Reconfiguring 720s for Stansted Express?

[William3000]

As a regular 720 user I like them, I like the additional seats, they get very busy in peak times and the seats almost all get taken. For commuting to London I prefer them over the 745/755s.

While I respect your opinion, I genuinely can’t comprehend how anybody can conclude that 720s are better than 745/755s. I actively avoid 720s travelling to London Liverpool Street from Whittlesford Parkway via Stansted Airport even though it requires a change and therefore takes longer. The 745s and 755s are among the best trains in service - intercity quality in terms of comfort with tables and multiple sockets enabling one to work easily on a laptop or watch TV etc. The 720s in contrast are cramped and uncomfortable with absurdly narrow hard seats. It’s very difficult to move down the train especially if carrying any luggage.

 

[martin2345uk]

I didn’t say they’re better in any objective sense, just that I prefer them when travelling to and from London for work

 

[William3000]

I didn’t say they’re better in any objective sense, just that I prefer them when travelling to and from London for work

I understand that I’m just interested to know what it is about them that people prefer - because I also find the lack of tables frustrating so I’m interested to hear different perspectives

 

[Russel]

While I respect your opinion, I genuinely can’t comprehend how anybody can conclude that 720s are better than 745/755s. I actively avoid 720s travelling to London Liverpool Street from Whittlesford Parkway via Stansted Airport even though it requires a change and therefore takes longer. The 745s and 755s are among the best trains in service - intercity quality in terms of comfort with tables and multiple sockets enabling one to work easily on a laptop or watch TV etc. The 720s in contrast are cramped and uncomfortable with absurdly narrow hard seats. It’s very difficult to move down the train especially if carrying any luggage.

Agreed.

I travel to Clacton to see family roughly once a month, rather than spend 90 minutes on a 720, I'll catch the Norwich service and change to the bus at Colchester!

 

[NCT]

Agreed.

I travel to Clacton to see family roughly once a month, rather than spend 90 minutes on a 720, I'll catch the Norwich service and change to the bus at Colchester!

Hypothetically, if the 720 had fewer but slightly more generously spaced seats, meaning you might have to stand until Chelmsford, would you choose a direct 720-worked service to Clacton?

The kind of interior I'm envisaging is bigger doorways with 10 rows of seats in the main carriage area aligned with the 5 windows; more bays of 4 with windows seats having tables (aisle seats not having tables to aid metro-style passenger circulation and dwells); 2+2 seating with armrest space between the two seats but no aisle or bodyside armrests. This means the vestibules and aisles are still substantial enough to deal with peak (or surge) standing loads.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hypothetically, if the 720 had fewer but slightly more generously spaced seats, meaning you might have to stand until Chelmsford, would you choose a direct 720-worked service to Clacton?

The kind of interior I'm envisaging is bigger doorways with 10 rows of seats in the main carriage area aligned with the 5 windows; more bays of 4 with windows seats having tables (aisle seats not having tables to aid metro-style passenger circulation and dwells); 2+2 seating with armrest space between the two seats but no aisle or bodyside armrests. This means the vestibules and aisles are still substantial enough to deal with peak (or surge) standing loads.

I'd suggest any 720 user rides on a 730/2, it is most of what you suggest (though window alignment is a bit off and there aren't many bays, as per the preferences of commuters who prefer privacy generally). The density of the centre sections is a bit high though, I'd agree it'd be bob on if it was 10 rows aligned with the windows, but I seem to recall it's 11. Not surprising they have done this, though, as the Class 350 makes the same error (apart from the /2 which is window aligned on the 3 side).

For high density the narrow 2+2 (1+1 near the vestibules for more standing space) on the 730/0 is probably better, they are proper people eaters, a short formed 3 car 730/0 is far better than a short formed 4 car 350 for example. I don't think I've seen a more effective metro/suburban layout yet, it really does work, though TBH I'd swap the seats for the 450mm variant (they're the 435mm which is a bit narrow) and space them an inch from the wall (basically as per the Class 700), it'd be a bit nicer without massively affecting aisle width.

Either way the 3+2 layout in the 720 is a massive mistake.

 

[Instinct04]

What I’d like to see is essentially the class 730, but without end gangways. That’s literally it.

 

[jon0844]

Hypothetically, if the 720 had fewer but slightly more generously spaced seats, meaning you might have to stand until Chelmsford, would you choose a direct 720-worked service to Clacton?

