Class 195 - Too Many Table Seats?

[Mag_seven]

It's all a matter of preference-for every person who says there are too many table seats there is someone else who will say there are not enough.

 

[Kite159]

One issue I've found with table seats is that some passengers these days have forgotten how to sit properly and will leave all sorts of rubbish on the seat opposite when they rest their dirty/wet feet on it rather than on the floor.

Although bay seats are far worse for that sort of behaviour. And who wants to unexpectedly sit on some dog poo?

 

[Peter0124]

It's all a matter of preference-for every person who says there are too many table seats there is someone else who will say there are not enough.

I think Pendolinos are pretty underserved for tables considering they operate IC services, compare it to a Voyager or even a TPE 397 which both have a large variety of table seats.

Also the Pendolino table sometimes folds and has a gap, this creates a problem if you want to use a mouse for your laptop.

 

[Mogz]

Compared to what they replaced they do have more tables. When I used to catch the 0738 from Leeds the airline seats always filled first, the tables only reluctantly. The 195s are better for group leisure travel, less so for commuters. But then the tables don’t line up with the windows, so they’re not much good for that either.

That’s interesting. In Chiltern the tables tend to go first.

Personally I think the 80x series have the ratio about right.

Personally, I prefer a table but if the leg-room is good in the airline seats I’ll go for an airline seat if I can see there are lots of groups travelling.

 

[WesternLancer]

Is there any evidence that having a greater ratio of airline-style seats would increase density? Remember that a fixed table is just occupying the space used primarily for legroom.

Looking at the area over the bogies shows that two rows of airline-style seats takes up exactly the same amount of space as two rows arranged around a table, so the only way to increase density within the confines of the two sets of doors would be significantly decrease legroom to an almost unusable extent.

This is exactly what I was thinking!

 

[Mogz]

This is exactly what I was thinking!

Depends on the rolling stock.

On Chiltern 168s two rows of airline seats occupy exactly the same space as a table bay (usually an aligned window).

On XC where the airline seat leg room is poor, I’m sure they reduced the number of tables from the original Virgin spec (4 or 5 per carriage like the Pendolinos?) to squeeze in extra rows of airline seats. I seem to remember it happened at the same time that they removed the shop to provide extra luggage space.

 

[WesternLancer]

Depends on the rolling stock.

On Chiltern 168s two rows of airline seats occupy exactly the same space as a table bay (usually an aligned window).

On XC where the airline seat leg room is poor, I’m sure they reduced the number of tables from the original Virgin spec (4 or 5 per carriage like the Pendolinos?) to squeeze in extra rows of airline seats. I seem to remember it happened at the same time that they removed the shop to provide extra luggage space.

Yes good points. Leg room in airline seats in trains is often poor even for avg sized people. Not as bad as on planes of course but not what I consider desirable.
Certainly poor compared with my car which is my most likely alternative option.

 

[3141]

Yes, but not sat directly opposite them and playing footsie every time my legs move in the slightest way.

The trains I use most often are SWR's class 159s. They have a moderate proportion of facing seats with tables and these are the ones that fill up first. Space for legs and feet isn't great and yes, when people move their feet the one opposite is likely to notice it, but usually they accommodate each other.

But this is public transport, after all. If you're travelling by yourself you're likely to be sitting next to or opposite strangers. Or standing next to them. The same on buses. I understand that some people find certain aspects more difficult than most: facing strangers, or feeling claustrophobic if you're in a window seat and someone else sits next to you (that's a problem my wife has. So she sits next to the aisle). If this forum had been around sixty years ago there would have been people complaining about sitting in a six-a-side non-corridor compartment coach, or the saloon coaches of a 4SUB with the luggage racks above the seats.

 

[Mogz]

The trains I use most often are SWR's class 159s. They have a moderate proportion of facing seats with tables and these are the ones that fill up first. Space for legs and feet isn't great and yes, when people move their feet the one opposite is likely to notice it, but usually they accommodate each other.

