HS2 going to have 3+2 seating?!

[Bletchleyite]

The main issue is the effect on house prices and thus social inclusion.

 

[HSTEd]

Spreading increased house prices over a wider area in this manner would dilute the effect to the point where it won't lead to wholesale social cleansing.

 

[quantinghome]

Wasn't one of the arguments for UIC that rolling stock should be cheaper as it's a common size, rather than the UK's oddball gauge? Even if it's not connected to HS1, isn't asking Alstom for a TGV Duplex or Siemens for a Velaro going to be easier than something custom? Isn't the danger of going for Shinkansen spec that we swap one odd size for another?

As another poster said, the Japanese manufacturers would be able to offer a standard product. Also, the Velaro already has a wider variant in service in Russia.

I guess it would be more expensive to have a wider train, but I hope the option is at least considered rather than dismissed without any investigation of the costs and benefits.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I guess it would be more expensive to have a wider train, but I hope the option is at least considered rather than dismissed without any investigation of the costs and benefits.

As a passenger I don't want a wider train, as I don't want 3+2. I don't even want 3+2 if the seats are the same width as present 2+2 seats. A middle seat is nasty in any form. It's nasty on a plane as well, but usually I know plans for plane journeys far earlier than short-medium distance rail journeys and as such can ensure I reserve a suitable choice of seat.

Increase capacity by lengthening, or building *higher* and going double deck (again provided you don't cram people in too much on a false impression you can double capacity that way).

 

[HSTEd]

As a passenger I don't want a wider train, as I don't want 3+2. I don't even want 3+2 if the seats are the same width as present 2+2 seats. A middle seat is nasty in any form.

Are you prepared to pay 25% more for your seat as a consequence?

Increase capacity by lengthening, or building *higher* and going double deck (again provided you don't cram people in too much on a false impression you can double capacity that way).

There is no reason you can't do all of these things.
Can't go much longer than 400m, can't go much more than double deck, but double deck 400m Shinkansen width trains could fit 1700 people or something silly like that aboard.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are you prepared to pay 25% more for your seat as a consequence?

Yes. A premium economy class may be a good way of delivering that - but note I don't want freebies, I just want a wider seat and more legroom in exchange for a higher price proportionate to the amount of extra space.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
But do we need 1700 passenger trains from London to Brum every 15 minutes? I am not convinced HS2 will make it past Brum, nor do I think it needs to - its justification is basically 6 tracking the south WCML. North of Brum there is not a capacity problem nor likely to be one.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes. A premium economy class may be a good way of delivering that - but note I don't want freebies, I just want a wider seat and more legroom in exchange for a higher price proportionate to the amount of extra space.

It is worth nothing that first class seats in a 2+2 pattern would have the same number of seats per unit length on a Shinkansen that second class has on our trains.

But do we need 1700 passenger trains from London to Brum every 15 minutes? I am not convinced HS2 will make it past Brum, nor do I think it needs to - its justification is basically 6 tracking the south WCML. North of Brum there is not a capacity problem nor likely to be one.

Well once e have paid for the line we might as well get the most of out it.
The peak extras available to the HS2 core can turn it into a viable commuter option which will generate huge amounts of income using paths that would otherwise go to waste [before the first long distance classic compatibles arrive from the North essentially].
And increasing the loading gauge generates more income for minimal extra investment.

 

[The Planner]

It will get to Crewe, I would bet money on that. If you don't go north of Handsacre then you are spending money on Colwich, Shugborough, Crewe and likely Sandbach to Cheadle Hulme. Sorting Crewe has to be done regardless of HS2 and has been put back often enough.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is worth nothing that first class seats in a 2+2 pattern would have the same number of seats per unit length on a Shinkansen that second class has on our trains.

That wouldn't be true First Class. Not having to sit next to someone[1] (i.e. a single seat or 2+table) is the only selling point to me as a solo traveller of First Class. I would not pay 160%+ of the Standard fare for a seat in 2+2 layout on a train, again however wide it was.

TBH, a wide, many-seated train of that nature on HS2 would just cause me to use the classic line.

[1] I wouldn't mind airline-business-class-style 1 + aisle + 2 + aisle + 1, on the other hand. It's mostly about the fact that I like a window seat, but I like not to be hemmed in in one by another passenger.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It will get to Crewe, I would bet money on that.

I wouldn't. To me there is only a business case for relieving the south WCML.

 

[HSTEd]

That wouldn't be true First Class. Not having to sit next to someone[1] (i.e. a single seat or 2+table) is the only selling point to me as a solo traveller of First Class. I would not pay 160%+ of the Standard fare for a seat in 2+2 layout on a train, again however wide it was.

