Suitable suburban seat layouts

[GospelOak117]

I have always hated Longitudinal seating on the underground and now its made its way onto the Main Lines in the 378's. The few times I have travelled on 378's has been for short 3 or 4-station hops, but even in that time I feel incredibly uncomfortable with the layout and end up tipping down a folding seat to sit sideways so I can look out of the window. Not to mention there is the huge lack of seats in general. This also seems to be the case with new 2+2 formations in the capital, I often have to stand or perch on a 376 whereas if a 465 turns up I'm guaranteed a seat.

Personally I'm sad to see the old 2+3 formation gradually disappearing as I find it by far the most comfortable and appropriate although I understand standing space needs to be increased on some lines to squeeze as many people in as possible during peaks, but at the huge price of any comfort at other times. I feel very sorry for the people living far out on the Met who are losing their A-stock for S stock with a majority of hard little longitudinal seats. Cant wait:roll: lol

Having travelled all over London on many occasions trying out all the Suburban EMU types I firmly believe the most pleasing to be the 465's.
What does anyone think about the subject? is there anyone else in favour of 2+3!? And what do people think is the best inner suburban EMU to travel on?

Thanks

 

[gordonthemoron]

2+3 seating is rubbish as it generally only seats 3 or at best 4 people per five seats

 

[jopsuk]

One of the things with 2+3 versus 2+2 is that even if busy, and comparing the exact same individual seat width, people are often reluctant to sit in the middle seat of the 3- the personal space offered is just so small.

 

[ainsworth74]

Have to say I prefer 2+2 as I think it gives the best balance between seating and standing capacity. Also as jopsuk says you often still find wasted capacity with people not wanting to sit in the middle of the 3.

 

[MCR247]

The thing with 3+2 is less people can stand and people don't like sitting in the middle. I

I prefer 2+2

 

[ushawk]

I prefer 2+2 and i think thats better for suburban services as already said, the middle seat is wasted as no one wants to sit there.

Longitudinal seating however shouldnt be on mainline services ever IMO.

 

[Fincra5]

2+2 is far better, giving more flexability for use on all kinds of routes. Peak offers more standing space (which is very needed), trains feel less cramped and they are altogher more comfortable to travel on Off-Peak

 

[thelem]

Agree with what everyone else has said about 2+2. Even wide aisle 2+2 (i.e. using seats that could be used for 3+2) is more comfortable than 3+2. Plus, in the rare occasions that all 5 seats are used, you often find that the aisle is almost completely blocked because people haven't been able to fit in their intended seat space.

Another disadvantage of 3+2 is that you can't bring a trolley though, even when nobody is standing.

 

[swt_passenger]

Another disadvantage of 3+2 is that you can't bring a trolley though, even when nobody is standing.

Not true.

SN and SWT (that I know of) routinely have a trolley service on trains with 2+3 seating. And yes they do move through the train. There may be more, such as LM with their 350/2s...

 

[yorksrob]

Another disadvantage of 3+2 is that you can't bring a trolley though, even when nobody is standing.

I've seen the trolley come through plenty of times on VEP's

I'm going to disagree with most and say that whilst 2+2 is indeed more comfortable if sitting, I find this not to be the case if I'm the one left standing. Personally, I'm more likely to wedge myself between people than stand. Also 3 seats either side of a bay can cope with groups of five or six as well as fewer. That said, 3+2 should never be used with airline seating.

 

[Vulcan]

Those new things Transport for London have for the overgrund are pretty good, seats along the sides, and loads of space for luggage, bikes and buggies.

 

[WatcherZero]

Problem I find with 3+2 is you cant squeeze past people while standing, everyone has to move further down or back towards the doors to make way for those boarding/alighting. No one ever sits in the middle seats either unless its a morning or evening peak commuter where people dont seem to mind as much and want a seat more.

 

[prod_pep]

I'm in favour of 2+3 on inner suburban services provided there is ample space to move through the carriage. I think Southern have got it right with their 455 interior layout - wasn't the decision to retain the 2+3 there partly in response to passenger comments?

2+2 is best for outer suburban duties I think, but the less said about longitudinal the better. The 378s have awful seating, completely unsatisfactory.

 

[Drsatan]

I'm in favour of 2+3 on inner suburban services provided there is ample space to move through the carriage. I think Southern have got it right with their 455 interior layout - wasn't the decision to retain the 2+3 there partly in response to passenger comments?

2+2 is best for outer suburban duties I think, but the less said about longitudinal the better. The 378s have awful seating, completely unsatisfactory.