But this is public transport, after all. If you're travelling by yourself you're likely to be sitting next to or opposite strangers. Or standing next to them. The same on buses. I understand that some people find certain aspects more difficult than most: facing strangers, or feeling claustrophobic if you're in a window seat and someone else sits next to you (that's a problem my wife has. So she sits next to the aisle). If this forum had been around sixty years ago there would have been people complaining about sitting in a six-a-side non-corridor compartment coach, or the saloon coaches of a 4SUB with the luggage racks above the seats.

The leg room is atrocious on the 159s whether you have a table seat or an airline seat.

The seats themselves are comfortable enough though.

 

[Discuss223]

A class 195 2 car variant that is used on the Connect routes has 124 passenger seats. A Class 158 that they took over the route from has 142 seats. Whether people like table seats are not, the crux of the matter is that tables mean less seats. Is 124 passenger seats a sufficient number for a route that spans 3 major cities and one city which has a huge Christmas market this time of year (Lincoln), all four of which are University Cities? We know that extra carriages cannot be added so for me, the only option would be to remove some of the tables to make space for more airline-style seats. I seem to recall press-releases before OLR took over Northern, boasting about the scrapping of one car trains (153s) and boosting capacity to create a "Northern Powerhouse". After OLR and the 195s' introduction, that all seems to have gone out of the window. One thing I know, I got a seat far more often when the route was operated by 158s.

 

[Allwinter_Kit]

The main problem is the "2-car" element. No route should have to suffer such indignity. Might as well pop on a bus. But the lack of sears isn't a "are table or airline better" question, just the perennial "why are Northern's trains so woefully, inappropriately short" question.

For which the answer is the Treasury. Any sensible person would never have ordered a 2 car 195, let alone several of them. Minimum should have been 3, with maybe a 5 car variant so you could either have 1 x 3car 195/331, 2x 3car 195/331 or 1x 5car 195/331.

However because we have to pay to rent trains by carriage thanks to the 1993 privatisation bodge we are where we are and we have trains that are too small. But none of that relates to airline vs table- you might as well say "no seats at all and standing room only" as that would definitely boost capacity.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Yes, but not sat directly opposite them and playing footsie every time my legs move in the slightest way.

You are either very tall or don't know how to sit properly. I am average height and have sat at table seats on195s and their EMU twins, the 331s, hundreds of times and never played footsie with anybody. The leg room on Northern's CAF units is excellent.

 

[35B]

You are either very tall or don't know how to sit properly. I am average height and have sat at table seats on195s and their EMU twins, the 331s, hundreds of times and never played footsie with anybody. The leg room on Northern's CAF units is excellent.

I am very tall, and the footsie is commonplace, especially when the person opposite places their bag on the floor. It is a lesser evil than airline seats, because my knees aren’t jammed up.

My wife, who is an average height, hates table seats because she is irritated by her fellow passengers.

There is no consistent rule of thumb

 

[Discuss223]

I am very tall, and the footsie is commonplace, especially when the person opposite places their bag on the floor. It is a lesser evil than airline seats, because my knees aren’t jammed up.

My wife, who is an average height, hates table seats because she is irritated by her fellow passengers.

There is no consistent rule of thumb

Thank you for your perspective. I am rather tall too, at 6 foot 4. I do agree with your wife too, it's awkward sharing table space. There is no definitive line as to where allocated space per customer finishes. The other day, I sat on a 195 to Leeds opposite a woman whose mobile phone seemed to flash the camera torch every time she logged in to it, I nearly told her to stop flashing it at me and asked why she was taking pictures of me until I realised it was some stupid design on her phone. I really do feel though, that the issue of tables on 195s is a catalyst for the capacity issues, which are chronic and are consistent to this route. I am an eastern end rider of the Northern Network, so yes, the 195/1s may all be well and good on the Western front. And the 331s may be well and good with their table-seat ratio but that's a four car unit. When we are talking about a 2 car unit, space is at a premium. East Midlands Railway (then Trains) identified a similar problem in the late 2000s when their two car 158s were struggling to cope with demand and as such, instilled high-density seating with very few tables to ensure all of their customers could enjoy their journey from a seat rather than stood in the vestibules. I would be very surprised if long term, Northern didn't remove some of their tables on this route. In an ideal world, the platform 17 issue would be solved and carriage numbers increased to three but with the D(a)FT at the helm, I doubt we will see any major infrastructure changes, after all, it's not a London route.

