Will British trains become too cramped for 2+2 seating?

[HSTEd]

As in the title.

Since coronavirus I have noticed that a lot ofpeople on 2+2 layouts, especially on relatively narrow trains like the 80x fleet, seem to protrude out into the gangway when they are sitting next to someone.
I know this always happened before, but it seems more prevalent on trains now. I've also seen it on buses which are obviously of comparable width.

I don't know if its just larger people (not just fatness, people are broader across the shoulders than they used to be), or just an unwillingness to crunch into strangers as much as before coronavirus.

Those people protruding, and also the aforementioned larger size of people, seems to be making it harder for trains with 2+2 layouts to rapidly load and unload passengers than it used to be. Especially as wheeled travel cases get bigger and harder to handle, and baggage space switches towards being mostly above seats. Lots more people spending time standing in the gangway reaching for baggage than the old days.

If thse trends to continue (so barring a magical ozempic deployment or massive famine!), will 2+2 layouts be tenable on trains that are as little as 2.7m wide in the long run?
Obviously in Europe the trains are significantly wider, up to 70cm wider than the Class 80x in Sweden. Thats equivalent to 10cm wider seats and a full foot/30cm of extra gangway width simultaneously!

Changing the loading gauge would obviously be enormously disruptive in structural clearance terms, and moving to 2+1 in standard would obviously throw away a lot of capacity, but my thoughts based on anecdotal experience is that the status quo may not be tenable forever.

 

[stadler]

As in the title.

Since coronavirus I have noticed that a lot ofpeople on 2+2 layouts, especially on relatively narrow trains like the 80x fleet, seem to protrude out into the gangway when they are sitting next to someone.
I know this always happened before, but it seems more prevalent on trains now. I've also seen it on buses which are obviously of comparable width.

I don't know if its just larger people (not just fatness, people are broader across the shoulders than they used to be), or just an unwillingness to crunch into strangers as much as before coronavirus.

Those people protruding, and also the aforementioned larger size of people, seems to be making it harder for trains with 2+2 layouts to rapidly load and unload passengers than it used to be. Especially as wheeled travel cases get bigger and harder to handle, and baggage space switches towards being mostly above seats. Lots more people spending time standing in the gangway reaching for baggage than the old days.

If thse trends to continue (so barring a magical ozempic deployment or massive famine!), will 2+2 layouts be tenable on trains that are as little as 2.7m wide in the long run?
Obviously in Europe the trains are significantly wider, up to 70cm wider than the Class 80x in Sweden. Thats equivalent to 10cm wider seats and a full foot/30cm of extra gangway width simultaneously!

Changing the loading gauge would obviously be enormously disruptive in structural clearance terms, and moving to 2+1 in standard would obviously throw away a lot of capacity, but my thoughts based on anecdotal experience is that the status quo may not be tenable forever.

I think the big issue here is new low floor stock. This requires the bodies to be more narrow and as a result the seating and interior feels more cramped inside. It is very noticable on the 745/755 which have a very cramped feel to them with very narrow aisles and doorways. The class 745/755 are one of my least favourite trains in the UK despite the Mainland European examples of Flirts being one of my favourite Mainland European trains. But i think 2+2 seating works well on 700/707/717 trains where you have a normal high floor body and no armrests and slightly smaller seats which provides a wide aisle and such a nice spacious feel. Ideally other stock like Flirts and the IETs you mention should have 2+1 but that would massively lower seating capacity and result in more people standing. It is an impossible thing to solve unless you build all trains as Desiro City style units.

 

[mike57]

I don't know if its just larger people (not just fatness, people are broader across the shoulders than they used to be)

As someone who fits the description of 'larger', 20st and 6ft. I am by no means near the extreme of 'width' but I do find I overhang, worse on some trains than others. If I am travelling with my wife she is also built for comfort, not fat, but wide enough that if we are sat side by side in 2nd class its a cosy journey and the person on the edge will overhang.

A few thoughts come to mind:

3+2 seating, there is no way 3 people who are even slightly above average size are going to fit.

Low floor trains fall foul of the UK loading gauge width limit at bogie level. I would go as far as to say low floor rolling stock is unsuitable for the UK loading gauge, and that other solutions need to be found to maintain level access on at least a percentage of doors.

Some people also feel uncomfortable touching the person sat next to them unless they are intimate partners. Then you can also get into issues of personal hygiene, or lack of it.

It also worth noting that people are getting bigger, here is the Google AI answer to the question How has the size of the average UK person changed over the last 100 years?