The kind of interior I'm envisaging is bigger doorways with 10 rows of seats in the main carriage area aligned with the 5 windows; more bays of 4 with windows seats having tables (aisle seats not having tables to aid metro-style passenger circulation and dwells); 2+2 seating with armrest space between the two seats but no aisle or bodyside armrests. This means the vestibules and aisles are still substantial enough to deal with peak (or surge) standing loads.

Ignoring discussions about seat comfort, lighting etc, if you look at the class 700s, the big advantage is nice wide aisles that not only allow people to pass others, but even for the movement of buggies and large cases - thus people can move along to make best use of space. It also helps with entry and exit points at stations being in different places, so people can board in once place and move along.

(I know some people don't move down, but the behaviour varies a lot between regular commuters, semi-regular train travellers who figure things out, and total novices on their one trip to the seaside (e.g. Brighton) a year who have no clue. Despite some people standing when there's free space elsewhere, for the most part it works out pretty well and open gangways are a good thing - and not then crippled by making it near impossible to actually change coach!)

Now in the peaks, a lot of people obviously have to stand. If there was 3+2 seating then a number might get a seat, but you then lose the ability to move up and down to find those seats. If you can't move along the aisle because others are standing, you can't find a seat in an emptier part of the train (which exist, say at the back of a train heading to London). Likewise, you're unlikely to be able to go to the toilet.

I think a few more people having to stand on some services is a worthy trade-off. At some points people will be alighting before you, so you may not have to stand the whole way on a long journey. If your journey is short, is it even a problem?

The big benefit is that when there's disruption, a 12 car 700 can swallow up people. Sure, it's going to be uncomfortable if that busy - but compared to being left behind, I think more people want that.

 

[dk1]

Agreed.

I travel to Clacton to see family roughly once a month, rather than spend 90 minutes on a 720, I'll catch the Norwich service and change to the bus at Colchester!

Isn’t it tedious changing to a bus and overall slower journey from Colchester just because of the class of unit used?

 

[Russel]

Hypothetically, if the 720 had fewer but slightly more generously spaced seats, meaning you might have to stand until Chelmsford, would you choose a direct 720-worked service to Clacton?

The kind of interior I'm envisaging is bigger doorways with 10 rows of seats in the main carriage area aligned with the 5 windows; more bays of 4 with windows seats having tables (aisle seats not having tables to aid metro-style passenger circulation and dwells); 2+2 seating with armrest space between the two seats but no aisle or bodyside armrests. This means the vestibules and aisles are still substantial enough to deal with peak (or surge) standing loads.

To be fair, I've never been on a 720 where I haven't had a choice of seats, so capacity is a null point for me, however, I do use 730/2s 3 days a week for work, I've said it in the 730 thread that if the 720s had the same interior, so 2+2 seating and tables, the 720s would be a much, much better train all round, even with the lower seating capacity.

Isn’t it tedious changing to a bus and overall slower journey from Colchester just because of the class of unit used?

Where I go in Clacton is on the bus route between Colchester and Clacton so I'd need to get it from Clacton anyway and it's a better connection from Colchester so the journey time is very similar and a couple of quid cheaper.

 

[dk1]

To be fair, I've never been on a 720 where I haven't had a choice of seats, so capacity is a null point for me, however, I do use 730/2s 3 days a week for work, I've said it in the 730 thread that if the 720s had the same interior, so 2+2 seating and tables, the 720s would be a much, much better train all round, even with the lower seating capacity.



Where I go in Clacton is on the bus route between Colchester and Clacton so I'd need to get it from Clacton anyway and it's a better connection from Colchester so the journey time is very similar and a couple of quid cheaper.

Oh I see. That makes sense.

 

[Russel]

Oh I see. That makes sense.

I just so happens that I also find the Flirts a much nicer experience to travel on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I just so happens that I also find the Flirts a much nicer experience to travel on.

I don't think that's hard for them to achieve given how horribly cramped the 720 is!

 

[Instinct04]

Ignoring discussions about seat comfort, lighting etc, if you look at the class 700s, the big advantage is nice wide aisles that not only allow people to pass others, but even for the movement of buggies and large cases - thus people can move along to make best use of space. It also helps with entry and exit points at stations being in different places, so people can board in once place and move along.