 

[skyhigh]

that is used on the Connect routes

There is no such thing as a "Connect" route. That concept was never introduced and went out the window years ago.

And the 331s may be well and good with their table-seat ratio but that's a four car unit.

The vast majority of the 331 fleet are 3 cars.

In an ideal world, the platform 17 issue would be solved and carriage numbers increased to three but with the D(a)FT at the helm, I doubt we will see any major infrastructure changes, after all, it's not a London route.

Your doubt is misplaced. The design work has been done and it won't be long until physical progress is seen on the extension to P17.

 

[Trainman40083]

Thank you for your perspective. I am rather tall too, at 6 foot 4. I do agree with your wife too, it's awkward sharing table space. There is no definitive line as to where allocated space per customer finishes. The other day, I sat on a 195 to Leeds opposite a woman whose mobile phone seemed to flash the camera torch every time she logged in to it, I nearly told her to stop flashing it at me and asked why she was taking pictures of me until I realised it was some stupid design on her phone. I really do feel though, that the issue of tables on 195s is a catalyst for the capacity issues, which are chronic and are consistent to this route. I am an eastern end rider of the Northern Network, so yes, the 195/1s may all be well and good on the Western front. And the 331s may be well and good with their table-seat ratio but that's a four car unit. When we are talking about a 2 car unit, space is at a premium. East Midlands Railway (then Trains) identified a similar problem in the late 2000s when their two car 158s were struggling to cope with demand and as such, instilled high-density seating with very few tables to ensure all of their customers could enjoy their journey from a seat rather than stood in the vestibules. I would be very surprised if long term, Northern didn't remove some of their tables on this route. In an ideal world, the platform 17 issue would be solved and carriage numbers increased to three but with the D(a)FT at the helm, I doubt we will see any major infrastructure changes, after all, it's not a London route.

I wonder how much you would have to extend platform 17 at Leeds, to get a three car Nottingham in, and the Knottingley together? Are three cars an issue in platform 1 at Nottingham, when other trains are in that long platform?

 

[WesternLancer]

I wonder how much you would have to extend platform 17 at Leeds, to get a three car Nottingham in, and the Knottingley together? Are three cars an issue in platform 1 at Nottingham, when other trains are in that long platform?

Wouldn’t be an issue in Nottingham doubt.

 

[Trainman40083]

Wouldn’t be an issue in Nottingham doubt.

I can't remember whether Nottingham station was done with axle counters or track circuits when it was resignalled. Axle counters needed a greater distance between trains.

 

[WesternLancer]

I can't remember whether Nottingham station was done with axle counters or track circuits when it was resignalled. Axle counters needed a greater distance between trains.

Ok good point. I was simply going on availabile length.

 

[Trainman40083]

Ok good point. I was simply going on availabile length.

Length certainly isn't the issue. It is something like signalling overlap, where there has to be a predetermined distance between two trains in a platform. If they had axle counters at New Street, I wonder if you could get two x 221s in the same platform. Hence you start to lose capacity.

 

[Discuss223]

Your doubt is misplaced. The design work has been done and it won't be long until physical progress is seen on the extension to P17.

Oh really, are they extending it Westwards or inwards towards the canopy?

 

[Trainman40083]

Oh really, are they extending it Westwards or inwards towards the canopy?

Isn't there a lift shaft or escalator at the canopy end? Would a signal have to be moved beyond the end of the platform? Time will tell.

 

[Discuss223]

Isn't there a lift shaft or escalator at the canopy end? Would a signal have to be moved beyond the end of the platform? Time will tell.

Yes, there is and a flight of stairs too. Not much room at all on that side. The platform next to the stairs is regularly congested due to its narrow nature. If work were to go ahead, it would be interesting to see if Northern do increase carriage numbers on the route. I wonder if they would consider swapping the Harrogate line 170s with the Nottingham/Lincoln 195s. I believe they are cleared from Sheffield-Leeds for maintenance moves to Neville Hill and 170s routinely operate Sheffield-Nottingham with EMR, not sure about Woodhouse-Kiveton- Lincoln though!

