for each of the four
journey types are shown
in figure 4.
As an example, the
maximum score for a
Regional train is 25.5 and,
as part of the evaluation,
three sample seat types
were compared, shown
in figure 5. It is interesting
that one seat is a clear
winner, but even this good
seat might still fail if the
seat pad requirements
were not delivered or
it was disliked in the
qualitative assessment.
Neither spacious seats
with poor padding, nor
well padded but cramped
seats are acceptable.Seat Pad Requirements
For the seat and back pads, the
following attributes were specified -
seat pad minimum thickness, seat back
minimum thickness, seat pad hardness
with 500N load, seat pad hardness with
1100N load and long-term seat durability.
Figure 2 shows the full table.
Although there are only five
requirements, this is probably the most
difficult set to deliver a good score, as
an appropriately ‘soft’ seat that scores
highly on the compression test might not
perform so well on the durability test.Seat Attractiveness
This attribute takes account of
the complex nature of determining
comfort. It is a qualitative, survey-based
measure, and is intended to help a train
operator decide which seat to choose
from candidates that have passed the
dimension and compression tests. The
three attributes are:
» How comfortable does the seat look?
» How attractive is the seat?
» How comfortable is the seat to sit in?What does this all mean in practice?
There is a total of sixteen objective
measures and three qualitative measures.
Minimum requirements are listed in figure- For the eleven seat dimensions alone,
the fail criteria and the maximum scores
26 FE ATURE