Who made the seating design decision?

[whole diary]

[Karl]

Evening

I've picked out BTlines message, as it is one I
agree with the most.  I'm a bit over 6ft tall and
took a refurblished FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HST^▸ (High Speed Train) set from Truro to
Newton Abbot last Saturday.  By the time I had
reached Totnes I was beggining to feel uncomfortable
and by Newton Abbot I had virtually no feeling in my
backside whatsoever; I felt more like I had slept on
a plank of wood than a seat!   After Newton Abbot I
cought a Voyager to Dawlish and even that was more
comfortable than the HST!  On the way back another
refurb HST from Plymouth to Truro, this seat felt
worse than the previous one, so I decided to stand
by the door from Bodmin, freash air and working blood
circulation.

Agree with seats BTlines mentioned, in fact I brought
this up in a previous topic, if the seats are more
forward than the older, there is more chance of been
thrown out of your seat if anything happens.  They
need more padding and that isn't H&S^▸ (Health and Safety), thats doing it
on the cheap.  Its the main structure and shape of
the structure that is more to do with H&S than the
padding (which should be non-flamable), isn't the
crucial point so why isn't there more?  The fact the
arm rests move is the only improvement.  To be honest
however I must admit I'm not overally fused about the
height although I can see peoples point.

If H&S are barking over Paddington, Uften Nevett e.t.c
(excuse my spellings), they were all human error or
where the fault of a human action and not the HST.

I hope that the refurb power cars have kept the nameplates
of the driver's, as a mark of respect, memory and loyal
service.

Could I ask a QS?  Does anyone else on this forum think
its a bit of a waste using HST power cars and coaches
on "Network Rail" test trains, when there are ample
locos and MRKI and MRK2 coaches at "RTC Derby"?

Regards

Karl.

Historically FGW have a very good safety record. Not
to say I'm overly fond of the new seats, especially
when they seem to be designed for people who are 6"
when the national average is about 5"4 for women and
5"10 for men??? Besides being a few inches smaller
than the design, the seats are VERY uncomfortable.
They are too hard and put your back into a bad
position (too far forward). I don't care if the
newer style seats are officially "better for your
back" (how, I don't know)- on a train journey I
want comfort. Has anybody here managed to doze off
on the new HSTs? If I could, I would fall forward,
because you can't lean back enough.

----------

Why are all these H&S points needed? How often do
HSTs crash? Once in a blue moon!

[swlines]

Could I ask a QS?  Does anyone else on this forum think
its a bit of a waste using HST^▸ (High Speed Train) power cars and coaches
on "Network Rail" test trains, when there are ample
locos and MRKI and MRK2 coaches at "RTC Derby"?

They are Mk3s mainly because they would be otherwise unable to get a path on fast lines on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) and WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) for instance. Likewise, they would not be able to get a decent path at all on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line).

[Btline]

I have to admit, I have travelled on Vomiters a lot recently, and the seats are nicer than FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) with the SAME H&S^▸ (Health and Safety) regulations!!!! No excuse.

I travelled on a Chiltern 168 refurb recently, and did not like the top of the seat. Again, obviously designed for a six footer, as the neck support was sticking out where my head was.

Of course, Chiltern had not decided to give its passengers DVT^‡(resolve), and the seat was padded (unlike FGW HSTs).

I think that there's a tendency to blame H&S (the agency? individual officers?) for a lot of bad decisions in general that were made by unthinking idiots, or callow young designers with whizzy ideas.

There is a lot right about the new HST seats (notably the folding armrests - why did no-one think of them back in 1975?) and I don't think anyone would dispute the need for replacing the old ones, but the excessive height of them is the main issue.

Was it really H&S? Does anyone actually know? I accept that there may have been a bit of nervousness after Ufton Nervet, Southall and Paddington, and with people clamouring for seat-belts (!) but no-one has said that someone (named or un-named) in the H&S Agency or any other agency specifically instructed the design team or FGW to increase the seat height to this unpleasant and ugly dimension.

NXEC^▸ (National Express East Coast)'s seats, for example, are just as new and are good to sit in and see out of. Why FGW?

H&S are a group of people with clipboards, who go around and change everything because they think that the human race cannot think for themselves, nor take responsibility for thier actions.