 

[Chester1]

The main problem is the "2-car" element. No route should have to suffer such indignity. Might as well pop on a bus. But the lack of sears isn't a "are table or airline better" question, just the perennial "why are Northern's trains so woefully, inappropriately short" question.

For which the answer is the Treasury. Any sensible person would never have ordered a 2 car 195, let alone several of them. Minimum should have been 3, with maybe a 5 car variant so you could either have 1 x 3car 195/331, 2x 3car 195/331 or 1x 5car 195/331.

However because we have to pay to rent trains by carriage thanks to the 1993 privatisation bodge we are where we are and we have trains that are too small. But none of that relates to airline vs table- you might as well say "no seats at all and standing room only" as that would definitely boost capacity.

The business case for 19X will have been based on them running right up to the end of the 2040s. That likely means finishing their time on rural routes and there are plenty where two coaches will always be sufficient, not an indignity! If I could make one change could be made to the 195 design it wouldn't be seats or size, it would be unit end gangway.

 

[Adam0984]

The platform 17 issue seems like a bit of mis direction as every 3 hours when the Knottingley is a 4 car they can find a different platform for it so why not every hour. It's more the fact that there's not enough 2 or 3 cars to double up to 4 cars or run as a 3 car. To make them all into 4 cars then you'd need 10 extra units which is impossible to just strengthen the Notts would 5 extra units with it detaching/attaching every hour while a 2 car goes to Lincoln

I can't remember whether Nottingham station was done with axle counters or track circuits when it was resignalled. Axle counters needed a greater distance between trains.

At Notts trains can pull right upto each other under permissive block working and providing there's nothing stabled mid platform on 1 and 3 you'd get a 4 car on

 

[YorksLad12]

Thank you for your perspective. I am rather tall too, at 6 foot 4. I do agree with your wife too, it's awkward sharing table space. There is no definitive line as to where allocated space per customer finishes. The other day, I sat on a 195 to Leeds opposite a woman whose mobile phone seemed to flash the camera torch every time she logged in to it, I nearly told her to stop flashing it at me and asked why she was taking pictures of me until I realised it was some stupid design on her phone. I really do feel though, that the issue of tables on 195s is a catalyst for the capacity issues, which are chronic and are consistent to this route. I am an eastern end rider of the Northern Network, so yes, the 195/1s may all be well and good on the Western front. And the 331s may be well and good with their table-seat ratio but that's a four car unit. When we are talking about a 2 car unit, space is at a premium. East Midlands Railway (then Trains) identified a similar problem in the late 2000s when their two car 158s were struggling to cope with demand and as such, instilled high-density seating with very few tables to ensure all of their customers could enjoy their journey from a seat rather than stood in the vestibules. I would be very surprised if long term, Northern didn't remove some of their tables on this route. In an ideal world, the platform 17 issue would be solved and carriage numbers increased to three but with the D(a)FT at the helm, I doubt we will see any major infrastructure changes, after all, it's not a London route.

At Leeds on Friday morning, a young woman took a bay of four and started doing some sort of art project which involved cutting things out and glueing them down elsewhere. But at least she took the window seat, and other people could sit alongside or opposite. On the way home, an older lady took up two airline seats in the evening peak by putting her food on the window seatback, sitting in the aisle seat and facing inwards to ignore anyone who might ask for the other seat. People, huh?

Oh really, are they extending it Westwards or inwards towards the canopy?

Isn't there a lift shaft or escalator at the canopy end? Would a signal have to be moved beyond the end of the platform? Time will tell.

I'm sure I've seen a comment here somewhere that there was a plan/proposal to move the lift nearer to the P16/17 stairs. That would improve the circulation space and possible allow the platform to be extended back. It's quite narrow at the other end of P17, extending that way might not be possible now in the way it was 25 years ago.

 

[Discuss223]

At Leeds on Friday morning, a young woman took a bay of four and started doing some sort of art project which involved cutting things out and glueing them down elsewhere. But at least she took the window seat, and other people could sit alongside or opposite. On the way home, an older lady took up two airline seats in the evening peak by putting her food on the window seatback, sitting in the aisle seat and facing inwards to ignore anyone who might ask for the other seat. People, huh?

