Should there be more innovative seating layouts in Standard?

[Bletchleyite]

Just a thought from another thread.

Quite a lot of people prefer to stand than sit next to someone (I know there is one very vocal forum member who will disagree, but he isn't the only person in the world ). However, 3+2 seating is very cramped even though it has the benefit that it can be occupied to 2+1 before anyone has to sit next to someone else.

As an alternative, should some areas of 3+1 seating be considered in Standard? The groups of 6 might be popular with families like the bays of 6 are on 3+2 seating on the LNR WCML services. The single seats would be popular with individuals. And you could seat to 2+1 before the train felt full.

Any other possibilities?

 

[yorksrob]

Just a thought from another thread.

Quite a lot of people prefer to stand than sit next to someone (I know there is one very vocal forum member who will disagree, but he isn't the only person in the world ). However, 3+2 seating is very cramped even though it has the benefit that it can be occupied to 2+1 before anyone has to sit next to someone else.

As an alternative, should some areas of 3+1 seating be considered in Standard? The groups of 6 might be popular with families like the bays of 6 are on 3+2 seating on the LNR WCML services. The single seats would be popular with individuals. And you could seat to 2+1 before the train felt full.

Any other possibilities?

I think where 2+2 is the norm, a few bays of 3 + 1 would be worth trying - the 3's for groups.

Of course, they would have to be bays as any 3 airline seat configuration is more or less useless.

By and large, I'm all for experimenting, but not if it means fewer seats and more standing.

 

[hexagon789]

Just a thought from another thread.

Quite a lot of people prefer to stand than sit next to someone (I know there is one very vocal forum member who will disagree, but he isn't the only person in the world ). However, 3+2 seating is very cramped even though it has the benefit that it can be occupied to 2+1 before anyone has to sit next to someone else.

As an alternative, should some areas of 3+1 seating be considered in Standard? The groups of 6 might be popular with families like the bays of 6 are on 3+2 seating on the LNR WCML services. The single seats would be popular with individuals. And you could seat to 2+1 before the train felt full.

Any other possibilities?

Didn't SNCF have some Corail cars with 3+1 in standard? Can't remember what the first class was like.

 

[Terry Tait]

I'd sooner see six a side compartments return but that would upset the H&S gestapo and the dog waggers.

 

[Ianno87]

I know it's fairly space-hungry, but Toddler-friendly spaces/cabins on long distance trains as per the Kleinkindbereich on DB ICEs. Space on the floor to play, crawl etc without making a noise or other disturbance/irriant to other passengers/wandering off all the time.

Would be perfect on HS2 stock..or on Pendolinos if the shop were downsized a bit.

Didn't SNCF have some Corail cars with 3+1 in standard? Can't remember what the first class was like.

3+2 I recall on the Paris-Toulouse route.

 

[hexagon789]

3+2 I recall on the Paris-Toulouse route.

3+2? Surely not, would be quite squished on an Intercité.

 

[superalbs]

The French budget rail offering (OuiGo) has 3+1 in the lower deck of what used to be first class. This is on their TGV HD sets, which are double decker. It's done that way so that they don't have to modify the floor layout to fit what used to be 2+1 in. Clever!

 

[SquireBev]

Do what you want, just make sure they line up with the bloody windows.

 

[hexagon789]

The French budget rail offering (OuiGo) has 3+1 in the lower deck of what used to be first class. This is on their TGV HD sets, which are double decker. It's done that way so that they don't have to modify the floor layout to fit what used to be 2+1 in. Clever!

Interesting, I wondered how they had the trailers set out on the OuiGo sets, being standard only.

 

[Ethano92]

Just a thought from another thread.

Quite a lot of people prefer to stand than sit next to someone (I know there is one very vocal forum member who will disagree, but he isn't the only person in the world ). However, 3+2 seating is very cramped even though it has the benefit that it can be occupied to 2+1 before anyone has to sit next to someone else.

As an alternative, should some areas of 3+1 seating be considered in Standard? The groups of 6 might be popular with families like the bays of 6 are on 3+2 seating on the LNR WCML services. The single seats would be popular with individuals. And you could seat to 2+1 before the train felt full.

Any other possibilities?

I've suggested this before and I am still a firm believer it should be trialled somewhere. It clearly separates groups from solo travellers and it's takes a 1/3 more people sitting before the train appears half full (sitting next to someone or standing), it wouldn't impact standing space, the aisle would be shifted over however.

I, however would expect maybe only ends of carriges to have this format or perhaps only 2 carriges on a 4 car unit similar to southerns different seating configurations in their older electrostars.

In all honesty, you would get many solo travellers opting for a bay of 6 rather than a single seat if they got on when the trains as empty but the premise of it still works in my opinion.

 

[yorksrob]

We mustn't forget also that on a quieter service, 3+1 would sit 3 people across very comfortably, where as with 2+2, two of those would have to sit next to eachother (oh the horror !).