But only a third of the seats in a first class vehicle are single sided - the bulk of first class seats are next to another.
In a heavily loaded train you are not likely to get a seat not next to someone.
And these niche passengers could catered for by providing some first class seats in 3+1.

TBH, a wide, many-seated train of that nature on HS2 would just cause me to use the classic line.

Assuming you want to crawl to Birmingham with half a dozen stops on the fastest remaining train - taking more than twice as long. And probably more expensive because it will be better for the railway to discourage end to end passengers on the classic line.

[1] I wouldn't mind airline-business-class-style 1 + aisle + 2 + aisle + 1, on the other hand. It's mostly about the fact that I like a window seat, but I like not to be hemmed in in one by another passenger.

That would be horrendously inefficient due to the wasted width on a seperate isle. Some 3+1 is more likely.

I wouldn't. To me there is only a business case for relieving the south WCML.

But the Birmingham to Crewe section isn't very expensive.

 

[The Planner]

Handsacre to Crewe is positively easy in comparison to phase 1, no big tunnels or stations, just a junction at Basford Hall, Crewe station itself is a seperate scheme.

 

[Bevan Price]

Assuming you want to crawl to Birmingham with half a dozen stops on the fastest remaining train - taking more than twice as long. And probably more expensive because it will be better for the railway to discourage end to end passengers on the classic line.

.

Won't happen when Chiltern (or some 2026+ successor) is offering cheaper fares than HS2.

 

[gsnedders]

But do we need 1700 passenger trains from London to Brum every 15 minutes? I am not convinced HS2 will make it past Brum, nor do I think it needs to - its justification is basically 6 tracking the south WCML. North of Brum there is not a capacity problem nor likely to be one.

As far as I'm aware, north of Wigan the WCML is near capacity, especially immediately around Carlisle station.

 

[TRAX]

That would give a very low-end service...
Here in France we only do it for the low-cost Ouigo services.
Unless HS2 wants to provide a low-cost service, I don't think 3+2 is the best idea to attract and keep passengers.

 

[HSTEd]

Won't happen when Chiltern (or some 2026+ successor) is offering cheaper fares than HS2.

So Chiltern will be able to overcome the fundamentally higher cost of operating a conventional railway against a modern one?

Chiltern will return to to its roots as a suburban franchise once HS2 has obliterated its long distance market.

 

[NY Yankee]

3x2 is impractical since most commuters eschew the middle seat and the railroads subsequently waste capacity. Commuters do not like to sit between two overweight people. Instead of 3x2 seating how about 2x2 seating on double decker trains (assuming there are no clearance issues)? Double decker trains require no additional carriages and it ultimately saves the railroads money.

 

[The Ham]

3x2 is impractical since most commuters eschew the middle seat and the railroads subsequently waste capacity. Commuters do not like to sit between two overweight people. Instead of 3x2 seating how about 2x2 seating on double decker trains (assuming there are no clearance issues)? Double decker trains require no additional carriages and it ultimately saves the railroads money.

Of course 3+2 seating depends on the width of the seats, a lot of the UK current fleets which have it have seats of circa 43cm, however given the wider width of trains proposed for HS2 compared with the existing then it is likely that seat widths could be about 48cm to 50cm wide (even allowing for a little more aisle width, which given it would be spread over 5 seats would mean small decreases in seat width can make noticeable increases in aisle width).

If we assume that the seats are 49.53cm (19.5 inches) that would make it better than virtually all long haul economy seats (there are a few exceptions but only with one airline) put it on a par or better than most long haul premium economy seats and a fair few business class seats. As such they are hardly likely to be tight, even if they were half an inch smaller.

Even if people sit in the seats so that there were no-one in the central seat of 3 it doesn't reduce capacity as the trains then effectively become 2+2 and would have spare capacity if the trains were very busy. I would also suggest that there is less of an obesity problem in the UK compared to the States, and as such in combination with a reasonable width seat that middle seats could well be used a reasonable amount.

 

[HSTEd]

3x2 is impractical since most commuters eschew the middle seat and the railroads subsequently waste capacity. Commuters do not like to sit between two overweight people. Instead of 3x2 seating how about 2x2 seating on double decker trains (assuming there are no clearance issues)? Double decker trains require no additional carriages and it ultimately saves the railroads money.

I am proposing 3x2 on double decker trains.

Shinkansen width enables 3x2 seats with our existing seats.

 

[po8crg]

I have no problem with a small amount of 1+1 seating, as long as it's stupidly expensive and no-one can claim it on public-sector expenses.

If we can soak rich people of a couple of grand to go from London to Manchester and that keeps fares for the rest of us down, then that seems fair enough to me.

If politicians or civil servants are doing it on expenses paid for from my taxes, then I'll be furious.

