"Andrew Robert Breen" wrote in message

In article ,
Recliner wrote:


I rode on the nicely refurbished Mk 1 stock (Royal Scot rake) to
Swanage and thoroughly enjoyed the well-sprung armchairs and copious
shiny wood.

Your back obviously has a much higher tolerance of bad seats than mine
does. If the seats in those coaches are anything lke the usual Mk.1
horrors, I'd have had to stand the whole way.

And then there's the noise, harshness and vibration, all there in
copious proportions. I can understand how some (not me!) would like
this as an occasional novelty, but it's not up to the job of
day-to-day transport.

And no, polished wood doth not a quality package make (unless it's a
boat by Fairey Marine). The aforementioned 1967 (design..) car was
blessedly free of such nonsense.

I suspect we're just arguing about the subjective comfort of various
seating designs. I'm happy to agree that modern intercity trains are
quieter, smoother and air-conditioned, so it's just a case of which seat
designs we prefer. As far as I'm concerned, no train seats come close to
matching the comfort and adjustability of my car's seats, and none let
me adjust the temperature to suit myself, so it's just a case of which
trains have the worst seats compared to my car or a good business class
airline seat. But, with the exception of the awful Mallard standard
class seats, I can tolerate any of them for an hour or two without
complaint, and the best of them for quite a few hours.