Northern 323s - should the third seat be removed?

[Bletchleyite]

With 323s now being used on Manchester-Blackpool local services, and the very high demand on these trains, would it perhaps make sense to remove the third seat leaving it as narrow 2+2, a layout which has proven very successful for high loads such as on Classes 700 and 730?

Is the 323 such that it could just be unbolted or angle-grindered off, as it was in the middle coach of Merseyrail 507/508s pre-refurb, or is the support under the third seat so it could be more complex?

Edit: I've since found a selection of photos online of the interior and it doesn't look like the support is under the third seat, indeed some of the third seats (like on Turbos) seem to be visibly drooping a bit on these photos due to this.

 

[Bevan Price]

Definitely not. It would mean more people having to stand, sometimes for more than an hour. Only the car industry would benefit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Definitely not. It would mean more people having to stand, sometimes for more than an hour. Only the car industry would benefit.

Do many people use the middle on a 323? It's incredibly narrow being a 23m unit.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

It was a mixed bag when they were in the Midlands. Some would avoid the middle seats even if it meant standing crammed into a doorway. Others would squeeze themselves into the middle seat and make the journey unpleasant for everyone. When there are 2 (or 3) people sat opposite, often with bags etc, shuffling past to squeeze into the middle seat often meant tripping over bags, walking on people's feet, or banging knees with them. And when you did sit down, even if you and your unfortunate row-mates were relatively slim, you would nonetheless be making contact with them on both sides.

One thing's for sure - having 3 in a row with 3 opposite was always, always, unpleasant. The layout didn't (doesn't) work.

 

[xotGD]

It was a mixed bag when they were in the Midlands. Some would avoid the middle seats even if it meant standing crammed into a doorway. Others would squeeze themselves into the middle seat and make the journey unpleasant for everyone. When there are 2 (or 3) people sat opposite, often with bags etc, shuffling past to squeeze into the middle seat often meant tripping over bags, walking on people's feet, or banging knees with them. And when you did sit down, even if you and your unfortunate row-mates were relatively slim, you would nonetheless be making contact with them on both sides.

One thing's for sure - having 3 in a row with 3 opposite was always, always, unpleasant. The layout didn't (doesn't) work.

We suffer the same on 333s when they are busy. Many people do prefer to stand than squeeze in, but I always take the middle seat if that is the only place to sit down. Sometimes it is a struggle to get past the crowds in the vestibule to reach a seat, or even stand with a bit of space (and access to the luggage racks) between the seats.

 

[HSTEd]

My own view is that British trains are far too cramped internally to make 2+3 viable.

Indeed, post coronavirus, a lot of people end up sitting half into the aisle even on 2+2 trains!