Will British trains become too cramped for 2+2 seating?

[Bletchleyite]

People have talked about the absolute hellhole that is a 720. The actual seats are fine (not good- just fine) for what they're used for - but the 'horizontal pitch' is terrible. Get rid of the 3rd seat, put in slight spacers to move them away from the wall and each other and the 720 would be a decent enough train IMO.

That's in essence what the 730/2 is, though with armrests. It is fairly decent, yes, and is still a veritable people eater. A 5 car 730/2 is hugely more useful than a 4 car 350, while a 10 car is hugely capacious.

 

[renegademaster]

The 377s don't feel cramped at all, even in the 3 by 2 sections.

 

[Mikey C]

I guess the difference between trains and planes, is that a lot of the time the middle seats of the "3" aren't needed. It's only for small parts of the day when they are actually used, but they do allow extra people to sit down for a few minutes.

On a long haul flight, with 95%+ seat occupancy, there's a strong chance that they will all be filled, and for an 8-14 hour journey

 

[Bletchleyite]

I guess the difference between trains and planes, is that a lot of the time the middle seats of the "3" aren't needed. It's only for small parts of the day when they are actually used, but they do allow extra people to sit down for a few minutes.

One of the few upsides of 3+2 is that it's actually fairly comfortable at 2+1 occupancy if everyone is travelling alone, whereas if it's 2+2 it starts to feel crowded at 50% occupancy. Particularly if the seats are bench style as per original Pacers or the old London Underground A stock.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2026 ==

Moving this in here as it seems a better fit.

3+2 trains just don't hold 3 people in a row of 3. They're bad enough for 3 in a bay of 6, especially on 720s. Being tall (not exceptionally but above average), sitting opposite someone on a 720 requires me to sit at an angle. Fitting 6 people in a bay is a ridiculous concept.

720s are just horrible. The wider 3+2 with first class spacing in 350/2s is another world, and those bays were often popular with the likes of family and friend groups, with airline seating on the 2 side for those who preferred that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2026 ==

I think 3+2 might be more acceptable if the lines of 3 were airline and not facing. I've never seen this though: is there some problem I haven't thought of?

Considerable decrease in capacity, probably.

Airline seats take up less space than facing because space isn't wasted between seat backs.

The reason is access - the aisle is too narrow for two people to easily get up and move out of the way to let the window passenger out.

It does exist, though, in horrible cattle wagons like a couple of rows in 720s and in the absolute abomination that is the Class 150/2.

 

[RailWonderer]

It does exist, though, in horrible cattle wagons like a couple of rows in 720s and in the absolute abomination that is the Class 150/2.

In the 2000s, Northern needed far more capacity without being allowed to order new trains, so the densifying was a situation that won't repeat itself for a while. 720s operate the country's busiest commuter line and are also popular with families and the middle seat is used in the morning into London, I've seen broad shouldered men squeeze in. I'm not defending them but they're full and standing in almost every coach midwek into Liverpool St.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the 2000s, Northern needed far more capacity without being allowed to order new trains, so the densifying was a situation that won't repeat itself for a while.

The 150/2s were not densified. That's the layout they were built with. Only the /1s had the facing layout. I think the prototype /0s were one of each.

720s operate the country's busiest commuter line and are also popular with families and the middle seat is used in the morning into London, I've seen broad shouldered men squeeze in. I'm not defending them but they're full and standing in almost every coach midwek into Liverpool St.

They'd have been less of a problem if they were 20m vehicles 2.82m wide, as they could have been. The primary problem with them is that 3+2 doesn't work in the narrow body of longer vehicles.

 

[RailWonderer]

The 150/2s were not densified. That's the layout they were built with. Only the /1s had the facing layout. I think the prototype /0s were one of each.

That's right, I was thinking of the /1s, which some of GA's 317s stayed in that interior all the way until the end (albeit with GA seat covers).

Class 150 Interior

Interior of Kidderminster- bound Sprinter unit 150115 (likely car 52115 but not noted at the time), August 1987.

www.flickr.com

and after

File:150120 Interior.JPG - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

They'd have been less of a problem if they were 20m vehicles 2.82m wide, as they could have been. The primary problem with them is that 3+2 doesn't work in the narrow body of longer vehicles.

That was the biggest mistake.

 

[HSTEd]

Does 3+2 all bays really provide more seating than 2+2 airline?

It would seem to be a case of robbing peter to pay paul.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does 3+2 all bays really provide more seating than 2+2 airline?

It would seem to be a case of robbing peter to pay paul.

The Class 350 should tell you that as it gives you that exact comparison.

According to this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/350-2-seating-capacity.119013/

235 in a /1, 267 in a /2.

I think if you reduced the number of tables per vehicle by 1 you might get 2 more seats per vehicle in, but that's still only 243 vs 267.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2026 ==

That's right, I was thinking of the /1s, which some of GA's 317s stayed in that interior all the way until the end (albeit with GA seat covers).

The /1s weren't densified by Northern (or predecessors) either, they retained the original layout and still have it now. The refurbs around 2000ish just swapped from the original seats to Chapmans, no change was made to the layout (which meant the /2s got even worse legroom than originally as Chapmans are quite thick). Rejigging the layout was put in the "too hard" bucket because there's a lot of above-floor heating kit and the likes.

Now you've shown the pic of 120, I seem to recall some of the /1s were built with the /2 layout, that must be one of them. Thinking back these will have been (at least partly) the ones that were operated by Silverlink Metro as I do recall the original Marston Vale sets having an airline layout - but the ones we have now are all-facing.

Edit: this picture in Wiki (of the interior of a Northern 150 post refurb showing a mostly airline seated layout) shows that 118 also has the /2 layout: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_150#/media/File:150118_interior.jpg

Was it perhaps the West Midlands or ScotRail that specced the all-airline layout from build? Though "denser" is maybe an odd way to put it as that layout only actually added I think 4 seats per vehicle, the 4 side-facing ones by the doors.

 

[supervc-10]

That's in essence what the 730/2 is, though with armrests. It is fairly decent, yes, and is still a veritable people eater. A 5 car 730/2 is hugely more useful than a 4 car 350, while a 10 car is hugely capacious.

I've not yet been on a 730/2, only a /0. That was also better than the 720, as it doesn't have the extra seat, but does have 700 style pairs squished towards the wall.
Thankfully there were only about 10 people in each carriage, and I was only on it for a very short time!

Looking online at pics of the /2 - that is what GA should have ordered.