Who made the seating design decision?

[whole diary]

[dking]

Just returned from three weeks travelling on Northern European rail systems. Arrived back at Paddington yesterday morning from Brussels and had a shock - I'd forgotten how awful the new seats are on FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train). You sit down and 50cm in front of your eyes there's a slab of grey plastic with (to add insult to injury) a FGW logo button in the middle of it.

A lot of the point and pleasure of rail travel is the ability to watch the world go by, but these new seats totally negate that opportunity. Look left and right - all you can see (except for the lucky third of passengers who can sit by a window) are similar slabs of grey plastic. You can't even see other passengers or the train staff (so no chance of nipping into the bog on their approach!), and you can't see whether there are vacant seats without peering at each one. If carriages had video displays (has anyone thought of that?) they would be invisible.

No other train we went on in the whole (5000+ km) trip (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany and Eurostar) had such high seat backs. Neither did Spanish trains on an earlier trip (smug smug).

I assume that at some point in the redesign process some callow young designer came up with this whizzy idea and that the FGW manager in charge of approving the whole thing either went along with the CYD's whizzy idea or didn't notice. They must have cost more than seats with the top at eye height as well. Was there a rationale behind the decision? Maybe this topic has been aired elsewhere but I've not seen it so apologies if so.

I'd love to know who was responsible for taking a bit of pleasure out of the rail experience. Anyone able to divulge? I promise not to take any action but there is an accountability issue here.

[devon_metro]

Health & Safety 

[Btline]

Health and safety which does not apply to GNER^▸ (Great North Eastern Railways)!

[simonw]

Suerly H&S^▸ (Health and Safety) would have also wanted seat belts, and arguably for 125mph ( ) harnesses!

[Andy W]

Health & Safety 

As I understand it that is only true for new seats. They could have refurbished the old ones but than couldn't cram so many people in.

I think it's barking that H&S^▸ (Health and Safety) worry about seat height when so many people are left standing! 

[devon_metro]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) replaced the old seats as the plastic was dangerous and shatters into many thousands of shards in crashes. 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 

[swlines]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) replaced the old seats as the plastic was dangerous and shatters into many thousands of shards in crashes. 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 

Is there any documented proof about the shattering of the plastic? Besides, if it was that seriously bad - I highly doubt HMRI^▸ (Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate)/NR^» (Network Rail - home page)/ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)/WHOEVER would allow the low level refresh of the GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train).

[Btline]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) replaced the old seats as the plastic was dangerous and shatters into many thousands of shards in crashes. 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^▸ (High Speed Train)? If I could, I would fall forward, because you can't lean back enough.

----------

Why are all these H&S^▸ (Health and Safety) points needed? How often do HSTs crash? Once in a blue moon!

[The SprinterMeister]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) replaced the old seats as the plastic was dangerous and shatters into many thousands of shards in crashes. 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 

Prefer the seating thats going into the West fleet myself. Much better padded, especially the 158 type seat.

[Btline]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) replaced the old seats as the plastic was dangerous and shatters into many thousands of shards in crashes. 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 

Prefer the seating thats going into the West fleet myself. Much better padded, especially the 158 type seat.

Apparently, the 158s are less likely to crash as they go at 90 mph max (even though HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) spend more time below 90 mph, than at the "danger 125 mph speed").

This means that H&S^▸ (Health and Safety) moan less.

[swlines]

You have more chance of jackknifing on points the faster you're going if they're not secure .... see Grayrigg, Potters Bar, etc...

[The SprinterMeister]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) replaced the old seats as the plastic was dangerous and shatters into many thousands of shards in crashes. 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 

Prefer the seating thats going into the West fleet myself. Much better padded, especially the 158 type seat.

Apparently, the 158s are less likely to crash as they go at 90 mph max (even though HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) spend more time below 90 mph, than at the "danger 125 mph speed").

This means that H&S^▸ (Health and Safety) moan less.

Ah.... But the 158's haven't got the safety benefit of the big speedometer with the LED's round the edge have they?

 

[devon_metro]

Which doesnt work on any unit operated lines in the West apart from Bath-Bristol

[dking]

I think that there's a tendency to blame H&S^▸ (Health and Safety) (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^▸ (High Speed Train) 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^▸ (First Great Western) 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?

[swlines]

It's more the interpretation of HSE^▸ (Health and Safety Executive) rules, than HSE itself.