Obesity and the railways

[whole diary]

[TaplowGreen]

I overheard a conversation about this on my morning commute recently and it got me thinking and observing - on my train yesterday I counted at least 4 pairs of seats where the aisle customer was struggling to perch with even half a buttock on their seat due to the obesity of the person on the inside - I could see similar problems with people in the middle seats of 3s etc.......I was wondering if there was any plans within TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) to tackle this, I know there was talk of airlines making fat passengers pay for two seats.....clearly this wouldn't work on short commuter trips but if I had to spend 4 hours on a Paddington-Plymouth in a reserved seat with only 30% of said seat available due to the obesity of the passenger next to me I wouldn't be happy - there are probably H & S implications too -  any thoughts? Or is it just symptomatic of a fatter society generally?

I should point out here that I am far from being an athletically toned Adonis myself, but anyone sitting next to me always gets 100% of the seat!!! 

[broadgage]

I have become somewhat stout and struggle to fit into a steerage seat on a newer train, but manage ok on older ones.

I usually go first class, and preferably in the Pullman, thereby no doubt adding to stoutness !

Whilst the grossly overweight really ought to diet, the average width and height of the population is increasing and will probably increase more in years to come, which is why I find the trend towards smaller and more densly spaced train seats to be so concerning.

Even if we all diet, that only reduces girth and not height ! steerage on some modern trains is virtually unusable by anyone of slightly over average height.

[ChrisB]

I ask the person to move into their seat as I have paid for the one they are sitting in.

Sorry, but there we go. Why should I pay for half their girth?

[JayMac]

Nobody pays for a seat on a train. You only pay the train company to get you from A to B.

[ChrisB]

I'm sorry, but if seats are available & one has a ticket - you are as entitled to a seat as the person beside you!

[trainer]

I'm sorry, but if seats are available & one has a ticket - you are as entitled to a seat as the person beside you!

I know what you mean, Chris, but I think the whole point of this thread is that an increasing number of people are physically incapable of fitting the seats provided and no amount of asking (in whatever tone one chooses) is going to cause shrinkage.

I agree with broadgage and Taplow Green that this is a real issue for a public transport: buses, low cost airlines and train companies seem to think that by providing only narrow seats with little leg-room, somehow magically the nation will all become like (short) fashion models.

[TaplowGreen]

Agreed but I very much doubt that TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) will increase the size of seats to accommodate fatties as this will just reduce overall space, so presumably we'll continue to have situations where one person takes up a pair of seats whilst two regular size passengers have to stand, and to be honest in my experience even having the temerity to politely suggest that Mr or Mrs Stout moves up a bit in order to enable at least part of a buttock to be perched on the seat is normally met with hostility.

I wouldn't be surprised if inner suburban lines become more like Tube trains with much more space devoted to people standing up, although I guess that's a bigger debate about overcrowding.

There is of course a choice when it comes to girth/size - eat less pies and exercise, so I don't necessarily think too many concessions should be made in that respect however height is a different matter and I can imagine the difficulty of taller people with knees around neck.....fortunately I'm a shortarse! 

[stuving]

Surely the only significant step that can be taken is to stop using 3+2 seating.

Here are a few relevant(?) points I have come across:

• Seating choice is not mentioned in the joint industry document "Long Term Passenger Rolling Stock Strategy for the Rail Industry". Evidently this passenger gauge has not registered with the industry as a problem they need to address.
• Capacity in the RUSs^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) is measured as seats for long distances, and seats + standing for shorter distances. Replacing 3+2 leads to an immediate reduction is seats, which helps none of the actors meet their targets.
• Generally, 3+2 is not used in short distance "metro" layouts, where standing is regarded as OK (by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), anyway) nor in long distance trains.
• However, there's a long-running argument over SWT^▸ (South West Trains) and DfT deciding to use class 450s with 3+2 seating on London-Portsmouth.
• 3+2 seating is surprisingly rare elsewhere in Europe, despite the extra width of the gauge. (For the common UIC 505-1 gauge, it's about 130 mm wider.)
• Alstom offer the Coradia (regional) train in a version with only 2+2 seats for UIC 505-1, and another for the wider Nordic gauge that does have 3+2 seats as standard. (Of course, you can have any other layout if you are paying for it.)
• Airlines would find it harder to use bigger seats, as their cost penalty is higher. On the other hand, fitting a few "fat seats" and charging more would probably be possible, so long as it does not fall foul of anti-discrimination laws. Or has it been done, somewhere?
• Or, since full capacity is only needed for peak times, can't anyone come up with a design for convertible, or "variable-beam" seats?

[paul7575]

...However, there's a long-running argument over SWT^▸ (South West Trains) and DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) deciding to use class 450s with 3+2 seating on London-Portsmouth.

