Great Western Coffee Shop

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 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!!!  :)

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.

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?

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

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.

Agreed but I very much doubt that TOCs 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!  :D

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 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, anyway) nor in long distance trains.
• However, there's a long-running argument over SWT 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?

But no argument about LM 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

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. 

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, turbos, regional & HSTs. 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.

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.

From the IEP specification:

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

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  (http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Human/Human_sizes.html) 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.

Somewhat reassured to find that I am within the 95th percentile. Does anyone know what the knee length is on a FGW high density HST?

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

Did you spot this bit?

It's not exactly clear what it means, but presumably it should be something like:

• The main requirements (number of seats, user population etc) apply "as delivered"
• Once delivered, seat pitch and other parameters can be adjusted to trade seats for "comfort"
• For those now outside the percentile limits, "comfort" is a euphemism
• Extra seats are to be provided with the trains

I wonder if there are any formal requirements on ToCs about passenger sizes and trains in service. The conventional rolling stock TSI is still being gestated.

Yes it is - by reference. However, this is where the poor wording of this spec. gets in the way. What it says, 5% female to 95% male, only works properly if if the upper male figure is bigger than that for women. In this case it isn't, as the 5/95 figures for hip breadth are: women - 350/460 and men - 350/430.

If they follow the words, and use 430 mm, 5% of men and more than 5% of women are bigger. The words ought to specify 97.5% of adults, or the greater of the 95% limit for men and women, which would be 460 mm.

You could make a case for some averaging for two and three-seat sets, but only if you are careful about the statistics of it - and in any case that's not spelled out either.

Height & Knee-length do not cover overall width of a person, sorry

I've just spotted a warning in that the page I gave a link to; the data are not taken from AdultData. The figures do, however, look reasonable compared to some older data I have.

Of course it's also true that hip width is not the widest bit of (most) people. Shoulder width is bigger, and here again the male figure is the one to use: 530 mm.

Perhaps it just means that the same carriage permanent fitting arrangements must be capable of being used whichever layout is chosen.  There are seating pitch variations depending on whether the particular unit is to be used primarily as a commuter train, or medium or long distance inter-city, and the ratios of first/standard, bay/airline etc can vary.   So the overall layout can change but still within the parameters laid down for the different variants.

It would be daft if the exact seating layout was a factory option that could never be varied after delivery.  And of course the spec was written to allow for subsets of trains that would might never be used on the GWML, such as the proposed Kings Cross to Kings Lynn commuter variant.

Paul

Well, I guess that still means it will depend on what requirements are placed on operators, not suppliers. There's nothing in the TSI for high-speed rolling stock (L.84/135 Annex)- all 258 pages of it - but then that is really meant to cover health and safety aspects, not confort.

But that seat is not fully available if the other person already sat there needs more than the width of one seat......

They've only paid for one seat....

Around 75% of people who are defined as obese do not choose as a lifestyle, a vast majority are medically related.
95% of the last England rugby squad are medically obese. I would love to see you make a comment to one of them.
This is a very shallow comment from you.

No they've paid to get from A to B. You don't pay for seats at all on the UK railway.

true - but there's no way their ticket entitles them to more than anyone elsde with the same ticket!

Since giving up smoking tobacco, I'd rather not sit next to anyone who stinks of tobacco.

Am I allowed to embarrass these 'stinkies' for their lifestyle choice?

I don't condone violence in any shape or form, but I'd not stick up for someone who was slapped after embarrassing a 'fatty' and their 'lifestyle' choice.

As a smoker, I'd appreciate knowing if my clothes stank! I think you'd have to be an extremely heavy smoker not to notice.

You used to spot pib-goers a mile off, but simce the good ban on smoking indoors in public places, its not ofyen you come across a reeking person

Around 75% of people who are defined as obese do not choose as a lifestyle, a vast majority are medically related.
95% of the last England rugby squad are medically obese. I would love to see you make a comment to one of them.
This is a very shallow comment from you.
[/quote]

you are correct that by simply using BMI to define obesity, many international athletes/sportsmen are indeed "obese", however BMI is a blunt instrument and does not distinguish between tubs of lard and muscular related weight/build.