Oh - I forgot, thanks to the spread of the US compensation culture - we can't!

[devon_metro]

"Beware of the sign"

[Btline]

"Beware of the sign"

[swlines]

"Beware of the sign"

Sign Not In Use?

[devon_metro]

"Beware of the sign"

Sign Not In Use?

Quite

[Karl]

Afternoon

Now on the subject of head rests being at the
correct height, I remember quite a few years back
travelling on loco hauled stock and I'm sure that
once I travelled on one that had a retractable head
rest.  Basically it is a extra padded peice on front
of the seat, that had two soft flat straps and could
move up and down a slight distance with a pull.
Can't exacually remember all details, but it could of
been a MRK 2, possibly an F series and prehaps a First
class?  Now there's a solution for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) on that!

But considering the real prototype HST^▸ (High Speed Train) was "The Blue
Pullman", or if your an ex MR^▸ (Midland Railway) man "Midland Pullman",
had seats that 'you' could pull a handle and the whole
back would retract to your desired level, a handle that
'you' can move your seat backwards or fowards for the
correct leg distance and a blind (unlike the Voyagers),
would only cover your bit of window and these just didn't
go and down, 'you' could alter the degree of the blades
makes todays train travel sometimes cheap and not very
chearfull.

Shame that none survided into preservation.

Regards

Karl.

Qoute from BTLines

I travelled on a Chiltern 168 refurb recently, and
did not like the top of the seat. Again, obviously
designed for a six footer, as the neck support was
sticking out where my head was.

[The SprinterMeister]

Could I ask a QS?  Does anyone else on this forum think
its a bit of a waste using HST^▸ (High Speed Train) power cars and coaches
on "Network Rail" test trains, when there are ample
locos and MRKI and MRK2 coaches at "RTC Derby"?

Regards

Karl.

The Network Rail New Measurement Train was updated during a time in which the 22x series DEMU^▸ (Diesel Electric Multiple Unit)'s were making their presence felt and there were surplus HST powercars and trailers available to form the basis of the NMT. The Mk2F track recording coach is also capable of being marshalled in such a formation. The requirements of a a track measurement train were thus met by Network Rail buying HST vehicles from the ROSCO^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about)'s, which it was able to suitably modify for the purpose. It will be recalled that First Group also bought a number of HST vehicles at the same time, 12 powercars and several trailers from memory that form part of FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s HST fleet. The ROSCO's were only too glad to sell, bearing in mind the demand anticipated at that time versus the cost of warm storage.

The NMT has to go about it's work on routes all over the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) and has to fit in amongst scheduled services that run at speeds of up to 125mph. Therefore it has to be capable of working at that speed. Apart from possibly some of the class 67's there are no locomotives capable of running at that speed. The NMT has to traverse a number of routes therefore it will require to reverse at various locations, not all of which are capable of having locomotives run round the train. It also needs twin power units for reliability and self recovery purposes. The HST powercars are considerably lighter than most existing locomotives and have a far better route availability.

In short, ancient locomotives and Mk1/2 stock would be a very poor substitute and possibly worsen Network Rail's ability to monitor the condition of the infrastructure to the required extent.

[dog box]

Sorry but i find the seating perfectly adequate and as for the height i for one dont want to be looking at some beer swilling nose picking oik when i am on a train so they suit me fine.
You will have a hard job to sit in a refresh HST^▸ (High Speed Train) Set and stare at a big lump of plastic as they are made of steel !!!!!..think they were made by Grammar of Germany and meet modern crash worthyness regulations.
This being a requirement of increasing seating capacity.
if you still had the original low seats even more people would be standing than they do now so its a bit of a no win situation really

[Chris from Nailsea]

Well, any visit to a furniture store will confirm that there is a very wide variety of personal preferences for seating style - everything from upright Shaker to recumbent futon!

However, I agree with dog box on the new HST^▸ (High Speed Train) seats: as I've posted elsewhere,

... I travelled Nailsea to Paddington and back on Tuesday - two hours each way, giving me ample time to jot down impressions of my latest HST travel experience.

