Advantages and disadvantages of 3+2 seating

[Bletchleyite]

The 720s occupy a strange middle ground - not enough standing space for high-density commuting (eg. 700s), while having too cramped an environment for any longer journeys.

They are a product of a franchise agreement that specified a certain minimum number of seats per train, without consideration for how practical it was to sit on them. This also resulted in the stupid tip-ups which block the doors, slowing boarding and alighting.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jun 2022 ==

First gen DMUs had these, though they weren't called that then. They were probably considered luxury compared to bench seats for 4 upstairs on lowbridge double decker buses.

Pacers too.

 

[satisnek]

I can vouch for the fact that high-backed face-to-back 3-a-side seating simply doesn't work from the few years I spent commuting on Central Trains 150s. Would the low-backed seats on Pacers and older DMUs have made any difference?

 

[gabrielhj07]

I can vouch for the fact that high-backed face-to-back 3-a-side seating simply doesn't work from the few years I spent commuting on Central Trains 150s. Would the low-backed seats on Pacers and older DMUs have made any difference?

What a dreadful idea that was, just like boarding a narrowbody airliner but repeated every 5 minutes or so.

 

[Mainsideman]

GA 720s are awful. Had a fight with every aisle seat just making my way to the toilet

 

[Peter0124]

3+2 is good in the sense that you can fit a family of 6 in the bay area. However it then decreases the aisle width. 3+1 seating seems a shout though in some parts especially on long distance stock.

 

[306024]

It seems most enthusiasts on here have a downer on 3+2 seating. But speaking from experience on the GEML, pre-covid, it was essential. Recall someone posting a picture of a 360 in the peak which showed all the middle seats taken and a few others standing, to try to bust the view that the middle seats weren't used much.

But then replacing 20m stock with 24m stock and suddenly 3+2 doesn't work so well. Add the ridiculous plastic grab handles on a 720 to further narrow the gap and you've got the problem mentioned above.

Further throw in Covid and its not perhaps surprising some don't want to sit as cosily as before. A class 720 with 2+2, now commuter numbers are down, would be a far more comfortable train, but what about passenger numbers in 15-20 years time, halfway through their life. Who can say with certainty.

 

[Lockwood]

On a loosely related note, if you are sat on 3+2, and someone is coming over to sit on the middle seat right next to you, there is a simple trick to avoid having them sat there squeezing you into the side wall:

Make direct eye contact, smile pleasantly, and pat the empty seat.

They will not sit there.

 

[43096]

Yes. Very odd. The layout must have been designed by someone on the vodka at the time.

Not odd at all. They were VEP (3+2 seats) and CIG (2+2) replacements, so having a mixed layout allows a common fleet.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

On a loosely related note, if you are sat on 3+2, and someone is coming over to sit on the middle seat right next to you, there is a simple trick to avoid having them sat there squeezing you into the side wall:

Make direct eye contact, smile pleasantly, and pat the empty seat.

They will not sit there.

Do that to me and I’ll text 61016

 

[Starmill]

I found the 720 to be the most uncomfortable UK train I have ever experienced. And I tried a 717 on the way back for a comparison, definitely preferred that in every way bar the bland colour scheme.

I hope you weren't trying to enjoy a hot drink on either journey! Because so much a coffee cup holder would obviously be a step too far

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can vouch for the fact that high-backed face-to-back 3-a-side seating simply doesn't work from the few years I spent commuting on Central Trains 150s. Would the low-backed seats on Pacers and older DMUs have made any difference?

Less claustrophobic, certainly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jun 2022 ==

I hope you weren't trying to enjoy a hot drink on either journey! Because so much a coffee cup holder would obviously be a step too far

That is where 450s win over 350/2s. Though on the latter I just put it on the floor.

 

[Grumpy Git]

On a 350/2, the window seats are almost useless if the middle seat is occupied as the heater duct means you have no room for your feet.

 

[physics34]

I personally find them worse. They are curved the wrong way for my back and are VERY hard.

I found the 720 to be the most uncomfortable UK train I have ever experienced. And I tried a 717 on the way back for a comparison, definitely preferred that in every way bar the bland colour scheme.



And there are 3-side airline seats, only other place you get those is the utterly awful 150/2. The only decent bit is by the cabs, where there are 2 facing bays of 2+2 at each end because a third seat would block the door.

