Mainline Interior Layouts

[Jammy Dodger]

There is no space in UK rolling stock for an interior 3+2 seating layout. Thoughts?

 

[ExRes]

I think you should change your question, "Do you agree? Yes or No" should be the question

I disagree, 3+2 is perfectly acceptable for rush hour trains in my opinion

 

[bramling]

There is no space in UK rolling stock for an interior 3+2 seating layout. Thoughts?

Can’t really agree as I used 3+2 317s for many years. Not wonderfully pleasant, but means a number of people get seats who wouldn’t have otherwise done so, meanwhile off-peak mean you’re less likely to have to sit directly next to or opposite someone. Ironically they seem to work better on outer suburban than inner suburban. So on balance I can’t really say I’m against it.

 

[Peter0124]

3+2 is horrid, makes the aisle narrow

 

[Jammy Dodger]

Can’t really agree as I used 3+2 317s for many years. Not wonderfully pleasant, but means a number of people get seats who wouldn’t have otherwise done so, meanwhile off-peak mean you’re less likely to have to sit directly next to or opposite someone. Ironically they seem to work better on outer suburban than inner suburban. So on balance I can’t really say I’m against it.

I remember those! They are one of the better examples of a semi-decent 3+2 (much better than their 720 replacements), despite the fact that I'd sink to the centre of the Earth every time I sat down!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2023 ==

3+2 is horrid, makes the aisle narrow

Ever been on a 720? They demonstrate this point fantastically! I can't get through said isle at all with my backpack on!

 

[WizCastro197]

I don’t mind the 3+2 layout. Southern have a nice combination of both 3+2 and 2+2 and the 3+2 sections are rather spacious and are needed for high density south London services.

 

[zwk500]

3+2 works well for heavily loaded outer suburbans like London-Northampton or Sussex Coastway services, which are uncomfortable to stand for the full journey and often have large groups, for whom the bays of 6 are good.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

I think you should change your question, "Do you agree? Yes or No" should be the question

Unfortunately I can't

 

[Halish Railway]

I think the 3+2 layouts in 323s and 333s are perfectly comfortable for the type of journeys made on them. 720s are just far too cramped though.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

I would like to point out to all that my main reasoning is due to, erm, average British widths (trying to be respectful here!) being significant in relation to the restrictive width of UK trains (<2.8m). Sure, a seat is always nice, but if I'm on a train for more than 15-20 mins, I'd like to be comfortable!

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can manage vaguely acceptable 3+2 in a 20m, 2.8m wide vehicle. 20m Desiros are 2.76 which with the thin sidewalls is about as narrow as it can be made to work.

You can't in a 23/24m, 2.7m wide one, as evidenced by the junk that is the 720.

Notably all Aventras, even 20m ones, are 2.7m wide - they've used a standard cross-section - so none of those should be 3+2.

 

[Spartacus]

3+2 is perfectly possible, but comes with issues. Often you'll find that the 3 is taken up by just 2 passengers, especially if the seats are particularly narrow, and if they're not the I find fewer people are willing to stand in the now very narrow aisle, so you then lose much of the additional capacity. And let's not forget, the more people you stuff into one carriage with two sets of doors the longer it takes them to get on or off, especially if pushing down narrow aisles, or having to manoeuvre past two seated passengers instead of one. Unless lengthening trains really isn't an option it's often not worth it.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

My main bugbear with 3+2 is when the 3s are in airline configuration. In particular on the Northern 150s which still have the original seats, as the window seats in that arrangement are horribly claustrophobic.

On the 323s and 333s it's just about tolerable.

 

[Skie]

The low back seats of the “prefurbished” peps made it acceptable, though it sometimes meant rubbing your arse against people to squeeze through the aisle.

Not a fan of it on a busy unit with ironing boards though.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

Southeastern's networkers I feel are particularly bad for this. They don't even have decent leg room either!

 

[WizCastro197]

Southeastern's networkers I feel are particularly bad for this. They don't even have decent leg room either!

I do think they do the job for the relatively short services they provide. Assuming you don’t mean the /9s

 

[Jammy Dodger]

I do think they do the job for the relatively short services they provide. Assuming you don’t mean the /9s

I can't say specifically. I've only been on one of them - Orpington to London Bridge last year in June!