As a regular solo traveller, it's sometimes inevitable that one will need to occupy a table bay on these 195 units. I don't like facing backwards either so that limits my choices.

I'm sure I've seen a comment here somewhere that there was a plan/proposal to move the lift nearer to the P16/17 stairs. That would improve the circulation space and possible allow the platform to be extended back. It's quite narrow at the other end of P17, extending that way might not be possible now in the way it was 25 years ago.

I wonder if it would be possible to move some of the Nottingham/Lincoln services out to the triangle at Leeds West Junction and avoid conflict with Knottingley services, looking at RTT for example, https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:G32084/2024-12-03/detailed this unit stabled for 25 minutes at Leeds today. If the services don't conflict then it could allow for 3 coach 195s on the Nottingham/Lincoln services.

 

[YorksLad12]

As a regular solo traveller, it's sometimes inevitable that one will need to occupy a table bay on these 195 units. I don't like facing backwards either so that limits my choices.

That's what I did this morning. I sat at a bay of four (the front four) and took up one seat. My small manbag sat on the table and took up less than one-quarter of it.

I wonder if it would be possible to move some of the Nottingham/Lincoln services out to the triangle at Leeds West Junction and avoid conflict with Knottingley services, looking at RTT for example, https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:G32084/2024-12-03/detailed this unit stabled for 25 minutes at Leeds today. If the services don't conflict then it could allow for 3 coach 195s on the Nottingham/Lincoln services.

The Nottingham/Lincoln/Knottingley/Sheffield via Castleford services all use the same route out of Leeds, so putting them on P17 makes sense as they will be self contained. And they're flighted so that the semi-fast arrives, the stopper arrives, the stopper leaves, the semi-fast leaves, and the next semi-fast arrived five minutes later (ish), hence the long layover. Were it not for all of the TPE services you could leave the semi-fasts on P17 and the stoppers (with a five-minute turnaround) on P16, but any perturbation in the TPE services would rule that out; the TPEs (will) leave at xx15 and xx45, giving you 15 minutes to arrive from Castleford, turn and leave before the next TPE service at xx30 and xx00. Sounds a lot, but you've got headways to consider as well, so call it 9 minutes, perhaps less.

You could try fitting in the stoppers on P13, but you'd be up against the stoppers to Huddersfield and Wigan. That said, the Knottingley service did use it this morning, according to RTT: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:G30755/2024-12-03/detailed#allox_id=1

 

[xotGD]

That's what I did this morning. I sat at a bay of four (the front four) and took up one seat. My small manbag sat on the table and took up less than one-quarter of it.

The Nottingham/Lincoln/Knottingley/Sheffield via Castleford services all use the same route out of Leeds, so putting them on P17 makes sense as they will be self contained. And they're flighted so that the semi-fast arrives, the stopper arrives, the stopper leaves, the semi-fast leaves, and the next semi-fast arrived five minutes later (ish), hence the long layover. Were it not for all of the TPE services you could leave the semi-fasts on P17 and the stoppers (with a five-minute turnaround) on P16, but any perturbation in the TPE services would rule that out; the TPEs (will) leave at xx15 and xx45, giving you 15 minutes to arrive from Castleford, turn and leave before the next TPE service at xx30 and xx00. Sounds a lot, but you've got headways to consider as well, so call it 9 minutes, perhaps less.

You could try fitting in the stoppers on P13, but you'd be up against the stoppers to Huddersfield and Wigan. That said, the Knottingley service did use it this morning, according to RTT: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:G30755/2024-12-03/detailed#allox_id=1

Semi fast terminated in P15, departs ecs to hypothetical reversing siding east of the station, comes back in to P16 and off we go...

 

[YorksLad12]

Semi fast terminated in P15, departs ecs to hypothetical reversing siding east of the station, comes back in to P16 and off we go...

Well... there is space up to the bridge over Briggate for a siding...

I seem to think that inbound trains to P17 cross over for a bit of wrong-line running before Leeds West End; in which case, how about sending it back out west to lay over on the other bit of line (assuming it's not used by freight passing eastwards through Leeds)? Or even as far as Holbeck Sidings?