Yes no lumber support

 

[Mordac]

Yes no lumber support

Wooden benches would be a step too far even for the current railway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wooden benches would be a step too far even for the current railway.

I did almost say "the least comfortable stock I've ever ridden on", but there are plenty of cases abroad of hard plastic seats with no coverings at all, which whatever you might think of ironing boards or Sophias are definitely a step further down.

Edit: ah, just got the joke

 

[prod_pep]

On a 350/2, the window seats are almost useless if the middle seat is occupied as the heater duct means you have no room for your feet.

Indeed; I strongly dislike the 350/2s and the ex-GE 360s for precisely this reason, plus the fact you'll almost certainly end up with people facing you at some point in the journey. The heater duct placement is unforgivable and causes foot and ankle pain in no time.

350/2s are hateful for longer journeys including Crewe - London and Liverpool - Birmingham, the two I make most often and if a 350/2 shows up in the formation, I avoid it like the plague. They really should be better restricted to the Euston stoppers for which their layout was intended. Thankfully, I've hitherto avoided the dreaded /2 pair on London runs, but it has happened several times on the Liverpool - Birmingham route.

The 350/2s are also dingy internally, which doesn't help.

 

[Starmill]

Indeed; I strongly dislike the 350/2s and the ex-GE 360s for precisely this reason, plus the fact you'll almost certainly end up with people facing you at some point in the journey. The heater duct placement is unforgivable and causes foot and ankle pain in no time.

350/2s are hateful for longer journeys including Crewe - London and Liverpool - Birmingham, the two I make most often and if a 350/2 shows up in the formation, I avoid it like the plague. They really should be better restricted to the Euston stoppers for which their layout was intended. Thankfully, I've hitherto avoided the dreaded /2 pair on London runs, but it has happened several times on the Liverpool - Birmingham route.

The 350/2s are also dingy internally, which doesn't help.

Sitting in the aisle seat on a pair assists with this problem. It still doesn't make them very nice though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On a 350/2, the window seats are almost useless if the middle seat is occupied as the heater duct means you have no room for your feet.

I like putting my foot on it so don't mind so much. It's worse on e.g. the CAF stock because it has a sloped top so you can't. The placing of the sockets on some 350s blocking this is annoying.

I don't see what's dingy about 350/2s, I think they're bright and attractive inside, the green seating is nice and lively and the lighting at about the right level and colour temperature. So far as 3+2 seated units go, they're about as good as it gets, give or take the lack of coffee shelf. They will be missed when the junk-on-wheels that is the 730 comes along.

 

[The exile]

Capacity in high density stock, seemed to work well in slam door trains with curved sides and less well on modern straight sided trains

Don’t forget that as a population, we’re getting wider!

 

[racyrich]

I live in Basildon and pre Covid commuted daily. It was basically impossible to get a seat on a train that arrived in London in time to get to the office before 9am. They were full and standing from Leigh on Sea, 50 minutes from Fenchurch St. People would rather be seated and cramped for 50 minutes than be standing all the way.
My usual train home was a 387 12 set. If you weren't waiting at a door when it arrived at Fen St then you wouldn't get a seat. And from West Ham it was crush loaded standing. Again, I imagine those people would rather have been seated.

I'm so glad I don't do that crap anymore!

 

[bramling]

It seems most enthusiasts on here have a downer on 3+2 seating. But speaking from experience on the GEML, pre-covid, it was essential. Recall someone posting a picture of a 360 in the peak which showed all the middle seats taken and a few others standing, to try to bust the view that the middle seats weren't used much.

But then replacing 20m stock with 24m stock and suddenly 3+2 doesn't work so well. Add the ridiculous plastic grab handles on a 720 to further narrow the gap and you've got the problem mentioned above.

Further throw in Covid and its not perhaps surprising some don't want to sit as cosily as before. A class 720 with 2+2, now commuter numbers are down, would be a far more comfortable train, but what about passenger numbers in 15-20 years time, halfway through their life. Who can say with certainty.

My views are mixed.

Firstly, declaring an interest, I've commuted on 3+2 317s, so I know what it's like when all six seats are taken, I also know the idea often repeated on here that the middle seat doesn't get used it a bit of a myth - last to fill for sure, but they do get used.

In the off-peak, I'd say 3+2 is actually better, as quite simply more people can be seated before you're likely to have someone sitting directly opposite or alongside. At peak times 3+2 isn't pleasant, but it does allow more people to be seated. So in all honesty I'd say there's pros and cons. For middle-distance "outer suburban" commuter journeys I think 3+2 has its place.