Over the last 100 years the average person in the UK has become significantly taller, heavier, and broader. The average British man is now approximately 10-11 cm (about 4 inches) taller than his counterpart in the early 20th century, weighing roughly 23 lbs (10 kg) more. This transformation, driven by improved nutrition, health, and living conditions, has accelerated in the last 50 years to the point where the average UK man is now roughly 5ft 10in (177–179 cm) tall.

Key Trends in Size Over 100 Years

• Significant Height Increase: The average height of British men at age 21 increased from about 167 cm (5ft 5in) in the 1870s-1910s to roughly 177-178 cm (5ft 10in) by the 1970s and 2000s.
• Rapid Weight Gain: While height increases have slowed in recent decades, weight has continued to rise. A study comparing 1967 to 2017 found that the average British man grew from 11st 8lbs (74 kg) to 13st 3lbs (84 kg).
• Changes in Body Shape: The average British male body has not just become taller, but also broader, with average chest sizes increasing from 38 to 43 inches and waists from 34 to 37 inches over the last 50 years.
• Continued Increases: Data between 1993 and 2022 shows that mean height for men continued to rise slightly (from 174.4cm to 176.2cm) and for women (161cm to 162.3cm).

So my own thoughts: Abandon 3+2 seating, on Metro services going short distances longditudinal seating works better, anything else, outer suburban, regional, etc should be 2+2. Make sure the full body width above the bogie level can be used to get maximum seat width, so abandon low floor designs for the UK loading gauge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think one thing that isn't made enough of is bodyside width and windows. 350s have a bodyside maybe 2.5cm thick, Pendolinos it's over twice as thick. Those couple of centimetres can make a difference. Plus if you position the window height correctly people can expand into the window space.

Low floor is an issue at foot level, this can be dealt with by getting rid of the dated approach of "heat in at the bottom, cold in at the top" and having proper climate control where air is injected throughout the body at the correct temperature. If you get rid of the conduit entirely, and dump the passenger unfriendly idea of cantilevered seating so don't need a mounting rail there, you get the space back.

Another thing to look at may be considering going back to 20m vehicle lengths, so they can be 2.82m wide.

I don't personally find 80x too bad for this, Pendolinos are the worst.

 

[Harpo]

Some people also feel uncomfortable touching the person sat next to them unless they are intimate partners.

Never an issue on six a side compartments. If there were only five seated there’d always be somebody to claim the last place. Add four to six standees and it was very cosy.

Back to current days though, the deliberately narrower 2+2 seats on units such as 357/3s guarantee that only the window passenger gets two full cheeks worth of cushion slab.

 

[philosopher]

I think aisles on trains have got wider at the expense of seat widths, which may be due in part an effort to reduce dwell times. The Chiltern Mark 3 sets have very wide seats, however the aisles are very thin and it can be a struggle to get luggage down them. More modern trains such as the class 800 have wider aisles.

 

[Snow1964]

As a person who grew up with 4REPs, 4TCs, 4VEPs the main difference is the lack of side of the seats allowing people to choose to overhang seat edge. Not an armrest, a physical solid side

They weren't really armrests, but there was a solid panel about 5 inch (13cm) tall, covered in moquette (which was hard and felt like it was just glued to plank of wood). It stopped the spreading into aisles that now happens when people put armrest up

 

[Tetchytyke]

The issue is that there’s been a move towards wider aisles and this, in turn, means narrower seats, at least on commuter stock. The 700s are the sort example of this, the seats are 2+2 but are no wider than you’d get on a 2+3 train. I get why they made that choice, but two averagely sized men are not going to fit fully within the seats, never mind if one of them has a bit of chonk.

The other thing has been the angled bodysides on a lot of 90s/00s stock. The space on a MkIV was always noticeably less than the space on a MkIII, even though after refurbishment both trains had identical seats. The Pendolinos are the worse of all for it, although the new seats are much better than the original ones (at a cost of having a very narrow aisle, which presents its own issues).

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I’ve had this exact thought. There has been a change in behaviour since COVID. People are much less willing to sit next to someone for a start. And the middle seat in a 3 seat row is pretty much always empty.

 

[KevinTurvey]

I have often pondered this. Many years ago it was possible to pass somebody along a MK1 corridor with ease. Today thats not the case. So in two generations we have easy proof that people have got bigger. Going back even further in time old buildings I have worked in the internal door openings were only about 5' - little more than a hatch compared to todays 2.1m

 

[PeterC]

I’ve had this exact thought. There has been a change in behaviour since COVID. People are much less willing to sit next to someone for a start. And the middle seat in a 3 seat row is pretty much always empty.

There has always been a reluctance to use the middle seat of 3. I can remember being unable to board Metropolitan Line trains in tge days of A stock despite some of the middle seats being free.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have often pondered this. Many years ago it was possible to pass somebody along a MK1 corridor with ease. Today thats not the case. So in two generations we have easy proof that people have got bigger.