(I know some people don't move down, but the behaviour varies a lot between regular commuters, semi-regular train travellers who figure things out, and total novices on their one trip to the seaside (e.g. Brighton) a year who have no clue. Despite some people standing when there's free space elsewhere, for the most part it works out pretty well and open gangways are a good thing - and not then crippled by making it near impossible to actually change coach!)

Now in the peaks, a lot of people obviously have to stand. If there was 3+2 seating then a number might get a seat, but you then lose the ability to move up and down to find those seats. If you can't move along the aisle because others are standing, you can't find a seat in an emptier part of the train (which exist, say at the back of a train heading to London). Likewise, you're unlikely to be able to go to the toilet.

I think a few more people having to stand on some services is a worthy trade-off. At some points people will be alighting before you, so you may not have to stand the whole way on a long journey. If your journey is short, is it even a problem?

The big benefit is that when there's disruption, a 12 car 700 can swallow up people. Sure, it's going to be uncomfortable if that busy - but compared to being left behind, I think more people want that.

I couldn’t have said this better myself.

I actually don’t think 3+2 seating fits anywhere really. It just makes interiors cramped. I also agree that a 12 car 700 is very good capacity wise, and can move large amounts of people.

A 10 car 720 can only hold so many people, and with short platforms at many GA stations, passenger loadings are not spread very well as they are two units couples together with no gangway in between.

What was the exact reason that GA decided not to go with fixed 10 car 720s, and opted for all 5 carriage units?

 

[dk1]

I just so happens that I also find the Flirts a much nicer experience to travel on.

As someone who drove and went through testing them, I have to concur

 

[Magdalia]

Either way the 3+2 layout in the 720 is a massive mistake.

Ordering 3+2 seating for the class 720s was not a mistake.

The WAML, GEML and Southend Vic line are primarily peak time commuting routes. All of them are congested with no capacity for new train paths.

The class 720s were ordered before the Covid pandemic, when peak time commuting was much higher than it is now. They were ordered to replace class 321s and class 317s, both of which had 3+2 seating.

A 10 car 720 can only hold so many people

A 10 car class 720 holds 1088 seated and 290 standing. That's a lot of people. And it is about 50% more than 672 seated and 245 standing in a class 745/0.

The suggestion that, pre-pandemic, 3+2 seating trains could have been replaced by 2+2 seating trains would have been regarded as bonkers.

I actively avoid 720s travelling to London Liverpool Street from Whittlesford Parkway via Stansted Airport even though it requires a change and therefore takes longer.

I travel to Clacton to see family roughly once a month, rather than spend 90 minutes on a 720, I'll catch the Norwich service and change to the bus at Colchester!

Both of these are perverse. I have sat on class 720s between Cambridge and London many times, with no temptation to take longer or get mixed up with airport passengers. The class 720 seats are more comfortable than those in class 745/755, they have power sockets, and the airline seats have flip up tables. As for the aisles, I'd rather risk banging my hips than banging my head.

 

[Russel]

Ordering 3+2 seating for the class 720s was not a mistake.

The WAML, GEML and Southend Vic line are primarily peak time commuting routes. All of them are congested with no capacity for new train paths.

The class 720s were ordered before the Covid pandemic, when peak time commuting was much higher than it is now. They were ordered to replace class 321s and class 317s, both of which had 3+2 seating.


A 10 car class 720 holds 1088 seated and 290 standing. That's a lot of people. And it is about 50% more than 672 seated and 245 standing in a class 745/0.

The suggestion that, pre-pandemic, 3+2 seating trains could have been replaced by 2+2 seating trains would have been regarded as bonkers.




Both of these are perverse. I have sat on class 720s between Cambridge and London many times, with no temptation to take longer or get mixed up with airport passengers. The class 720 seats are more comfortable than those in class 745/755, they have power sockets, and the airline seats have flip up tables. As for the aisles, I'd rather risk banging my hips than banging my head.

3+2 Seating should not be an option anywhere, the UK loading gauge just isn't suitable for it, there is a reason the 720s are the only units ordered in the last few years in this configuration.

Thameslink is 2+2...

WMR Have replaced all of there 3+2 stock with 2+2...

SWR 701s were ordered as 2+2, operating into a station that prior to Crossrail was the UK's busiest station...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ordering 3+2 seating for the class 720s was not a mistake.

