Legroom With "Table" Seats

[westv]

Just curious to know which stock offers the most legroom when sitting at a table seat with the opposite seat occupied? Perhaps they are all the same? The Hull Trains service I am on is quite limited.
I normally much prefer airline style seats.

 

[Spartacus]

Grand Central are quite generous, but that's down to the seats in their units all being on the first class mountings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just curious to know which stock offers the most legroom when sitting at a table seat with the opposite seat occupied? Perhaps they are all the same? The Hull Trains service I am on is quite limited.
I normally much prefer airline style seats.

In Standard? Somewhere between the Chiltern Mk3s which are Standard Class seats at First Class spacing (similar, but not as generous, in the former Voyager "hybrid coach") and the single table bay at the cab end of a 350/1, /3 or /4 which is similarly at First Class spacing.

 

[bramling]

Just curious to know which stock offers the most legroom when sitting at a table seat with the opposite seat occupied? Perhaps they are all the same? The Hull Trains service I am on is quite limited.
I normally much prefer airline style seats.

387s could be in with a modest shout - the seats nearest the vehicle ends at any rate.

 

[mushroomchow]

For what it's worth, as an EMT user I've never understood the hype for table seats - legroom tends to be at an absolute premium on any I've been stuck at, 222s being the worst offenders. I often plump for the vestibule fold-down if one's free and I've ended up with a table seat reservation.

156s are probably the most reasonable I've travelled on for room, mind you.

 

[Mikey C]

For what it's worth, as an EMT user I've never understood the hype for table seats - legroom tends to be at an absolute premium on any I've been stuck at, 222s being the worst offenders. I often plump for the vestibule fold-down if one's free and I've ended up with a table seat reservation.

156s are probably the most reasonable I've travelled on for room, mind you.

If you're lucky though you won't have anyone opposite you and can thus really stretch out!

 

[xotGD]

I find that legroom is usually fine unless the numpty opposite has decided to store their luggage under the table.

The exception is the facing seats on 333s, here bumping knees is pretty much inevitable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

350/2 also very good for facing legroom but not width!

 

[cactustwirly]

For what it's worth, as an EMT user I've never understood the hype for table seats - legroom tends to be at an absolute premium on any I've been stuck at, 222s being the worst offenders. I often plump for the vestibule fold-down if one's free and I've ended up with a table seat reservation.

156s are probably the most reasonable I've travelled on for room, mind you.

The table seats give better legroom than airlines, especially on the 156s & 153s.
The airlines on the HSTs don't have very good legroom compared to the GWR sets

 

[700007]

379s at the end a carriage, those table seats offer loads of legroom.

 

[hexagon789]

Most 156s seem to be good at window table seats, but aisle ones have that annoying support pillar.

 

[Mordac]

350/2 also very good for facing legroom but not width!

Especially when you're sat next to some knob suffering from severe elephantiasis of the testicles.

 

[hexagon789]

Especially when you're sat next to some knob suffering from severe elephantiasis of the testicles.

I assume that refers to the phenomenon known as "man-spreading" and not some ghastly disease?

 

[Mordac]

I assume that refers to the phenomenon known as "man-spreading" and not some ghastly disease?

I mean, I assume there must be something severely wrong with their genitalia for them to be unable to close their legs like a normal person.

But yes, "man-spreading," although I don't particularly like that term as I'm perfectly capable of closing my legs to not encroach on the space of people next to me, as indeed are the majority of men.

PS - Don't google elephantiasis of the testicles, especially not on google images.

 

[takno]

I mean, I assume there must be something severely wrong with their genitalia for them to be unable to close their legs like a normal person.

But yes, "man-spreading," although I don't particularly like that term as I'm perfectly capable of closing my legs to not encroach on the space of people next to me, as indeed are the majority of men.

PS - Don't google elephantiasis of the testicles, especially not on google images.

Good for you. Half the time I can't get my legs straight in seats because of the terrible legroom. It's usually when I'm crammed in as best I can to what essentially appears to be a child seat that I'm accused of this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I mean, I assume there must be something severely wrong with their genitalia for them to be unable to close their legs like a normal person.

To what extent you reasonably can depends on the build of your legs to a fair extent.

 

[Mordac]

Good for you. Half the time I can't get my legs straight in seats because of the terrible legroom. It's usually when I'm crammed in as best I can to what essentially appears to be a child seat that I'm accused of this.

As discussed above, there's nothing wrong with the legroom in 350/2 bays of 6. It's the width that's the issue.

To what extent you reasonably can depends on the build of your legs to a fair extent.

I can understand larger folks taking up more than their seat, even if I'm not particularly happy about it. But If someone's torso is able to fit, there's no reason to spread your legs like that.

 

[hexagon789]

But yes, "man-spreading," although I don't particularly like that term as I'm perfectly capable of closing my legs to not encroach on the space of people next to me, as indeed are the majority of men.

It does seem to be becoming an ever more prevalent and space-encoaching phenomenon.

It's ruddy annoying too!