 

[WizCastro197]

I can't say specifically. I've only been on one of them - Orpington to London Bridge last year in June!

It would’ve been something other than the /9s. I do happen to know @TT-ONR-NRN has a certain liking to 465s.

Orpington to London Bridge isn’t too long, and the route can get busy so 3+2 is sort of required.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Orpington to London Bridge isn’t too long, and the route can get busy so 3+2 is sort of required.

Narrow 2+2 with standbacks works far, far better, or hybrid facing and longitudinal like the S8s or 345s on that sort of service.

3+2's niche is stuff like Northampton - medium distance interurban commuting with high loadings at certain times. Though post COVID probably not needed there either.

 

[WizCastro197]

Narrow 2+2 with standbacks works far, far better, or hybrid facing and longitudinal like the S8s or 345s.

Networkers will be replaced (hopefully) within the coming years, which you are aware of. Not sure if southeastern would want to necessarily change the layout this late into their life unless they cite the current arrangement as a issue.

 

[Class360/1]

I remember those! They are one of the better examples of a semi-decent 3+2 (much better than their 720 replacements), despite the fact that I'd sink to the centre of the Earth every time I sat down!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2023 ==


Ever been on a 720? They demonstrate this point fantastically! I can't get through said isle at all with my backpack on!

View attachment 127075

And that’s without accidentally bumping into other passengers!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It would’ve been something other than the /9s. I do happen to know @TT-ONR-NRN has a certain liking to 465s.

Oof, don’t say such awful things or people might believe you!

 

[WizCastro197]

3+2 on 450s is just awful, especially when they operate down to Portsmouth, a journey duration that I find pushes past the limits with 3+2, as they are uncomfortable and the seats are awfully narrow. They are always very dirty as well.

Oof, don’t say such awful things or people might believe you!

Haha, people in the other thread will know. I won’t say anything further.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

Orpington to London Bridge isn’t too long, and the route can get busy so 3+2 is sort of required.

It's the kind of route that I would suspect TfL have eyed up to be taken over by Overground for a while - high stop frequency (for a main line), high capacity. Would probably use some 710-style train on it, with a minimum 4tph frequency...

 

[Peter0124]

2+2 or 3+1 in my opinion would be best for trains (especially long distance ones), rather than 3+2.

That way solo people can use the 1 seaters, bigger groups use the 3's facing eachother. Therefore wider aisles.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's the kind of route that I would suspect TfL have eyed up to be taken over by Overground for a while - high stop frequency (for a main line), high capacity. Would probably use some 710-style train on it, with a minimum 4tph frequency...

Must admit (if we consider them mainline in this context - the thread is more about commuter trains!) I think the LO layout is sub-optimal, and I'd have made them like the S8s or 345s with some facing seating as well as longitudinal.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2023 ==

2+2 or 3+1 in my opinion would be best for trains (especially long distance ones), rather than 3+2.

That way solo people can use the 1 seaters, bigger groups use the 3's facing eachother.

An advantage of 3+1 is that it only feels packed when you've gone 3 rather than 2 across.

A disadvantage is that if it's full the middle would be unpleasant.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

And that’s without accidentally bumping into other passengers!

Imagine what it's like when I have a suitcase as well (even a small one!). With nowhere to put said suitcase, the seats fill up rather quickly!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Imagine what it's like when I have a suitcase as well (even a small one!). With nowhere to put said suitcase, the seats fill up rather quickly!

720s have large overheads. Put it up there.

Unless you've got a very silly, impractical shape of suitcase as well as your daysac, in which case get a more standard one. An IATA 56x45x25 one fits the overheads on most trains, and when you go up in size most just get longer and wider but not deeper so still fit.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

720s have large overheads. Put it up there.

Unless you've got a very silly, impractical shape of suitcase as well as your daysac, in which case get a more standard one. An IATA 56x45x25 one fits the overheads on most trains, and when you go up in size most just get longer and wider so still fit.

While my small (carry-on size) suitcase does, my backpack doesn't, and my almost-a-metre-long suitcase certainly doesn't!

 

[Bletchleyite]

While my small (carry-on size) suitcase does, my backpack doesn't, and my almost-a-metre-long suitcase certainly doesn't!

You may want to inform your future purchasing choices towards more practical designs for rail travel, then!