3+2 seating in a 24m body is a mistake as it's too narrow. If it was important, 20m vehicles with a minimum width of 2.8m should have been specified.

 

[NCT]

The suggestion that, pre-pandemic, 3+2 seating trains could have been replaced by 2+2 seating trains would have been regarded as bonkers.

The 3+2 seating was specified to DfT's old rule of no standing for more than 20 minutes. Policy was already shifting as Thameslink went for 'standing comfortably', it was just that that policy shift hadn't made it to GA at the time.

 

[dk1]

The 3+2 seating was specified to DfT's old rule of no standing for more than 20 minutes. Policy was already shifting as Thameslink went for 'standing comfortably', it was just that that policy shift hadn't made it to GA at the time.

Beat me to it. All to do with meeting and excessing the seating capacity into London pre-pandemic.

 

[Instinct04]

The suggestion that, pre-pandemic, 3+2 seating trains could have been replaced by 2+2 seating trains would have been regarded as bonkers.

This is completely wrong.

You and I both know that each of these routes, the WAML are absolutely full. Fine.

In order to maximise capacity, you need trains that have a 2+2 seating layout. GA operate a large range of services from metro, outer suburban all the way to mid/long distance services with the 720s.

The 3+2 seating layout does not work. All it does is congest passengers to the doorways, and nobody is able to down the train.

This actually makes travelling in 5 carriage trains very unpleasant, especially during peak times. This is made worse by the fact that the 720s do not have end gangways, like I stated above. This in turn is made worse by the fact that GA have a plethora of stations with short platforms on their routes.

Lack of end gangways mean people cannot travel from one end of the train to the other easily. So couple narrow aisles with no end gangways in units, and you have trains that cannot spread passenger loads evenly throughout trains.

GA’s 720s could hold more people if they were 2+2. This way you could swallow up even more passengers without needing more train paths, or even lengthening.

The class 720 seats are more comfortable than those in class 745/755, they have power sockets, and the airline seats have flip up tables.

This just isn’t true. The class 745s are favoured among many passengers, as has been demonstrated to you by several members on this forum who have stated they would rather take a 745 than a 720.

The 745s not only have more comfortable seating, but have smoother ride quality and boast a 2+2 seating layout throughout. They have more luggage racks, and have level boarding (rare for trains in the UK)

In fact, I would even go as far as to say that, the fact you would prefer to ride a 720 over a 745, is actually bonkers to me.

 

[William3000]

I'd suggest any 720 user rides on a 730/2, it is most of what you suggest (though window alignment is a bit off and there aren't many bays, as per the preferences of commuters who prefer privacy generally). The density of the centre sections is a bit high though, I'd agree it'd be bob on if it was 10 rows aligned with the windows, but I seem to recall it's 11. Not surprising they have done this, though, as the Class 350 makes the same error (apart from the /2 which is window aligned on the 3 side).

For high density the narrow 2+2 (1+1 near the vestibules for more standing space) on the 730/0 is probably better, they are proper people eaters, a short formed 3 car 730/0 is far better than a short formed 4 car 350 for example. I don't think I've seen a more effective metro/suburban layout yet, it really does work, though TBH I'd swap the seats for the 450mm variant (they're the 435mm which is a bit narrow) and space them an inch from the wall (basically as per the Class 700), it'd be a bit nicer without massively affecting aisle width.

Either way the 3+2 layout in the 720 is a massive mistake.

What lines do the 730s run?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2026 ==

The 3+2 seating was specified to DfT's old rule of no standing for more than 20 minutes. Policy was already shifting as Thameslink went for 'standing comfortably', it was just that that policy shift hadn't made it to GA at the time.

The GA trains are newer than the 2+2 on Thameslink 700s. In my view 3+2 should be abolished on all trains.

 

[rmHawk765]

Only downside is the cabs with the carriage connectors.

How is that a downside? All I can think of is not being able to use the shiny new 125mph MU WCML limits whatsoever but I doubt there'd be a major benefit. Keep in mind that the 720s are also 5 car and do not have gangways.

What lines do the 730s run?

West Coast Main Line and Birmingham (WMT) suburban services. However there is a different spec of interior for these, longer WCML journeys have the nicer 730/2s and suburban journeys have the 730/0s which are only 3-car and 90mph top speed (though they rather frequently end up in London!).