As for 3+2, I could live with a carriage or two as a reduced-price fare with Standard Class still 2+2, so people who otherwise couldn't afford to travel would be able to, but not as the main Standard accommodation in UIC GC gauge. Middle seats are terrible, and if they're all-reserved, they'll have to offer a discount on middle seat tickets.

 

[All Line Rover]

I have no problem with a small amount of 1+1 seating, as long as it's stupidly expensive and no-one can claim it on public-sector expenses.

If we can soak rich people of a couple of grand to go from London to Manchester and that keeps fares for the rest of us down, then that seems fair enough to me.

If politicians or civil servants are doing it on expenses paid for from my taxes, then I'll be furious.

1+1 seating should be classified above "Business" or "First" (e.g. "Luxury"), to make clear that it is an indulgent product that is in no way necessary for business travellers, and should only be used where it is being paid for out of one's own pocket, or by a private business for a VIP. I would not expect there to be more than six or eight such seats per train (with each seat enclosed in a private cabin and, ideally, with a small luggage rack behind each seat) and I would expect there to be a very substantial price premium over "Business" or "First".

 

[AM9]

I have no problem with a small amount of 1+1 seating, as long as it's stupidly expensive and no-one can claim it on public-sector expenses.

Not just public sector expenses, - any tax deductable expenses. If a private sector employer wants any employee, or director to travel in such unnecessary manner, they should give that employee an uplift in salary, (which will be taxed as income) and the travel expenses should be paid on the basis of what can be justified as necessary.

 

[Ironside]

Not just public sector expenses, - any tax deductable expenses. If a private sector employer wants any employee, or director to travel in such unnecessary manner, they should give that employee an uplift in salary, (which will be taxed as income) and the travel expenses should be paid on the basis of what can be justified as necessary.

Since you can hire an S class Mercedes with driver for £500-700 a day I think that's roughly the price to be looking at. I imagine business class airfare would be cheaper than that and a helicopter charter would be more (I can't find an accurate figure for that without contacting a charter company). I guess true first class isn't possible without a private jet hire which I think would be over £10k an hour. I personally don't care if it's a tax deductible expense if the other forms of travel are too. The rail company needs to be able to compete with other forms of transport or even ditch 1+1 luxury seating if it's not bringing the revenue in.

 

[HSTEd]

As for 3+2, I could live with a carriage or two as a reduced-price fare with Standard Class still 2+2, so people who otherwise couldn't afford to travel would be able to, but not as the main Standard accommodation in UIC GC gauge. Middle seats are terrible, and if they're all-reserved, they'll have to offer a discount on middle seat tickets.

I am not sure what the obsession with compulsory reservations is.
Such a thing has never existed on domestic trains in the UK in any real sense and it would seem a shame to introduce such a restriction on travel now.

And as for introducing a lower cost class with 3+2 seating, it would likely rapidly outcompete any intermediate class unless the price differential floats to a ridiculously small level that won't justify the extra cost of the 2+2.

Espeically since the 3+2 would have normal standard class seats if we went Shinkansen wide.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The benefit of compulsory reservations is that there need be no rush to board nor arguments about seats, because everyone has one allocated. The reduced stress of travelling on low cost airlines since they introduced allocated seating is marked.

OTOH there are disadvantages, principally the loss of guaranteed travel, and it taking longer to clear backlogs in the event of disruption.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I personally favour a halfway house - stop marking reservations and thus have reserved coaches or areas, and unreserved ones. This would allow reservation right up to departure, and no debate in a reserved coach. If wishing to sit in a reserved coach having boarded without a reservation, you could obtain one from a machine. We could even introduce the concept of a train reception where the guard sits most of the time - if you board without a ticket you go there to get one before sitting down, else you are an evader and will be prosecuted.

 

[Bevan Price]

I am not sure what the obsession with compulsory reservations is.
Such a thing has never existed on domestic trains in the UK in any real sense and it would seem a shame to introduce such a restriction on travel now.

.

Agree - it will also ensure a continued demand for slower conventional services on existing lines.

(Yes - I know some countries have compulsory reservations, but UK has a long tradition of people expecting to "turn up and go", and it will not be easy to change that expectation.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that expectation is shifting already. I used to see the majority of passengers producing Saver Returns. These days it's print at home tickets which thus far are Advances only.

 

[HSTEd]

I personally favour a halfway house - stop marking reservations and thus have reserved coaches or areas, and unreserved ones. This would allow reservation right up to departure, and no debate in a reserved coach. If wishing to sit in a reserved coach having boarded without a reservation, you could obtain one from a machine. We could even introduce the concept of a train reception where the guard sits most of the time - if you board without a ticket you go there to get one before sitting down, else you are an evader and will be prosecuted.

Well leaving aside that we can expect trains to be driver only operation on HS2 - certainly the captive trains that would be the bulk of capacity will be.
Having machines just seems rather complex and will prevent ad hoc groupings that are one of the major pleasures of travelling by train.