 

[Bletchleyite]

We mustn't forget also that on a quieter service, 3+1 would sit 3 people across very comfortably, where as with 2+2, two of those would have to sit next to eachother (oh the horror !).

Yes, that was part of my point. Essentially, a train feels full when you have to sit next to someone you aren't travelling with. With 2+2 that therefore means that's going to start happening at about 50% occupancy (2 seats occupied in each row of 4), whereas with 3+1 it's not until 75% occupancy (3 seats occupied in each row of 4 with the middle of the 3 empty) that it happens.

 

[AM9]

I know it's fairly space-hungry, but Toddler-friendly spaces/cabins on long distance trains as per the Kleinkindbereich on DB ICEs. Space on the floor to play, crawl etc without making a noise or other disturbance/irriant to other passengers/wandering off all the time.

Would be perfect on HS2 stock..or on Pendolinos if the shop were downsized a bit.



3+2 I recall on the Paris-Toulouse route.

That might be OK, but it would need to revert to normal standing space during times of high passenger demand. There would be no justification having reserved space in the peaks.

 

[Indigo Soup]

There would be no justification having reserved space in the peaks.

How does DB address that issue? Bear in mind this is on ICE stock, not on suburban services. Intercity routes are where effort ought to be made to offer something more than seats, seats, and more seats.

On the subject of innovative seating arrangements - what about 2+2 seating on suburban services? That is, take 3+2 stock, but have the '+2' bit down both sides. The middle seat is never popular, because you wind up caught between two people, so by the time it's used there are a fair few standing passengers. Remove it altogether, and it creates more space for standing without losing too much seating for people who need (or prefer) it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the subject of innovative seating arrangements - what about 2+2 seating on suburban services? That is, take 3+2 stock, but have the '+2' bit down both sides. The middle seat is never popular, because you wind up caught between two people, so by the time it's used there are a fair few standing passengers. Remove it altogether, and it creates more space for standing without losing too much seating for people who need (or prefer) it.

That's precisely what has been done on the Class 700, and I believe will be done on the WMT Class 196s. It was also done on Merseyrail 50x pre the early 2000s refurb, and on quite a lot of the Thameslink 319s.

I've also seen single deck buses done to 2+1 for that same reason.

 

[AM9]

How does DB address that issue? Bear in mind this is on ICE stock, not on suburban services. Intercity routes are where effort ought to be made to offer something more than seats, seats, and more seats. ...

On busy routes that would mean seats, seats, play areas, passengers tanding in the vestibules or passengers left at the station unable to board. Providing some space for play areas might attract a feww passengers who have young children, but they would be in the minority, so the passengers who don't have young children (i.e. the majority) would be put off.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On busy routes that would mean seats, seats, play areas, passengers tanding in the vestibules or passengers left at the station unable to board. Providing some space for play areas might attract a feww passengers who have young children, but they would be in the minority, so the passengers who don't have young children (i.e. the majority) would be put off.

I don't agree. A "family coach" with good facilities for families (play area, lots of tables, potentially partly 3+1 layout, accessible bog in that coach, say) means the families will choose to sit there, and take with them their kids running around, making noise and playing films out loud, leaving the rest of us not to have to put up with it.

Generally the trains that are full of families aren't the same ones that are full and standing with commuters, so at commuter times it could just be standing space.

 

[AM9]

I don't agree. A "family coach" with good facilities for families (play area, lots of tables, potentially partly 3+1 layout, accessible bog in that coach, say) means the families will choose to sit there, and take with them their kids running around, making noise and playing films out loud, leaving the rest of us not to have to put up with it.

Generally the trains that are full of families aren't the same ones that are full and standing with commuters, so at commuter times it could just be standing space.

I've been on trains that I moght expect to be 'full of families', e.g. GWR to Devon/Cornwall, and trains to the south and east coast. Children are conspicuous by their absence. On reflection, that is probably because their parents sem to think that they need a car boot fully loaded with all sorts of things for their children, - so they pack into the family car.

 

[telstarbox]

For busy short-length commuter routes I think Class 376 have the best layout - 2+2 seating with large areas for standing by the doors.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_376#/media/File:Interior_376020.jpg

It's noticeable that at peak times, standing passengers are happier to 'move down the aisle' than when the same route is operated by a Class 465 (which has cramped 3+2 seating and thus a much narrower aisle).

In off-peak times there are generally enough seats for everyone who wants one.

 

[NoMorePacers]

I believe the South Western metro suburban stock is also 2+2.

 

[Ethano92]

For busy short-length commuter routes I think Class 376 have the best layout - 2+2 seating with large areas for standing by the doors.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_376#/media/File:Interior_376020.jpg

It's noticeable that at peak times, standing passengers are happier to 'move down the aisle' than when the same route is operated by a Class 465 (which has cramped 3+2 seating and thus a much narrower aisle).