Mk1s were 2.80m wide (2.82m across the doorhandles I believe) and had quite narrow sidewalls. Modern 24m vehicles are usually 2.7something. That's up to ten centimetres narrower, which is a big part of the issue. It's also why the Class 720 doesn't work as a 3+2 layout but 20m vehicles sort of do. (The 323 and Networker are quite wide for 23-24m vehicles, by contrast, so it just about works in those).

 

[CyrusWuff]

A contributing factor, mentioned by Ian Walmsley in his Modern Railways column a few times, is that most modern trains tend to have the seats butting up against each other, whereas older trains tend to have a gap between the seats with an armrest.

Compare a Class 755 with a 444, for example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A contributing factor, mentioned by Ian Walmsley in his Modern Railways column a few times, is that most modern trains tend to have the seats butting up against each other, whereas older trains tend to have a gap between the seats with an armrest.

Compare a Class 755 with a 444, for example.

Class 755s don't have the seats butting up against each other, they are separated by an armrest. Are you thinking of the 777 (though that has a very small gap)? It's not to do with age or period, it's to do with purpose. Generally commuter trains, like buses, have the seats squashed together and against the sidewall, and longer distance trains have armrests (and then there are oddities like the 197 196 which have the spacers but not the actual armrests). This has been the case since basically forever.

Though notably the 700 has a half inch gap between the wall and the seat and between the two seats, and it does make a difference.

 

[Bertie the bus]

I’ve had this exact thought. There has been a change in behaviour since COVID. People are much less willing to sit next to someone for a start. And the middle seat in a 3 seat row is pretty much always empty.

That simply isn’t true. When traveling on some very busy trains around Manchester before Christmas during the great flu panic (amongst politicians and in the media anyway) I was thinking just how little Covid has apparently changed people’s behaviour. Nobody looked particularly distressed at being crammed in and not a mask in sight.

 

[Mikey C]

On Southeastern you can make a direct comparison between 3 completely different commuter trains, all 20m units so a roughly similar width.

The 707s have a massive aisle and narrow seats with no shoulder spacing, resulting in people overhanging the aisle. That is entirely down to the seating layout.
The 376s also have 2+2 seating, but more comfortably spaced, so the aisle is narrower, but still wide enough for decent standing capacity.
The 465/466s have 3+2 seating, so have a narrow aisle. The middle seats ARE used in the rush hour.

Taking two pictures from the Southeastern website, and a Wikipedia 466 image.

Class 707, showing the massive aisle, and seats with no spacing

Class 376, showing the smaller but still wide aisle, and better spacing between the seats.

Wikipedia image of a 466 showing the narrower aisle

Author

Metalhead11000

 

[Bletchleyite]

The use or otherwise of middle seats in 3+2 seems to vary by location. My observation on the 350/2s was that they were mostly not used, with people preferring to stand, with the exception of more leisure-oriented times of day when people would often put a kid in them so the width wasn't of concern. But there are certainly parts of the country where they do get used. People are for instance less bothered about personal space "up north". On Merseyrail when the 507/508s had them they did get used.

There are other ways you can mitigate e.g. having a narrower headrest than the main seat, as can be seen on the above pictures. Of course if you're a broad shouldered male then that means your shoulders get whacked at times...

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Southern's commuters absolutely seem to avoid them. I think longitudinal is probably best for suburban trains. The 378s are great at scooping up passengers on the overcrowded trains to Croydon and Crystal Palace.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Southern's commuters absolutely seem to avoid them. I think longitudinal is probably best for suburban trains. The 378s are great at scooping up passengers on the overcrowded trains to Croydon and Crystal Palace.

I would personally go for a layout like the Underground S8 or the 345, i.e. some bays but mostly longitudinal. It works well. Indeed there's very little wrong with the S8 as a longer-distance metro train.

 

[stevieinselby]

The trend for longer and longer coaches is definitely responsible at least in part – longer coaches have to be narrower, which (a) introduces a bigger gap at platforms, and (2) means you have less space to play with internally. If we went back to having 23m max and 20m as standard then we could comfortably accommodate 2+2 and a wide aisle.

 

[styles]

I’ve had this exact thought. There has been a change in behaviour since COVID. People are much less willing to sit next to someone for a start. And the middle seat in a 3 seat row is pretty much always empty.

I avoid middle seats when flying because it's the worst of both worlds - you get neither the views from the window nor the convenience of easy toilet access or room to stretch out. I am very much an aisle passenger, not necessarily for my size (though I am overweight) but the comfort. Though I also have mild claustrophobia which plays a part in not wanting to be 'trapped' by a window or middle seat.