The GA trains are newer than the 2+2 on Thameslink 700s. In my view 3+2 should be abolished on all trains.

We should look at the 2+2 717s which replaced the 313s. The 313s also had 3+2 seating and the 717s were also ordered and even put into service pre-pandemic. Despite the ironing boards, they offered a huge improvement to services by alleviating the mass overcrowding that would happen with the 3+2, 2x3-coach 313s (or even worse, 1x3-coach in the middle of the peak), because these are metro units and half the train will be off in 20 minutes. And they (conveniently for comparison) also go to Hertford like GA does. While overcrowding is a bit of an issue again with the pre-COVID timetable still not having been fully restored, travelling to Hertford on a 717 is usually much nicer at peak in my experience, despite the fact that they are only 6-coach trains versus 10. I also regularly witness just how packed those trains can be at peak by Tottenham Hale and it doesn't make sense to have 3+2 when at least a quarter of those passengers are getting off at the suburban stations to/before Broxbourne.

What this shows, is that the 720s aren't inherently unsuitable, they're unsuitable for metro services. As for everything else GA operated by 720s, I'm not a GA lurker and I haven't really paid attention to how crowded those get. I do certainly know some people who will try to get a seat at any time - but the longer-distance 720 services are quite similar to what LNWR puts the 730/2s on, so the question arises again, because I don't really see anyone complaining about a lack of seats on those trains despite them being almost 700 levels of spacious. So is it really just that DfT rule?

 

[Magdalia]

This is completely wrong.

You and I both know that each of these routes, the WAML are absolutely full. Fine.

In order to maximise capacity, you need trains that have a 2+2 seating layout. GA operate a large range of services from metro, outer suburban all the way to mid/long distance services with the 720s.

The 3+2 seating layout does not work. All it does is congest passengers to the doorways, and nobody is able to down the train.

This actually makes travelling in 5 carriage trains very unpleasant, especially during peak times. This is made worse by the fact that the 720s do not have end gangways, like I stated above. This in turn is made worse by the fact that GA have a plethora of stations with short platforms on their routes.

Lack of end gangways mean people cannot travel from one end of the train to the other easily. So couple narrow aisles with no end gangways in units, and you have trains that cannot spread passenger loads evenly throughout trains.

GA’s 720s could hold more people if they were 2+2. This way you could swallow up even more passengers without needing more train paths, or even lengthening.

None of this makes ordering class 720s with 3+2 seating wrong.

Yes a 12 car class 700 carries more people than a 10 car class 720 but only by having most of them standing up. A 12 car class 700 only has 666 seats, compared to 1088 on a 10 car class 720. When the class 720s were ordered the feedback from commuter groups was they wanted to sit down not stand up.

The requirements for Liverpool Street trains and Thameslink are very different because the way that the trains load up and empty out is very different.

Seats not standing space was the prevailing view at the time.

This just isn’t true. The class 745s are favoured among many passengers, as has been demonstrated to you by several members on this forum who have stated they would rather take a 745 than a 720.


In fact, I would even go as far as to say that, the fact you would prefer to ride a 720 over a 745, is actually bonkers to me.

This isn't truth or fact, it is merely your opinion. My opinion is different. This forum is a very small and unrepresentative sample of passengers, and gives no indication of the preferences of most commuters, who are under-represented on this forum.

 

[Russel]

West Coast Main Line and Birmingham (WMT) suburban services. However there is a different spec of interior for these, longer WCML journeys have the nicer 730/2s and suburban journeys have the 730/0s which are only 3-car and 90mph top speed (though they rather frequently end up in London!).

Even the high capacity 730/0 interior is miles better than the 720 interior.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2026 ==

This isn't truth or fact, it is merely your opinion. My opinion is different. This forum is a very small and unrepresentative sample of passengers, and gives no indication of the preferences of most commuters, who are under-represented on this forum.

I spend a lot of time in Essex and from conversations I've had and overhead, the 720 is very much seen as the poor relation to the "Norwich trains".

Whichever way you look at it, the 720 interior has been a complete flop, I'm not sure what there is to defend.

 

[Instinct04]

None of this makes ordering class 720s with 3+2 seating wrong.

In hind sight, this was not a good decision to make at all. Evidenced by the fact that GA would need to alter the interior of the 720 in order for it to be better suited to airport traffic (still not as good as the 745s)

This isn't truth or fact, it is merely your opinion. My opinion is different. This forum is a very small and unrepresentative sample of passengers, and gives no indication of the preferences of most commuters, who are under-represented on this forum.

