

 

Geoff Endacott

[Ron Ron Ron]

I have very recently been reacquainted with the Pendolino first class seats.

Very comfortable IMHO.

 

I find XC Voyager seats in standard perfectly fine, for up to about two hours or so.

After that I get uncomfortable and can't wait to get off.

 

Being quite familiar with the Class 444, the standard class seats don't have much padding, but they seem to be a good shape and are quite comfortable.

 

From recollection, some of the worst seats I can remember were the bouncy sprung bench seats in the old 1st generation DMU's on the GW out of Paddington, back in the 70's and early 80's.

When you sat down, clouds of dry tasting, ancient dust puffed out and you felt like you were sitting on top of the seat, not in it.

 

In more recent times, albeit more than 10 years ago now, I found the original standard class seats in the Class 442 Wessex were totally uncomfortable. The 444's were a step improvement, in my humble opinion.

 

 

.

[The Stationmaster]

Quite so, there have been incidents in the past where toxic smoke/fumes released by burning foam used in seat cushions was a greater hazard than flames. Fire safety requirements to counter that particular hazard (which are not limited to rail) would seem eminently sensible. However, it is possible to make foam which complies with applicable regulations which is still soft.

 

Which takes us towards the more pertinent part of all of this.  The fumes and gases are inevitably likely to be the important part but, rhetorical question time, have Daft actually done a proper risk assessment before reaching what would seem to be their, and nobody else's, decision on the question of seat cushion material?  There is obviously more than sufficient data available to allow an assessment to be made using factual data rather than estimates as train fires and fires on trains are reportable incidents and have long been so.  This means there is real data on the incidence and severity of on-train fires which can easily be assessed as a rate against total passenger train miles and reasonably so against passenger miles.  Equally if there have been any injuries as a consequence of fires on trains they will have been reported as well with decade's worth of data so it is possible to calculate the rate of passenger injuries against just about any measure you might wish.  

 

I suspect, and it inevitably must be a suspicion, that the rate of passenger injury or ill-health resulting from a fire inside a British train is so infinitesimally small as to hardly be statistically significant.  In other words the potential risk is minute.  And thinking back to the public hearings of the Inquiry into the sleeping car fire at Taunton fire safety and analysis expert evidence pointed almost as much to passenger luggage as a source of dangerous gases as it did to other sources of such gasses.  So presumably if the seats have to be proof against emitting certain gases all passenger items such as luggage, laptop computers and various other electronic devices also need to be assessed and banned from trains if they pose greater risk than seat cushions?

 

I'm sorry but as this is now be pointed very firmly in DafT's direction my immediate concern is that a bunch of rank amateurs have once again made an ill-considered and incompletely assessed ruling with no proper consideration of historical fact or conducting a proper risk assessment.  And just looking at a video of a Class 345 Crossrail train - which will operate underground where fire could have a potential greater impact - I see that some at least of the seats have much deeper cushions than those on GWR Class 387 stock  and other recently delivered mainline stock some of which will hardly see the inside of a tunnel during normal working.  I get the strong impression that DafT are once again living up to the expanded version of their acronym.

[Zomboid]

Seats with more padding are perfectly legal. Non-flammable padding exists and could be used in a train (I dread to think what the new Caledonian sleeper accommodation would be like with 387 style upholstery).

 

They just cost a little more, and doesn't fit with the cheap and nasty ethos that DafT - maybe the TOCs actually sign off these decisions, but they're working to DafT specified/ micromanaged contracts.

[jamie92208]

Seats with more padding are perfectly legal. Non-flammable padding exists and could be used in a train (I dread to think what the new Caledonian sleeper accommodation would be like with 387 style upholstery).

 

They just cost a little more, and doesn't fit with the cheap and nasty ethos that DafT - maybe the TOCs actually sign off these decisions, but they're working to DafT specified/ micromanaged contracts.

A couple of years ago Ian Walmsley did an article in Modern Railways about seat choice and pointed such things directly at the 'customer' in this case the DaFT. He said, IIRC, that the choice of the current contentious seats is only down to price and passenger comfort is not considered. His other hobby horse is the high seat backs which have again been imposed without any real clear evidence. I suspect that these came via the motor industry where relatively high G rear end collisions are much more prevalent and that no proper analysis of the frequency of such events on the railways has taken place. After all, aviation incident tend to have a much higher percentage of fatalities but no one seems to be suggesting that each passenger should be in a shockproof cocoon with parachute attached. Or is the lobbying power of the road and aviation industries much better than that of the rail industry.

 

Jamie

[JeffP]

I am bemused by the constant reference to something called "seats".

 

Are those the things that passengers who all seem to have got on before me are bending themselves into?

[Coryton]

They just cost a little more, and doesn't fit with the cheap and nasty ethos that DafT - maybe the TOCs actually sign off these decisions, but they're working to DafT specified/ micromanaged contracts.

 

For the IETs, the seats were directly specified by the DfT I believe.

 

A couple of years ago Ian Walmsley did an article in Modern Railways about seat choice and pointed such things directly at the 'customer' in this case the DaFT. He said, IIRC, that the choice of the current contentious seats is only down to price and passenger comfort is not considered. His other hobby horse is the high seat backs which have again been imposed without any real clear evidence. I suspect that these came via the motor industry where relatively high G rear end collisions are much more prevalent and that no proper analysis of the frequency of such events on the railways has taken place. After all, aviation incident tend to have a much higher percentage of fatalities but no one seems to be suggesting that each passenger should be in a shockproof cocoon with parachute attached. Or is the lobbying power of the road and aviation industries much better than that of the rail industry.

 

If that's article I'm thinking of, he gave the example of the MD of a TOC being offered a choice of seats, asking which was cheapest, sitting on it briefly ("in the manner of a fighter pilot about to eject") and declaring it the best..

 

As for high seat backs, the IET seats are commendably low for a modern train - I believe this was possible because they showed that they could meet current requirements despite their low height - which suggests that the requirements are more sophisticated than just "make them so high".

[D854_Tiger]

Seats with more padding are perfectly legal. Non-flammable padding exists and could be used in a train (I dread to think what the new Caledonian sleeper accommodation would be like with 387 style upholstery).

 

They just cost a little more, and doesn't fit with the cheap and nasty ethos that DafT - maybe the TOCs actually sign off these decisions, but they're working to DafT specified/ micromanaged contracts.

 

Yes they somehow manage to micromanage their way to some of the most expensive trains ever conceived on UK railways then worry about the f*****g seats costing too much.

 

All the proof you could ever need that remote out-of-touch civil servants shouldn't even be let out alone, let alone trusted with running anything.

 

It's like Rolls Royce or Bentley sparing no expense on the design of their cars and then bunging two tea crates in for the driver and passengers to sit on.

 

Then, you could very easily substitute any number of D(fors) into these conversations starting with the MoD and ending with every other a**e elbow department.

[royaloak]

 After all, aviation incident tend to have a much higher percentage of fatalities but no one seems to be suggesting that each passenger should be in a shockproof cocoon with parachute attached.

 

 

I always sit at the back because they never reverse into mountains do they!