3+1 seating layout

[Ethano92]

I was just wondering how feasible such a seating formation on commuter lines would be and if it's a suitable compromise between 2+2 and 3+2.

The obvious negative is that there's still the middle seat however

•there are single seats throughout for those who want it. These could be right against the wall as you wouldn't be sitting next to anyone and so could 'overhang' slightly

•across a row of the train 3 people can sit without directly sitting next to anyone which is the same as 3+2 and 1 more than 2+2 which would perhaps allow the train to hold more people yet still appear less busy than if it were 2+2

•a wide ailse capable of having 2 people standing in it would still be achievable as there would be 4 seats per row

•dwell times may be a limiting factor to this layout but the ease those alighting from a single seat would be able to achieve may balance out with those alighting from the window seat from a row of 3 seats and not cause an overall longer dwell

I'm not suggesting there's a problem with 2+2 (however 3+2 continues to prove not that popular), I'm just interested if people would consider 3+1 an improvement on 2+2 or not, this is after all speculative.

Perhaps a mix of 2+2 and 3+1 throughout the train would be the most favourable?

 

[computerSaysNo]

Perhaps a mix of 2+2 and 3+1 throughout the train would be the most favourable?

I think the 334s have a good mix of seating, 3+2 in the centre carriage means lots of seats during rush hour and for those making short journeys, and 2+2 with armrests in the end carriages for those making longer journeys. The only improvement I would make (which is nothing to do with the actual seating layout) would be putting those half-size mini--tables in so that there's somewhere to put down a cup of coffee, for example.

 

[bb21]

You kind of answered your own question. The obvious negative is not the middle seat, it will be the rows of 3 killing dwell times at intermediate stations.

In 2+2 layout the person sitting in the aisle seat doesn't necessarily have to stand up to allow the person in the window seat out. They can often just tilt themselves and move their legs into the aisle.

In 3+1 layout that cannot be done by both the person in the aisle seat and the middle seat to let the person in the window seat out. At least one will have to get up into the aisle, if not both.

Imagine all the shuffling on a packed commuter train and how long that will take. It will not be offset by the time saving on the "1" side, if at all.

 

[Randomer]

In 3+1 layout that cannot be done by both the person in the aisle seat and the middle seat to let the person in the window seat out. At least one will have to get up into the aisle, if not both.

I was on a Deutsche Bahn RE service that effectively had this layout earlier this month with a row of fold up longitudinal and facing bays of 3 seats. It was a fairly busy service originating from an airport and the dwell times at intermediate stations to get people on and off was long (seemed to have about 3 minutes at each station but this could have also been arriving early.)

This was on a wider carriage with a bigger loading gauge using "normal" size seats rather than the narrower ones used for rows of 3 here and people still didn't want to sit in the middle seats.

Likewise the facing bays didn't seem to help with letting people out of the window seats as much as I thought it would. As you stated people were still having to get up and move into the aisle to let people out.

 

[PeterC]

You will have the same problem with middle seats that you have now. A lot of people will stand rather than occupy one and on a busy service you end up being unable to get to the free seats.

 

[Indigo Soup]

I think there might be a market for 3+1, but it isn't commuter services.

It's intercity/interurban services. In that market, you get a lot of groups travelling together. Where you have a group of 5 or 6 wanting to sit together, they have to split themselves across two opposing bays and can make the remaining 2 or 3 seats in that pair of bays uninviting to other passengers, or be outright hostile to anyone trying to use it.

A few bays of 3+1 seating would offer such groups 6-seat bays, whilst making a few single seats available for solo travellers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's intercity/interurban services. In that market, you get a lot of groups travelling together. Where you have a group of 5 or 6 wanting to sit together, they have to split themselves across two opposing bays and can make the remaining 2 or 3 seats in that pair of bays uninviting to other passengers, or be outright hostile to anyone trying to use it.

A few bays of 3+1 seating would offer such groups 6-seat bays, whilst making a few single seats available for solo travellers.

Agreed. 350/2s sometimes operate Trent Valley LNR services, and at leisure times the 3+2 is not quite as hated as you might think - families and small groups like being able to sit together rather than being forced to split between rows of 2 airline seats. On the 350s the spacing is fairly decent too so a game of "footsie" doesn't really ensue like it does on the likes of original-layout 319s.