 

[alf]

I commuted on 4Sub trains to Waterloo & usually chose the carriage with 10 compartments that seated 6 on each side.

That was 120 seated in a 20m long coach. And there would sometimes be 4 or 5 standees in each compartment too.
That is 12 tons of passengers in a 28 ton coach.
I enjoyed it. I was in my early twenties.

The Subs were 2.82 metres wide ( I have never known if coach width is measured at floor level, seat level or elbow level where people are at their widest).
Southern 377s are 2.80metres wide, 707s 2.79m & 170s a tram like 2.69 metres wide, even the 2x2 seats & the gangway feel pinched

DMUs on GWR, 168s(?) are 2.85 metres wide (& 23 metres long)
& run on Southern metals from Reading to Gatwick without scraping platform edges.
They have 3 x 2 seating & are wide enough to do 3x2 comfortably.

Modern stock designers are too cautious re width, or want to save weight, & make trains narrower & thus less roomy then they need be.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

In the days when I daily commuted to/from Fenchurch Street/Liverpool Street/Blackfriars/London Bridge, the trains were always rammed and it was usually women who sat in the middle of a '3 seat. Men didn't usually especially if other men were occupying the other seats of the '3.

It was easier in slam door years as there was generally more room, due to the curvature of the body and the fact there was a door to each seating bay but even when the 321's and 317's came, the middle seat was always occupied

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the days when I daily commuted to/from Fenchurch Street/Liverpool Street/Blackfriars/London Bridge, the trains were always rammed and it was usually women who sat in the middle of a '3 seat. Men didn't usually especially if other men were occupying the other seats of the '3.

This actually makes a lot of sense. Men typically have broad shoulders and narrower backsides. Women typically have narrower shoulders and broader backsides. It's not totally universal (e.g. I'm broad of both ) but using "average" people having 3+2 seating as M-F-M or F-M-F does make a lot of sense. Not as a rule, but as people choose to sit.

If I'm on a plane in a row of 3 in the window (as is my preference) and a couple come over for the other two seats, it's always a lot more comfortable if the woman goes in the middle for that exact reason. (Were I a woman it'd be reversed, obviously).

 

[QSK19]

I was wondering if 3+2 seating actually added more capacity bearing in mind a lot of people do not seem to use the middle seat in a bay of 3. Is there any reason, other than winning franchises, that TOCs have this style of seating and are there any examples of services that need this seating that do not have it or services that do have this seating which should have 2+2?

The EMR Connect services with the unrefurbished 360s. This hits a very raw nerve with many London-Corby users, particularly those from Wellingborough.

The promised refurbishment, part of which is installing 2+2 seating, hasn’t even been signed off yet. So, looks like the poor Connect users will have to put up with tired, not-fit-for-purpose interiors for a while yet

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

How wide is the gangway/aisle in the various 3+2 and 2+2 coaches?

 

[zwk500]

How wide is the gangway/aisle in the various 3+2 and 2+2 coaches?

Look at this image: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrainPorn/comments/p5czhk/standard_class_interior_of_a_british_rail_class/

The normal width is visible in the width of the partition, gangway doors and carpet.

 

[Bikeman78]

Not odd at all. They were VEP (3+2 seats) and CIG (2+2) replacements, so having a mixed layout allows a common fleet.

There are differences within the fleet though. 377101-377120 have 2+2 throughout. I think there's also differences in the seat layout between 377121-377164 and the 377/4. There was a time when 377121-377164 were based at Selhurst and had separate diagrams but they became one big pool many years ago.

 

[Kite159]

There are differences within the fleet though. 377101-377120 have 2+2 throughout. I think there's also differences in the seat layout between 377121-377164 and the 377/4. There was a time when 377121-377164 were based at Selhurst and had separate diagrams but they became one big pool many years ago.

There is a batch of around 20 units from 377121 onwards which is mostly all 3+2 seating with only the areas over the wheels being 2+2 seated.

 

[JonathanH]

There is a batch of around 20 units from 377121 onwards which is mostly all 3+2 seating with only the areas over the wheels being 2+2 seated.

377101 to 377119 are the 19 with 2+2
377120 to 377139 are the 20 you describe
These 39 units to Connex specifications.
Then 377140 to 377164 are the Govia specified units.