Post by John Williamson Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
The race to the bottom for passenger comfort continues unabated it seems.
I find it hard to believe an extra bit of padding and armrests for the seats
would even make a blip in the final cost of each train, but I guess they must
do it for financial reasons. Unless it is purely out of spite.
From experience on buses and coaches, the extra cost comes in the time
it takes to clean padded seats either daily or after a puking incident.
But the rock hard new train seats *are* padded. However, the padding is
much too thin, there's no spring base and the seats are badly shaped and
too upright. The armrests are either missing or too short, and the spacer
between seat pairs is often absent.
The problem is that most train buyers don't specify that they require
comfortable seats, but do want the train to cost less. If they demanded
comfortable seats, the train builders would fit them from new; retrofitting
them after delivery would cost much more.
Post by John Williamson
On one notorious occasion (In the 1970s), The Man From The Ministry took
every single RM on one route off the road for "dirty seats", after
someone had upset him. If there is no padding or cloth involved, then
the dust from passengers' skin can't build up and need a deep clean
every day or two.
We don't usually (yet) have hard plastic or metal shell seats in UK buses
and trains. But upholstery alone doesn't make seats comfortable; they also
need padding and an ergonomic shape, with a sloping seat base and lumbar