Another advantage of 3+1 (or even 3+2) is that at quieter times there can be 1/3 more passengers on the train (if everyone is travelling alone) before it feels full. A train feels full when someone you don't know has to sit directly next to you or directly opposite. So in 3+2 you can have 3 people across the width of the train before this happens (as the middle seat provides a buffer), whereas with 2+2 you can only have 2 people across the width of the train before this is the case.

I guess a downside is that the bays of 6 would be good to designate as a "family coach", but the single seats would very much be "quiet coach" territory - probably not good together! Providing single seats in any number might also affect First Class income as it's about the only reason I ever bother upgrading.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You kind of answered your own question. The obvious negative is not the middle seat, it will be the rows of 3 killing dwell times at intermediate stations.

In 2+2 layout the person sitting in the aisle seat doesn't necessarily have to stand up to allow the person in the window seat out. They can often just tilt themselves and move their legs into the aisle.

In 3+1 layout that cannot be done by both the person in the aisle seat and the middle seat to let the person in the window seat out. At least one will have to get up into the aisle, if not both.

This is why almost no trains have airline seats on the 3 side - it's nearly always bays. I think only 150/2s and the new GA EMUs have 3-side airline seats.

Of course if you add a table they have to stand up anyway.

 

[Indigo Soup]

I guess a downside is that the bays of 6 would be good to designate as a "family coach", but the single seats would very much be "quiet coach" territory - probably not good together! Providing single seats in any number might also affect First Class income as it's about the only reason I ever bother upgrading.

That did occur to me - but then, upgrading to First Class might look more attractive if you know you're likely to be parked next to a family or a stag party!

 

[Ethano92]

I think the 334s have a good mix of seating, 3+2 in the centre carriage means lots of seats during rush hour and for those making short journeys, and 2+2 with armrests in the end carriages for those making longer journeys. The only improvement I would make (which is nothing to do with the actual seating layout) would be putting those half-size mini--tables in so that there's somewhere to put down a cup of coffee, for example.

Some of Southerns 377s have this layout and I think this concept could be well utilised of the 3+2 seats were more comfortable in some way, shape or form as people even on short journeys aim for the end coaches where the more comfy, padded 2+2 is.

You kind of answered your own question. The obvious negative is not the middle seat, it will be the rows of 3 killing dwell times at intermediate stations.

I was hoping having a Thameslink style wide aisle would help this as currently we only experience bays of 3 with a very narrow aisle but perhaps not that much. Perhaps offset middle seats would help? Or having spacious lobbies and getting people into the habit of getting up early and waiting there to alight. How feasible those suggestions are is another thing.

Still makes me wonder why we still use 3+2 though

I think there might be a market for 3+1, but it isn't commuter services.

It's intercity/interurban services. In that market, you get a lot of groups travelling together. Where you have a group of 5 or 6 wanting to sit together, they have to split themselves across two opposing bays and can make the remaining 2 or 3 seats in that pair of bays uninviting to other passengers, or be outright hostile to anyone trying to use it.

A few bays of 3+1 seating would offer such groups 6-seat bays, whilst making a few single seats available for solo travellers.

That's an interesting point, I guess sort of metro commuter services with very short dwell times wouldn't benefit too much. It would be difficult to choose which services however choices wouldn't be too harmful if they' was a mix of choices on the train.

 

[xotGD]

You could have a 3 + 0 arrangement with the aisle down one side. Seats facing each other in bays.

You could then add partitions between each bay, and doors between the bays and the aisle.

Has anyone ever tried this layout?

 

[Indigo Soup]

You could have a 3 + 0 arrangement with the aisle down one side. Seats facing each other in bays.

You could then add partitions between each bay, and doors between the bays and the aisle.

Has anyone ever tried this layout?

3-abreast seating is the province of First Class nowadays, nobody's bringing back Second. And whilst compartments aren't a particularly clever idea at the best of times, making them 4-abreast is an even worse idea.

 

[PeterC]

3-abreast seating is the province of First Class nowadays, nobody's bringing back Second. And whilst compartments aren't a particularly clever idea at the best of times, making them 4-abreast is an even worse idea.

Sense of humour failiure I think.