I think the current sytem of people who want reservations getting them but them not being a common thing is the best myself.

And I am not sure removing the rush to board is a good thing considering we will want to keep dwell times short.

 

[miami]

I wouldn't. Middle seats are nasty generally.

Yes, but it depends on how busy the train is.

With loading of 100% it's nasty. Everyone sites next to each other, 20% have someone on both sides.

With loading of 80%:
3-2 the middle seat is empty, and 50% of people have an empty seat next to them
2-2 25% of people have an empty seat next to them
3-1 81% of people have an empty seat (or rather nobody) next to them, 19% have to share due to a middle seat

With a loading of 60%
3-2 everyone has an empty seat next to them
2-2 67% have an empty seat
3-1 everyone has an empty seat next to them

However for a train with 40 rows
3-2: capacity 200. 160 people means half the people have an empty seat. 120 people means everyone has an empty seat.
2-2: capacity 160. 160 people means nobody has an empty seat. 120 people means 33% have an empty seat.
3-1: capacity 160. 160 people means 40 have an empty seat, 40 are on middle seats. 120 people means everyone has an empty seat.

With 200 people, in the 3-2 everyone gets a seat, in the 2-2 and 3-1 people stand in the aisle.

I can see an argument that 3-2 is better than 2-2 in all cases.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I will be interested to see the pricing structure that is adopted and agree that we may see cheaper peak time walk-up fares than we have at present due to the enormous capacity that the line will create, but I'm not sure why you think that the line must be running at capacity from day one.

There's an enormous capacity on the WCML from Manchester to London at peak time, especially in the edge peak (say arriving London 11AM, departing London 1820). The prices are high to extrace maximum revenue from people travelling then, I have no expectation that HS2 will be different.

 

[Camden]

The point of seating capacity is not to plan so everyone has an empty seat next to them, it's so that everyone gets a seat and preferable one which is comfortable.

If the seating is 2 - 2 then all seats can be filled and nobody minds that someone is sat next to them.

I would rather stand than sit wedged in next to some sweaty passenger getting all hot and sweaty myself as a result of being wedged in. However given the amount this thing is costing, I don't see why I shouldn't get a seat AND sit in comfort.

 

[The Ham]

The point of seating capacity is not to plan so everyone has an empty seat next to them, it's so that everyone gets a seat and preferable one which is comfortable.

If the seating is 2 - 2 then all seats can be filled and nobody minds that someone is sat next to them.

We are not talking about the 43cm wide seats that are in use on the 450's, they could be anything upto 50cm due to the wider trains. As such those who are saying you will be wedged would be apear to be comparing their experiences on the existing trains with 3+2 seating and assuming that it is the same on ALL trains.

Yes there will be some restrictions, however it is not going to be the width of the seats which will be a concern. Even if the seats are a bit narrower than those on the rest of the service (even though they will be broadly comparable to the existing Virgin seats) they could be booked to be occupied by those with the cheapest advanced tickets, in doing so it provides those who have paid the turn up and go price a marginally better seat (2+2, as it unlikely all the seats would be 3+2 even in standard) than those who have a cheaper ticket. That at least would, to a certain amount, appease those who veiw advanced tickets as unfair (although that if often due to these with advanced tickets having seat reservations while those with turn up and go tickets having to stand, which will also be resolved - at least in the early days).

Also people do prefer to sit on their own or at least not next to anyone, as such the comparison of at what point people have to start sitting next to other passengers is a useful one.

Also there will be groupings of people for whom they will prefer seats in 3's such as 3 friends who normal look for a table or one sits the wrong side of the aisle and for families of 5 or 6, who also find it hard to sit together. As such there could be people who would like to sit in the seats next to each other in a row of three. By having groups of threes in a row of seats it would free up more tables for others.

Yes a whole train where standard class is 3+2 (and the only other Class is first) would be less desirable (although better than the 450's and comparable to 444's/390's) than standard seats all being 2+2, however I don't think that would be the way to do it. Provide 1% as 1+1 seating (about 8) + business pods (which are 3+0 and are sold by the he pod as almost mobile meeting rooms) 19% as 2+1 seating, 60% as 2+2 seating and 20% as 3+2 seating and you would have a train for which there would be a good balance between capacity, flexibility and range of ticket prices.

I could see that if you have one end coach made up of drivers cab, catering, 1+1 seats and business pods and the other being drivers cab, catering and the start of first class, then there wouldn't be much wasted space compared to trying to fill the end coach with standard class seats. Of course you would possibly want to provide some form of buggy pick up or dedicated exit via a lounge area for those who have paid the premium to travel in the 1+1 seating, so that they don't have to walk the full length of the train to exit the station.