I'd be interested in where you source the figure of 75% of obesity being medically related?  Generally speaking I think it's a lifestyle issue, starting with youngsters eating rubbish and plonking themselves in front of computers rather than playing sport, through to adults being similarly inactive and troughing on pies, junk food etc - I think the huge amount of resource the NHS has to devote to paediatric and adult bariatric surgery is beginning to bear this out.

The smoking/smell comparison is not really comparing apples with apples in this debate as whilst it might not be pleasant sitting next to someone who smells like an ashtray, you do still get to sit on 100% of a seat........unless they are an obese smoker of course!  ;)

I resisted the urge to comment in this thread, but now that's been thrown out there I can no longer hold back :-X

Everything you have described there is me all over. Poor diet, sat in front of computers all day and no playing of sport. (Do alot of walking though!)

However the punch line? I am classed as Underweight!! Weigh in at less than 60kg in fact :-\ I I haven't earned the nickname "Skeleton" for nothing... :-X

I have also had surgery to "repair" a problem in my digestive system that was NOT caused by my poor diet.

So please, do not stereotype those young folk who have an appalling diet and sit in front of computers all day rather then go and see that thing in the sky that it's name escapes me... santa Sun!! Although in a lighter context, some gents would probably not mind turning to Page 3 ;D

trout - can I sit next to you on the train please?  ;D

TaplowGreen - you might get a seat next to him, but just look through the forum at all the scrapes he gets into on his travels!   ;D

I'm the opposite to you, I eat a great diet, very particular about what I eat, yet I am 18 stone. I've played rugby since age 6. I'd personally say I am very fit, I am of a muscular build, yet the NHS deem I am grossly obese, my life insurance premiums are 15% higher than they would be if I was 15 stone, as they work it on a height vs. weight ratio, irrespective of the make up of the weight


Regardless how blunt BMI is as a measure, this is the only factor the UK use to define whether somebody is obese or not, and as the title of the thread was about "obesity" it doesn't distinguish between a "fatty" and a person of muscular build, who is medically determined to be obese in the UK.

Richwarwicker I know exactly what you mean, I played for 25 years (too old now!) and was somewhat surprised in my late 20s at 14 stone to be described as "obese" by my Doctor, who then made me feel better by telling me what a dodgy & crude measurement BMI is!

Nevertheless I think availability and excessive consumption of saturated fat, sugar, booze rather than fruit and veg combined with lack of exercise plays more of a part in obesity, particularly over the last 20 years?

Anyway, somewhat ironically I am now off to the rugby club for a Xmas party at which I will consume unhealthy amounts of ale, so I wish you all the best for a happy Christmas and if you are travelling by train, a spacious journey unsullied by a bit of rain causing utter chaos!!!   :D

Rugby club and alcohol - I find that hard to believe!   ;D

Not quite. The NICE guideline on obesity is, I think, the definitive source for medical definitions in this. It shies away from actually defining obesity, but treats it as a synonym for adiposity or fatness. My dictionary gives obese as abnormally fat, too. On how to measure this, the full guideline says:



So BMI is used because it is very much easier than any better method, but for most people still give a good estimate of the parameter that counts - body fat as a fraction of body mass. So much so that they do, perhaps unwisely, label BMI ranges as obesity I to III:


However, they do add a bit as well:


Generally this "muscle weight effect" is left to clinical judgement, though there are also tables for using waist circumference to shift people one step along the obesity scale. But that's upwards - waist >94 cm pushes overweight men into the same category as obesity I with waist <94 cm. There are also some more details specific to the risk of diabetes.

I can see a problem for GPs in this. They are supposed to use a bit of judgement as well as BMI, but the table tells them you get the label "overweight" or "obese" based solely on BMI. So they may tailor the advice they give, but can't really change the label.

I think the upshot is that BMI is only seriously misleading for the few people with very muscular bodies achieved by really hard training regimes. However, the vagueness of this category, combined with the simplicity of BMI, leaves us all confused by it. Which makes it easy to kid yourself ...

There is an interesting article in Jan's Modern Railways about teh possible shape of the railway in 2043 (Hopefully I  won't be around). 3 railway gurus  have given their views which are very intersting in themselves but too complex to summarise here.

However what is interesting is the table of Demographic change which gives a rise in the population of   10.9 million from 62.3 to 73.2

But it also gives a predicted rise in the number of people with a BMI over 30 from 15% to 26% but the latter is reached in 2030!

So quite a chalenge for the railway and the country in general more and bigger people to carry.