 

[Lewisham2221]

(and then there are oddities like the 197 which have the spacers but not the actual armrests)

197s definitely have the armrests, are you thinking of something else?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I would personally go for a layout like the Underground S8 or the 345, i.e. some bays but mostly longitudinal. It works well. Indeed there's very little wrong with the S8 as a longer-distance metro train.

Agreed.

I avoid middle seats when flying because it's the worst of both worlds - you get neither the views from the window nor the convenience of easy toilet access or room to stretch out. I am very much an aisle passenger, not necessarily for my size (though I am overweight) but the comfort. Though I also have mild claustrophobia which plays a part in not wanting to be 'trapped' by a window or middle seat.

Also agreed. Hate middle seats. On any form of transport.

The trend for longer and longer coaches is definitely responsible at least in part – longer coaches have to be narrower, which (a) introduces a bigger gap at platforms, and (2) means you have less space to play with internally. If we went back to having 23m max and 20m as standard then we could comfortably accommodate 2+2 and a wide aisle.

Yes, and maybe we will get more majestic looking 12 car formations again. The Great Eastern is terribly boring from an enthusiasts perspective these days.

 

[Bletchleyite]

197s definitely have the armrests, are you thinking of something else?

Sorry, I meant 196, aka "the absolute mess that Abellio created by messing with a perfectly good design". Bad seats, poor legroom, no armrests, small windows...not much good about these things bar the decor...

 

[Mcr Warrior]

How much wider/broader were the interiors (and thus the seating capacity) of trains that ran on broad gauge track, back in the day?

 

[HSTEd]

How much wider/broader were the interiors (and thus the seating capacity) of trains that ran on broad gauge track, back in the day?

Not very much in the UK context, the seven foot gauge mostly put the wheels a lot closer to the sides of the train.

 

[Egg Centric]

(so barring a magical ozempic deployment)

Why does it have to be magical?

Fat jab technology is getting better all the time and more to the point the NHS is (glacially) rolling it out as it's far more cost effective* than reactive healthcare. There are already very encouraging signs that obesity has peaked and is starting to reverse; having these things free at the point of use can be expected to accelerate that. In other words I don't think this issue is going to get any worse and the status quo (where fat buggers like me either go 1st, stand, bring a thin person or take emptier trains) seems to work fine.

In other words I'm not convinced there's an issue that needs solving here.

*in terms of healthcare. It's actually worse for the budget due to increased pension payments

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why does it have to be magical?

Fat jab technology is getting better all the time and more to the point the NHS is (glacially) rolling it out as it's far more cost effective* than reactive healthcare. There are already very encouraging signs that obesity has peaked and is starting to reverse; having these things free at the point of use can be expected to accelerate that. In other words I don't think this issue is going to get any worse and the status quo (where fat buggers like me either go 1st, stand, bring a thin person or take emptier trains) seems to work fine.

In other words I'm not convinced there's an issue that needs solving here.

*in terms of healthcare. It's actually worse for the budget due to increased pension payments

Fat jabs are largely irrelevant, because apart from people who are morbidly obese pretty much every male is wider over the shoulders than they are at the waist. Some significantly so and some only just (I'm only just), but obese men tend just to have a big belly that poses an issue with getting the tray table down on Class 810s (it sits much closer to the passenger than most do) but doesn't affect the width of seat consumed.

Why do I say males? Women are smaller generally so are rarely the cause for a need for increased legroom or seat width unless an outlier in height terms or morbidly obese.

 

[Snow1964]

I’ve had this exact thought. There has been a change in behaviour since COVID. People are much less willing to sit next to someone for a start. And the middle seat in a 3 seat row is pretty much always empty.

Maybe that's a local thing where you live.

In Wiltshire middle seats regularly get used peak hours, but many of the services to Bristol area are just 2car or 3car so negligible alternative seats and vestibules can be crowded

 

[Egg Centric]

Fat jabs are largely irrelevant, because apart from people who are morbidly obese pretty much every male is wider over the shoulders than they are at the waist. Some significantly so and some only just (I'm only just), but obese men tend just to have a big belly that poses an issue with getting the tray table down on Class 810s (it sits much closer to the passenger than most do) but doesn't affect the width of seat consumed.

Why do I say males? Women are smaller generally so are rarely the cause for a need for increased legroom or seat width unless an outlier in height terms or morbidly obese.

Using someone's "standing" measurements isn't the correct thing to do, even for a mildly overweight person, because people "spread out" when they sit down due to increased pressure on hips etc. There will be a cross over point at which this is more important than shoulder width and I'm not sure where but I think it'll be before obesity, possibly even before being overweight.