I kid you not, that, if a survey was to be held among GA passengers, that the majority of them would rather travel on a 745 than a 720.

Your opinion would be the least favoured one by far.

None of this makes ordering class 720s with 3+2 seating wrong.

The points that I made highlight just a few of the issues that GA are facing with their 720s. This makes for a very unpleasant passenger experience, it can even be dangerous in some circumstances.

In what world does this not make 720s with 3+2 seating wrong?

 

[jon0844]

When the class 720s were ordered the feedback from commuter groups was they wanted to sit down not stand up.

I think that would be the answer from anyone surveyed. Were they also asked about fares and said they wanted to pay less? Why didn't that get taken onboard?

The problem with putting in more seats, beyond all the examples already given, is that it might benefit those boarding at a distant station and staying on for the whole trip (they don't need to move around if the train was empty or near empty when they boarded, nor fight to get off at an intermediate stop) but it 'hurts' other passengers.

Plus outside of the peaks, or going against the flow in the peaks, you suffer all the other issues even though there are plenty of seats.

That's why the 700s and other 2+2 trains work better, as the seat shortage is only for a relatively short time and even then, you'll likely be able to get a seat for part of your journey if it's more than 20-30 minutes.

I bet if the surveys had been thorough enough, it could have concluded that instead of putting in as many seats as possible, a better option would be more trains and running at a higher frequency. Of course that brings additional costs for managing a larger fleet, as well as the capacity of the line (which might need major upgrades) but I really don't think it was wise to just add seats because some people said so without being aware of the downsides.

I wonder what the outcome would be if a survey was carried out today to ask 720 users if they'd be happy to see some seating removed?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2026 ==

Whichever way you look at it, the 720 interior has been a complete flop, I'm not sure what there is to defend.

The aisles are simply too small due to the limited width of the coaches. Bombardier (at the time) probably should have refused to even offer a 3+2 configuration on that design. It must have become very apparent when the idea was just a 3D render.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The aisles are simply too small due to the limited width of the coaches. Bombardier (at the time) probably should have refused to even offer a 3+2 configuration on that design. It must have become very apparent when the idea was just a 3D render.

Realistically the minimum Standard seat width should be 45cm. 43.5cm seats are so narrow that three average males cannot sit together on a 3 without blocking the aisle because their shoulders are too wide.

This means 3+2 only works in 20m bodyshells, though curiously the Aventra uses the same narrow bodyshell for 20m vehicles as 24, which in my view makes the SWR ones look like proper toytown mini trains. The only exceptions are Class 323 and 165/166, which are 23m bodyshells but 2.8m wide with thin bodysides, which is unusual for that length but does mean they don't fit everywhere.

 

[Instinct04]

I think that would be the answer from anyone surveyed. Were they also asked about fares and said they wanted to pay less? Why didn't that get taken onboard?

The problem with putting in more seats, beyond all the examples already given, is that it might benefit those boarding at a distant station and staying on for the whole trip (they don't need to move around if the train was empty or near empty when they boarded, nor fight to get off at an intermediate stop) but it 'hurts' other passengers.

Plus outside of the peaks, or going against the flow in the peaks, you suffer all the other issues even though there are plenty of seats.

That's why the 700s and other 2+2 trains work better, as the seat shortage is only for a relatively short time and even then, you'll likely be able to get a seat for part of your journey if it's more than 20-30 minutes.

I agree with all of this, 100%.

I couldn’t have said this better myself.

The main issue I have with the 720s is that the aisles are too narrow. These are meant to be commuter trains. Commuter trains need to have room to hoover up as many people in the peaks as they can.

Even 10 coach 720 have a lot of seating capacity, they do not hoover people up as well as trains like the 700 etc.

 

[jon0844]

Realistically the minimum Standard seat width should be 45cm. 43.5cm seats are so narrow that three average males cannot sit together on a 3 without blocking the aisle because their shoulders are too wide.

This means 3+2 only works in 20m bodyshells, though curiously the Aventra uses the same narrow bodyshell for 20m vehicles as 24, which in my view makes the SWR ones look like proper toytown mini trains.

Agreed, and perhaps these weren't the best trains for their intended purpose full stop.