Thanks, Chris, for identifying the chain of responsibility for this, Industryinsider, Taplowgreen
johnneyw for emphasising that the issue does not affect 100% of the seating.

Now, if this was a workplace, I'd be off to my health and safety rep. about the risk to health from this seat defect. Witness the fact that the seats used by staff are the best on the train.

It seems I now need a "Health and Safety Executive" but for passengers on public transport.

Mark

 

In general, I would agree with the above comments but these ones where the padding has collapsed around the seat cross support are quite a different experience, believe me, I've sat on one. 
Fortunately, the problem is restricted to a minority of seats....so far....but I think it's fair to assume that they are coming to a carriage near you soon!

 

I agree, even though my rump is not as well padded/upholstered as it used to be having lost weight last year I don't find them uncomfortable.

 
They can't - they don't own them.

They would have to agree with Hitachi to pay them to replace / fix them.

And GWR won't be paying, outside their contract with the DfT - so the DfT would be paying. Fat chance.

 
Thanks for your thoughts, and yes, the risk of a DVT is small and also an event might occur long enough after the individual has travelled that cause and effect would not be picked up - court cases brought by passengers on this are problematic (for the passenger).

Concerning DVTs, the stats: "The risk for healthy people is approximately 1 in 107,000 for flights lasting less than four hours and 1 in 4,600 for flights lasting more than four hours. That figure increases to 1 in 1,200 for flights lasting more than 16 hours."  (Source: NHS patient leaflet)

Add risk factors to the calculation and those figures ramp up, sometimes very substantially, and one of the risk factors is damaged seating.

Two significant vulnerabilities that interfere with circulation are pressure behind the bent knee, and poorly distributed pressure beneath a thigh - the first being responsible for the increased risk for people below a certain height, while for those above a certain height, the lack of room to adjust ones position comes into play and leads to an increased risk for those people too.

The Class 800 seating as designed might avoid exposing people to the second vulnerability but not once the cushioning has collapsed to the extent that the customer's weight is carried by whatever that transverse structure is beneath it.

Agreed that GWR's customer service will be used to categorising passenger feedback on the IEP seating as a discomfort-related issue rather than a safety related issue, which masks from the organisation that some of that seating has deteriorated and is damaged to the extent that it's a safety risk for their customers.

To climb out of that silo it might be good if someone from GWR cross-checked with someone from the world of medicine. Medical equipment with that defect might well be taken out of use immediately. Yes, people in hospital may well be at a higher risk of DVT than the general population, but whether in hospital or not, we are the same people.

I don't think that GWR should immediately replace all IEP seats on this account: what they might do is audit for the ones that have deteriorated sufficiently to expose whatever structure is causing this issue and, as a priority, replace those.

Mark

 
I expect any claims they’re a safety hazard will easily be swatted away by providing various design documentation to show they conform to all the relevant standards.

Only some actual cases of DVT might put any real spotlight on them.

Though at coming up to 8 years in service you’d expect a quarter life refurbishment will be on the cards fairly soon, so that’s a possibly route to altering/changing them.

I don’t personally have any issue with them.  I won’t claim they’re the most comfortable seat in existence but I managed two return trips from London to Dundee with no issues last year and countless shorter journeys.

 
Thanks for raising this, Mark A.

For what it's worth, I find that I can just about tolerate these appalling seats for the time it takes to get from Bristol to London. The bar you refer to directly aligns with what I believe are referred to as my 'sit bones' - the part of the hip that carries the weight - and it is hard to imagine how anything that claims to be a 'seat' could be less comfortable.

A couple of weeks ago I had the misfortune to travel from St Erth to Bristol on an IET. I had a very thick jumper with me, and by sitting on this and moving it around from time to time I was able to stay in my seat until somewhere around Tiverton Parkway, at which point the discomfort was too much to bear and I had to stand up.

It is plainly possible to make seats which are comfortable and meet safety requirements. Someone made a terrible design choice here. I will be watching this topic with interest!

 
Keep us up to date with your progress please?

 
Hi Chris. 'Uncomfortable' in relation to seating becomes a passenger safety issue when 'Discomfort' crosses a threshold and the sitter experiences pain, which is the body's way of signalling that it's being damaged, reversibly or irreversibly.

An issue with discomfort progressing to 'Pain when sitting', is that the vulnerable systems involve nerves and also blood circulation, so this gets into 'Deep vein thrombosis' territory among other things. Certain individuals are more vulnerable than others and this is not necessarily related to age.

The IEP seats, once the filling has suffered inelastic deformation, become uncomfortable, but when this has progressed enough to result in the passenger being supported by other structures within the seat that are ill-designed for that purpose, that's become a safety issue.

An aspect of this is that the effect can be cumulative (on the passenger). That's not necessarily good news for someone who uses these trains on a daily basis.

Having received a quick response from GWR on this, the current perception from them is that this is a 'Comfort' issue rather than involving passenger safety, and I'll respond.

Mark

 
Where does "uncomfortable" = "safety issue"?

 
More seriously, suspecting that seat comfort is classed as 'Convenience', it would be good if GWR were moved to address this particular defect as the passenger safety issue it surely is.

If anyone has ideas on how to raise this defect's status from 'Inconvenience' to 'Passenger safety issue', I'm all ears.

Mark

 
:-)

Mark

 
Apologies but I don't think so.

 

Is the Instructor/assessor's seat bookable by passengers please?

Mark

 

Must not laugh...

Must not laugh...

As I think of the stock delivered to ČD over the last couple of years.

Never mind, enjoy the full Super Hitachi Intercity Train experience.

PS The only truly comfortable seat on the whole train is the instructor/assessors seat. I didn't like the drivers seat especially with the random lowering of the height adjuster piston.

 
But surely the metal bar is an ergonomic metal bar, designed by experts so as to ensure passenger comfort.

 
I've also recently encountered this new discomfort feature on the IET seats.  Thankfully it wasn't on a particularly long journey but it felt ever present.

 
Fainsa (the seat makers). Their company history to be found on the link below. I can't copy and paste the 2016-17 chapter but it tells a tale.

As Fainsa have made seating since 1903, I'm surprised that they're not mortified at that failure mode for a product that's widely deployed.

https://www.compinfainsa.com/corporate/history

Thanks for bringing up the question of temperature - a couple of hours into the run and with a fresh train manager joining us, an announcement went out apologising for that, it being chilly, it was not responding to attempts to adjust it, and carriage 'K' being particularly chilly, people in it might like to move to 'L'.

Mark

 
My guess is the maintenance contract (courtesy of DfT) with Hitachi allows it, either that or GWRs legal team are not turning up at depot exit with a spirit level and measure, and saying the sag is excessive either side of solid bar.  (Do legal they ever turn up unannounced and actually check work meets maintenance contract standards to the millimetre, if not why not, getting away with only doing about 90% of a job defeats purpose of detailed contract spec, if there is a contract it should be enforced 100%, not they did some of it so it's ok)

Of course if the maintenance contract allows such worn things, what else are they allowing to be worn or unacceptable and not fixed (eg brake pads, faulty thermostats etc).   And yes I am sure I have walked through an IEP and different carriages are different temperatures)

 
A seat defect that's actually visible, and one that doesn't make for a good seated experience. The seat upholstery has compressed and whatever structure it is - some sort of metal bar - that runs across the seat ahead of that red arrow ... these are beyond use (as a seat) and this urgently needs addressing. People shouldn't be expected to have to bring their own seat cushions. I'll raise this with GWR.

Mark