The airline seats are practical, even for families: two pairs of seats is no more difficult to find than a table.  The reduction in the number of tables also means there is less scope for lone travellers to take up all four seats around a table by putting a coat on one, a bag on another, and then sitting with a broadsheet newspaper spread out over both of the opposite two seats.  Moveable armrests give much greater flexibility of seating, and the high seat backs give greater privacy if people want to work.  The firm seats encourage better posture, but they are by no means uncomfortable - the chap sitting next me and I both found no difficulty in nodding off by about Swindon, I noticed!  There is also plenty of legroom - I'm 6 foot, but I didn't have any problem with 'stretching my legs'.

And finally, I think the pink 'Mickey Mouse' ears as grab handles are quite fun!  They certainly catch the eye, which surely is their purpose ... !

Chris 

[Karl]

Evening

Well to be honest with you The Sprinter Meister
(and prehaps I should of worded my message better),
does it have to test at 125mph?  Can't it be done
at night where it is less of an intrusion to other
services?

As you mentioned c67's are 125mph locos, plus the
fact that only 005/6 and 029 do anything much these
days anyway, the other's only pushing freight trains
around along with the odd charter periodolicly.
Arn't some of these already in store?  Some could be
put to far better use than they are, such as using
them to do tests.  As regards to running around,
top and tail them, but that might not be necessary
now, as NR^» (Network Rail - home page) have a MRK2 DBSO^▸ (Driving Brake Standard Open (carriage)) (which were used with c86
and c90 on Norwich services as a driving end trailers),
which 'if my memory serves me correct' are 100mph
capable.  I think its still on test but would eliminate
that problem.  MRK 1 on either B4/5 or Commonwealth
bogies are also 100mph cabable and some MRK 2's 'I think'
are 110mph capable (and did faster than that when behind
Deltics!).  If c67s and c37s cover for the NMT HST^▸ (High Speed Train) when
not available with no aparent problems, why not just use
those instead?

Also for electric sections WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) and ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line), there were
c86 and c87 locos going spare, they could be geared
up for 110mph (some were before they went).  Not 100%
ideal as not everywhere is 25kv, plus I can't remember
now if I saw a line going east of Derby that had 25kv
the last time I passed?  Thats playing with the grey
matter now!

But the main reason I commented is that HSTs are going
to be around for a considerable while, until they get
this HST2 project going.  With some TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s now having
to look at MRK3 hauled stock, scrounging around for
odd spare power cars here and there, or hire ins (as
the 220/221 DEMUs^▸ (Diesel Electric Multiple Unit) e.t.c which you rightly said were
meant to replace HST's but are not up to the job).
It begs another question if NR have to obtain HST power
cars, then why do they need have as much as they already
got on their books?

Some people may disagree with me, but I think this whole
220/1 and HST sets being cast away to NR was a badly dealt
with.  But thats only my humble opinion.

Sorry for the slightly long winded version!

Regards

Karl.  

[Karl]

Morning

Well Dog Box and Chris, you must (unlike me), way
absolutely nothing then if you found them comfy,
becuase most find them rock hard!  The main issue
was the padding and design, although others have
commented on height of seats e.t.c.  To be honest
they could of put more padding/springing in them and
still acheive their objectives.  To be frank and please
don't think I having an attack at either of you, but
I would much rather have a seat with softer cusioning
and designed for passenger comfort than a better posture
position!

Don't think anyones commented on the refurbs leg room
yet?  Plus if anyone had a table to themselves and train
was getting busy, I would doubt if anyone else would
ingnore the three seats spare, nor would the other person
get away with hoging it for themsleves refurb or not!

Regards

Karl.

[dog box]

you are right the seats are harder than those in some 158s but i wonder if after a few years use they may retain a degree of comfort whereby a softer seat has totally collapsed.
A lot has been written about leg room before and i took a tape measure to an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) and voyager and in a non priority seat you have more room on HST.
Incidentaly if you are near Exeter try out a refresh 142.......am i the only person who thinks the refreshed seating is quite comfy on these Pacers

[devon_metro]

you are right the seats are harder than those in some 158s but i wonder if after a few years use they may retain a degree of comfort whereby a softer seat has totally collapsed.
A lot has been written about leg room before and i took a tape measure to an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) and voyager and in a non priority seat you have more room on HST.
Incidentaly if you are near Exeter try out a refresh 142.......am i the only person who thinks the refreshed seating is quite comfy on these Pacers

Very comfy apart from the limited legroom and lack of upper back support.