That's unusual, I remember a spokesman for SWT stating that they changed the seating layout from 2+3 to 2+2 when their 455s were being refurbished because passengers didn't like sitting in the middle seat!

The 378s seating layout disregards the needs of elderly passengers or passengers with lots of luggage who might like a seat!

 

[W-on-Sea]

Longitudinial seating is never ideal, but having experienced too often the gross overcrowding that the NLL used to suffer in the peaks, I think it does make sense on that line, just as it does on the Circle & Hammersmith & City lines on the tube too. (Again, recalling what the C stocks there were like when they had their original transverse seating supports this case). But certainly no good for longer journeys...

Of course 2+2 is nicer, in all ways. Wider seats, AND less cramped. But sometimes I think 3+2 is the most practical option. Then there's the question of the balance between "airplane" seats, seats facing one another, and table seats. Here in c2c land I think the 357s - used on a very densely trafficked route in peak hours, with 12-carriage trains full and standing - manage admirably (with a high proportion of airplane seats. Which would obviously be less desirable on a more "leisure orientated" route. (I guess FGW did something similar, albeit 2+2 on their "commuter" HST sets for the Oxford run)

But the 357 layout seems immeasurably better than that of the NXEA 321s, which are also 3+2, but almost entirely facing one another, really not making the best use of seating space, without creating any significant amount of space for standees either! Which may well make them prone to being changed to 2+2 to create some standing space, as happened with some of the Thameslink 319s that had a broadly similar layout (if with, amazingly, slightly more comfortable seats)

I suppose in some ways I'd prefer to go back to compartments (more the type with a corridor down one side than the entirely enclosed compartments with six seats along each side, as on the 302s or some Southern EMUs), but again from a practical point of view they are less than ideal. The thing is, each route has its own specific requirements, and it's better that stock is used that suits the particular demands of the route that it is used on.

 

[route101]

The 378s make you feel like your in an underground
.

 

[moonrakerz]

Longitudinial seating is never ideal,

I think the Hong Kong Metro proves that. The seats are nice shiny stainless steel; as the train accelerates away from the station everyone slides towards the rear of their coach, when the train brakes for the next stop everyone slides, more rapidly, to the front.
I suppose it does make seats available for joining passengers !

 

[Greenback]

I don't particularly like longitudinal seating or the 2+3 layouts, but I can see that they are a necessary evil for short metro type journeys in order to provide more. In that sense they are a positive boon on such things as rush hour Central line trains at Holborn!

I haven't been out as far as Riockmansworth and Amersham, but I think that may be a little bit far for longitudinal seating. Are these services jam packed in the peaks?

 

[sprinterguy]

I like 3+2 seating for commuter services, it gives more people the opportunity of getting a seat as opposed to standing. However, as others have said, is that in airline formation one of its’ pitfalls is that passengers are reluctant to use the middle seat, so 3+2 works best with facing bays, where the middle seat seems to be better utilised.

Overall, it depends just how overcrowded the commuter services are. 3+2 seating is best where the trains are full but not crush-loaded, but it would be better to provide as much standing space as possible on routes where peak trains are absolutely rammed. In fulfilling the latter role, I think the Tyne and Wear Metro does very well. Seating is fairly low density 2+2 all in facing bays, with a small amount of longitudinal seating towards the centre. This gives wide aisles and loads of standing room. I don’t mind longitudinal seating in the form of bus-style benches. I actually quite like it on the Pacers, but I’d hate to be on a train that comprised solely longitudinal seating for any length of time.

 

[Lee_Again]

I live in Stevenage and for me the 365's offer the best layout of any commuter train. 2+2 is the general layout and the balance between airline style and bays is just right.

The odd time I travel 1st Class the tables are a bonus but even here, airline style is available should you prefer it. And with 1st being at both ends there is no running the length of the train when it arrives and you find yourself at the wrong end (321's).

Even the windows are large and almost without exception you get a view as opposed to a pillar.

 

[Chz]

I'm not sure what the measurements are, but it definitely *feels* like Southern's 455s have a bit more space in their 3+2 sections than the 377s do. I get a 377 in the morning and a 455 back in the evening and the 377 definitely feels a bit more cramped in some way.

That said, I've nothing against 3+2. You won't find any empty seats on my commute - whatever less space there is on the 377s cramps the walkway, rather than the seats themselves. And having used the Willesden shuttle many times over the years, the longitudinal seating there is a godsend.

 

[ushawk]

Agreed, 455s suit suburban routes better and there is more space to stand in them.

Longitudinal seating does work on the West London line as i know that line does get very busy at peak time. Longitudinal should only be on short routes, not the Watford DC line though.