Research in action
Seat comfort standards improve passenger experience
Getting value from running brake testsNew training for chairs of incident learning reviews
Enhanced guidance on seat comfort is being used for new train procurements.
In 2019, we developed criteria on how to assess train seat comfort for passengers. They have been used by train manufacturers, seat suppliers, and passenger operators since their release. These are now embedded as a standards guidance note (GMGN2696 Iss 1).
The guidance note provides advice on product design, human factors, and ergonomics. It also includes a method of rating comfort using various metrics. Combined, the metrics give an overall static comfort score.
Working with Scotrail, Arup, and the University of Huddersfield, we have now developed additional guidance for dynamic seat comfort on suburban services. This work developed parameters to account for the motion of the train, including:
user comfort based on static and dynamic properties
the effects of seat frame construction and a cushion’s thickness and density
how users interact with rail vehicle seats, the effect on comfort, and how this evolves over time.
The findings informed specifications for Scotrail’s new train fleet procurement for electrical and battery multiple unit trains. We are now extending the seat testing to first class and metro service types, with results expected in early 2026.
The THOMoS rail vehicle motion simulator. Image credit: Institute of Railway Research – University of Huddersfield.
Read the current research findings and keep up to date as we extend the work to more passenger vehicles on RSSB's research catalogue (search for T1314).
Contact Barry Tan, Principal Vehicle Dynamics & RST Systems Engineer, for support with applying the seat comfort guidance note.
Southeastern has used our framework to review its rolling stock and ensure running break tests offer real value to drivers.
Historically, running brake tests (RBTs) confirmed the effectiveness of air or vacuum brakes on locomotive-hauled trains. Their relevance to modern rolling stock—whose electronically controlled brakes offer greater consistency, redundancy, and onboard diagnostic monitoring—has been questioned.
There is also uncertainty about how often RBTs are needed. Many drivers are performing them out of habit rather than for meaningful insight. Unnecessary tests can cause minor delays and increase fuel costs and emissions.
Rule Book instructions were simplified in 2010 to let operators set their own requirements for multiple units through their professional driving policies (PDPs). However, many operators still follow an old way of working.
Our research provided a framework to help operators evaluate their fleets’ capabilities and retain RBTs only where they address a specific risk and offer value to drivers. The research excluded RBTs performed during low adhesion, as there is a well-understood rationale for these.
Southeastern was the first operator to adopt the research. Using the framework, the operator systematically reviewed potential faults and hazards associated with its rolling stock braking systems. It identified scenarios where a prescribed running rake test had no safety benefit. It updated operating instructions and briefed drivers on a new RBT policy at the end of summer 2025.
As a result, Southeastern drivers are performing fewer RBTs each day. The operator is monitoring on-time performance to assess the impact of fewer RBTs on punctuality. The work also highlighted scenarios where the RBT provides extra assurance—for example, when a train first re-enters service after maintenance. The rationale for the RBTs still mandated by the driving policy is fully understood and they provide a meaningful safety benefit.
The RBT risk assessment framework, supporting guidance, and case studies are available on RSSB's research catalogue (search for T1333).
For support in applying the framework, contact Marcus Carmichael, Professional Lead, Operations and Performance.
Research-based training will help identify the root causes of incidents and share learning more effectively.
Operating companies and infrastructure managers carry out an incident learning review (ILR) after a significant event that affects performance.
The ILR aims to reduce the likelihood of repeat incidents and minimise the impact if they do occur. It identifies the root cause of the incident and assesses service recovery decisions. However, ILR efficacy varies across the network; the reviews do not always deliver the required improvements to prevent repeat incidents.
Our research aimed to improve the consistency and effectiveness of ILRs. We reviewed the current process and identified good practice, both in rail and other relevant industries. We focused specifically on sharing review outcomes and embedding learning within organisations.
Rail staff industry-wide see the fundamental ILR process as good practice, with the purpose of the review well understood. A review of 20 previous ILRs found that they identified deeper systematic causes of incidents.
However, we did find significant inconsistencies in how ILRs are triggered. We also found that learning does not typically feed across industry; it mostly occurs within the route or company directly involved in the incident.
Based on our research, we have developed guidance to help organisations get the most from ILRs. We also developed training that will enhance the skills of ILR chairs. By equipping them with greater confidence and clearer methods to identify, share, and embed critical learning, the frequency and severity of significant incidents will reduce.
The first incident learning review training course will be held on 28 January 2026.Book your place
Download the guidance and training materials via RSSB's research catalogue (search for T1336).
Contact Marcus Carmichael, Professional Lead, Operations and Performance, with any queries.
