Should there be more innovative seating layouts in Standard?

[yorksrob]

I remember the MK1 EMUs on the GEML. I think that you will find the open seconds had 2+3 seating, which meant there was only room for one person standing between the seat ends holding up the high luggage racks. A fully loaded train had poor dwell times as those who wanted to alight often were the ones who couldn't get a seat and had to step over 8 or 12 interlaced feet to get to the doors. Then the reverse happened, - those boarding had to step over the same feet. There are a few here who regularly wax lyrical over the MK1 suburban EMUs (ER & SR), but compared to sliding door stock, they were pretty poor in busy service, especially as there were so many regulars who insisted in sitting right by the door in 'their' seat, even though they boarded at the origin of the run and alighted at the end.

I've not seen any evidence for poor dwell times for high density stock. Certainly nothing to suggest that trad high density stock was any worse than people trying to battle their way from the end of a crowded 150 carriage to the door for example (something I experience regularly).

 

[PeterC]

I remember the MK1 EMUs on the GEML. I think that you will find the open seconds had 2+3 seating, which meant there was only room for one person standing between the seat ends holding up the high luggage racks. A fully loaded train had poor dwell times as those who wanted to alight often were the ones who couldn't get a seat and had to step over 8 or 12 interlaced feet to get to the doors. Then the reverse happened, - those boarding had to step over the same feet. There are a few here who regularly wax lyrical over the MK1 suburban EMUs (ER & SR), but compared to sliding door stock, they were pretty poor in busy service, especially as there were so many regulars who insisted in sitting right by the door in 'their' seat, even though they boarded at the origin of the run and alighted at the end.

Yes 3+2 not 2+2, a senior moment on my part, I have memories of proping myself up between the seat backs and dozing from Shenfield to Liverpool Street

 

[AM9]

I've not seen any evidence for poor dwell times for high density stock. Certainly nothing to suggest that trad high density stock was any worse than people trying to battle their way from the end of a crowded 150 carriage to the door for example (something I experience regularly).

On the busy GEML, (even in the '70s), the Compartment EMUs were at the platform longer than the class 306 sliding door stock. By the time they stopped, most passengers wanting to get off were ready in or near the vestibule. On departure, the train was moving away as passengers were finding seats, so overall, the 1939 designed 306s with their slow pneumatic sliding doors moved more passengers than the 'Southend' stock.

 

[Alfie1014]

I remember the MK1 EMUs on the GEML. I think that you will find the open seconds had 2+3 seating, which meant there was only room for one person standing between the seat ends holding up the high luggage racks. A fully loaded train had poor dwell times as those who wanted to alight often were the ones who couldn't get a seat and had to step over 8 or 12 interlaced feet to get to the doors. Then the reverse happened, - those boarding had to step over the same feet. There are a few here who regularly wax lyrical over the MK1 suburban EMUs (ER & SR), but compared to sliding door stock, they were pretty poor in busy service, especially as there were so many regulars who insisted in sitting right by the door in 'their' seat, even though they boarded at the origin of the run and alighted at the end.

Agreed 2+3 in saloons, 6 a side in compos. Max I ever experienced on a few occasions was 12 sitting and 12 standing in a compo at times of serious disruption, not a nice experience but mostly short duration Fenchurch Street to Barking say.

 

[yorksrob]

On the busy GEML, (even in the '70s), the Compartment EMUs were at the platform longer than the class 306 sliding door stock. By the time they stopped, most passengers wanting to get off were ready in or near the vestibule. On departure, the train was moving away as passengers were finding seats, so overall, the 1939 designed 306s with their slow pneumatic sliding doors moved more passengers than the 'Southend' stock.

That only works if the sliding door stock isn't so full that people have to battle their way from the area away from the doors I'm afraid.

 

[option]

I've suggested this before and I am still a firm believer it should be trialled somewhere. It clearly separates groups from solo travellers and it's takes a 1/3 more people sitting before the train appears half full (sitting next to someone or standing), it wouldn't impact standing space, the aisle would be shifted over however.

I, however would expect maybe only ends of carriges to have this format or perhaps only 2 carriges on a 4 car unit similar to southerns different seating configurations in their older electrostars.

In all honesty, you would get many solo travellers opting for a bay of 6 rather than a single seat if they got on when the trains as empty but the premise of it still works in my opinion.

& thats the issue. It doesn't matter so much on local services, but once onto long-distance ones with luggage & catering trolleys the aisle is important.


You could put the 3+2 at the carriage ends, as you could move the position of the interior doors, so the 'kink' is only one way.
Put them round tables, & make them reservation compulsory.