But no argument about LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) using exactly the same seats from London to Birmingham, or Southern using 3+2 all over the place, including both to Portsmouth and Southampton.  Also, no massive complaints about 450s being used from London to Poole via Southampton - and now occasionally to Weymouth, since the timetable change.

It boils down to an argument based purely on an unexpected change from being mostly 444s for a few years from their introduction until 2007, changing to a situation where 450s are in the slight majority (and what they never mention is that about 45% of Portsmouth services still use 444s).  If they'd never had the 444s for that short period, they wouldn't have even noticed the 3+2 in the 450s.

Paul

[ellendune]

....however height is a different matter and I can imagine the difficulty of taller people with knees around neck.....fortunately I'm a shortarse! 

I do have this problem.  It is currently less of a problem on trains than buses (I will not even consider a long journey on a coach for this reason). I do recall a journey from Kings Cross to Edinburgh in a reserve seat that did not have enough leg room and I was very uncomfortable before I even got to Leeds.  Are there any standards for leg room?

Also my arms are similalrly long so using a laptop on a non-table seat on a train is impossible. 

[ChrisB]

I also have this problem. A 36" inside leg means my knees are hard up on the seatback in front on every airline seat on FGW^▸ (First Great Western), turbos, regional & HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train). And I can't slim down to reduce this either. There needs to be a minimum seat pitch on public transport. First thing I do when flying is to find the airlines with the largest pitch - they all differ in Economy.

I will embarrass fatties if they are taking up more than their fair share of my seat. Sorry, but 99% of the time the've picked their size as a life-style choice & why should I pay for that in getting half a seat. I will even suggest they move to the aisle seat to hang off theirs into the aisle if necessary.

[grahame]

Sorry, but 99% of the time the've picked their size as a life-style choice ...

Would you care to give us a source for that percentage, please, Chris?   Wikipedia lists a dozen reasons for obesity (as a non-scientific list) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overweight . Some are indeed personal choice but others aren't, and it can be a very real problem for people with - for example - hypothyroidism . And being obese - or 'fat' as you call them - is an embarrassment which isn't helped by someone pointing fingers at them and assuming they want to be like that.

I pretty sure that as we evolve, and as medical techniques and medicines become more advanced, the proportion of less mobile, very tall, very broad people is increasing; yes, a very real problem for the railways to discuss, but not best achieved here by taking it out on those afflicted.

[stuving]

From the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) specification:

N063 User Population:
Means all users (e.g. passengers, train crew and staff carrying out Maintenance) who shall range from 5th percentile female to 95th percentile male according to 'Adult Data, the hand book of Adult Anthropometric and Strength Measurements: Data for Design Safety, Department of Trade and Industry, 1998 '.

N146 Knee Room:
Means the space available between seats to accommodate the upper part of a passenger^s legs. The definition is dependent on whether unidirectional or bay (facing) seating is being considered:
^ In the case of unidirectional seating it is the horizontal distance at knee level, from the passenger contacting surface of the seat back to the rearmost section of the seat in front, at knee position; or
^ In the case of bay seating it is half the horizontal distance at knee level, from the passenger contacting surface of the seat back to the corresponding position on the facing seat.

However, it later refers not to Knee Room but to knee space and seat spacing - but gets the definition wrong!

TS1509 The seat arrangements must, as a minimum, accommodate the User Population.
The following factors must be considered for the seat arrangements;
^ seat spacing - the distance between the base of the seat back and the front of the knees (the ^knee space^);
^ seat pitch - the distance between the same points on successive seats;
^ seat width;
^ seat access/egress;
^ the overall personal space available to each passenger when seated; and
^ the activities that passengers may reasonably undertake when seated.

N042 The seat pitch for both bay and unidirectional seating must be capable of being selected so as to allow the seating density to be adjusted to optimise the balance between adequate seating capacity and space for seated passengers.

Presumably other rolling stock procurement contracts will involve similar requirements.

Like most of this specification, the wording of this 5%-95% user is a bit loose. It might refer to individuals' heights as defining this population, or it might be that a different population is defined by each measurement - in this case thigh length. The difference will probably be small.

I can't find the specified anthropometric source on-line, but here is an extract that gives 5%-95% ranges for:

height:                         1510 - 1860
"buttock-knee length":   520 - 670

So both men and women, and children, outside those ranges do not need to be designed for.

[ellendune]

Somewhat reassured to find that I am within the 95th percentile. Does anyone know what the knee length is on a FGW^▸ (First Great Western) high density HST^▸ (High Speed Train)?

[ChrisB]

I note that no body width is specified, which is what we've recently been discussing