In off-peak times there are generally enough seats for everyone who wants one.

Out of interest, I do wonder how much standing capacity varies compared to the 700s as 376s have generously spaced 2+2 unlike the more cramped 700s; does this truly affect capacity as much as Desiro city design would have you think? Is there any way you can compare the standing capacity of a standard coach without toilets or wheelchair bays from each unit. I find 376 aisles still wide enough, the better grab hold facilities probably makes it more attractive to move down than on 700s too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've been on trains that I moght expect to be 'full of families', e.g. GWR to Devon/Cornwall, and trains to the south and east coast. Children are conspicuous by their absence. On reflection, that is probably because their parents sem to think that they need a car boot fully loaded with all sorts of things for their children, - so they pack into the family car.

To be fair there is no reason to deprecate a full family car. It is an efficient method of transport which makes good use of road space.

It's 1s and 2s in cars that need to be tackled more urgently.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Out of interest, I do wonder how much standing capacity varies compared to the 700s as 376s have generously spaced 2+2 unlike the more cramped 700s; does this truly affect capacity as much as Desiro city design would have you think? Is there any way you can compare the standing capacity of a standard coach without toilets or wheelchair bays from each unit. I find 376 aisles still wide enough, the better grab hold facilities probably makes it more attractive to move down than on 700s too.

On a 700 you could stand two abreast, or it's not hard to get through past standees. Definitely better for this use-case.

 

[Indigo Soup]

On busy routes that would mean seats, seats, play areas, passengers tanding in the vestibules or passengers left at the station unable to board.

If an intercity route is that busy it needs more or longer trains to provide the requisite seating capacity and amenities. And yes, I know that's not easily done.

The fact that other countries have been able to do it demonstrates that the UK could do it as well, if we weren't obsessed with trying to turn everything into a suburban commuter route.

So far as families go, the belief that any travel involving a child under the age of about five must involve a babypanzer and logistic support comparable to the capture and occupation of a medium-sized European country will of course encourage the use of a car rather than public transport. You're not going to get families with young children out of cars unless you can persuade them that a lightweight folding pushchair and a moderately-sized bag of paraphenalia is adequate for a day trip, which isn't something transport policy can do.

 

[PeterC]

For busy short-length commuter routes I think Class 376 have the best layout - 2+2 seating with large areas for standing by the doors.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_376#/media/File:Interior_376020.jpg

It's noticeable that at peak times, standing passengers are happier to 'move down the aisle' than when the same route is operated by a Class 465 (which has cramped 3+2 seating and thus a much narrower aisle).

In off-peak times there are generally enough seats for everyone who wants one.

I have been unable to board trains with 3+2 seating that have empty seats because people stand in the vestibules and block the doors rather than squeeze into available seats in the blocks of 3.

Alternative seating arrangements were the norm when I first commuted on the GEML. Each unit and two coaches of 6 a side compartments, one of 2+2 seating and one composite with 3 1st compartments and 2+2 in second.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have been unable to board trains with 3+2 seating that have empty seats because people stand in the vestibules and block the doors rather than squeeze into available seats in the blocks of 3.

This definitely goes in favour of the 700 style layout, or a layout like the LU S-stock (not sure which I prefer).

 

[PeterC]

This definitely goes in favour of the 700 style layout, or a layout like the LU S-stock (not sure which I prefer).

The Metropolitan layout is am excellent compromise although a few more transverse seats would be nice.

 

[Mogz]

DB style family compartments would be nice.

In France there are also 0+4 compartments without doors in 2nd class on some services.

 

[AM9]

I have been unable to board trains with 3+2 seating that have empty seats because people stand in the vestibules and block the doors rather than squeeze into available seats in the blocks of 3.

Alternative seating arrangements were the norm when I first commuted on the GEML. Each unit and two coaches of 6 a side compartments, one of 2+2 seating and one composite with 3 1st compartments and 2+2 in second.

I remember the MK1 EMUs on the GEML. I think that you will find the open seconds had 2+3 seating, which meant there was only room for one person standing between the seat ends holding up the high luggage racks. A fully loaded train had poor dwell times as those who wanted to alight often were the ones who couldn't get a seat and had to step over 8 or 12 interlaced feet to get to the doors. Then the reverse happened, - those boarding had to step over the same feet. There are a few here who regularly wax lyrical over the MK1 suburban EMUs (ER & SR), but compared to sliding door stock, they were pretty poor in busy service, especially as there were so many regulars who insisted in sitting right by the door in 'their' seat, even though they boarded at the origin of the run and alighted at the end.

 

[AM9]

One interesting configuration that I have noticed on the NYC subway is the offset sliding doors. Because many standees try to get to their exit door, it means that the space between the doors isn't shared for both sides. Thus they are compelled to walk along the car a short way. This seems to reduce the ridiculous vestibule overcrowding that happens here whilst the seating area has no standees.