[Wyvern]

I think the poor positioning of windows relatrive to seats is what makes many trains so claustrophobic.

I find I can never get my knees into airline seats easily and I'm not particularly tall.

[aspierail]

To me windows are vital and i would rather look at them and admire the view outside then look at other passengers who are on the phone or listening to their ipods.

[LE Greys]

Originally Posted by aspierail

To me windows are vital and i would rather look at them and admire the view outside then look at other passengers who are on the phone or listening to their ipods.

Could be worse, I've had to sit in the aisle seat on flights where someone has spent the whole time in the window seat reading his Daily Telegraph completely blocking the window. (Good thing I don't get air-sick.) At least with trains, even Pendys, you can just about see out of the other side.

[lookingforit35]

The 395s on HS1 have some pretty poorly thought out arrangements.

Turn right on boarding and luggage racks are positioned in front of windows near to the doors. Yet if you turn left, the completely blank side panels where the sliding doors open have seating bays (airline style) with zero views out - pic below. Hmmmm, loss of logic there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cl...O_Interior.JPG

[tbtc]

Originally Posted by 87015

Watch an IC set filling up at Euston, Padd, Kings X or wherever- the window/table seats will fill up far more quickly than the airline/plastics, almost always. Some minority it seems.

True, a seat with a good view is more popular than a seat with a poor view, but then a window seat is generally more popular than an aisle seat.

The question is how important a good view is. Most people travel to get from A to B, simple as that. Whilst enthusiasts are often leisure passengers, most people on trains are there because they have to be.

Would people trade a better view for a rubbish view if it meant 10% more chance of a seat? 5%? 15%? Dunno. There is a trade off though.

This applies to all modern stock though - the thing is that only certain classes get criticism for the fact that their windows and seats don't line up.

[jonmorris0844]

Originally Posted by RichmondCommu

In my experience the vast majority of passengers are far more interested in; their newspapers, books, Kindles, laptops, tablets, smart phones et al rather than whats going on outside.

Yup, by the time I've taken all of these out of my rucksack there's no way I'm going to see if I've got a window or not.

Originally Posted by dubscottie

Ireland has done it.. I book a window seat, I get a window.

That couldn't work here. If you booked a seat with a window on a Pendolino, I doubt the driver would be willing to give it up.

[4SRKT]

Originally Posted by VP185

Size of the windows are important in terms of crashworthiness.
In the case of the Pendolino, the smaller window, wider window pillars give the vehicles an impressive amount of strength.

Of course. A 'no window, 100% pillar ratio' would give even better strength. I depends where you want to draw the line between 100% safety (i. no windows) and real life IMHO.

Funny how this doesn't seem to apply in class 395s, which are more recently built yet have bigger windows than Pendos, despite both being 140mph units. Common sense winning out over bullsh*t? I *really really* hope so.

[tbtc]

Originally Posted by 4SRKT

Funny how this doesn't seem to apply in class 395s, which are more recently built yet have bigger windows than Pendos, despite both being 140mph units. Common sense winning out over bullsh*t? I *really really* hope so.

Presumably the tilting 390s have stricter requirements?

[trivran]

315s have really **** positioned seats for windows.

[bronzeonion]

All MK3 based EMU's have really badly positioned seats, then the Networkers came along where someone actually thought out that seating layout!

[starrymarkb]

Originally Posted by 4SRKT

Of course. A 'no window, 100% pillar ratio' would give even better strength. I depends where you want to draw the line between 100% safety (i. no windows) and real life IMHO.

Funny how this doesn't seem to apply in class 395s, which are more recently built yet have bigger windows than Pendos, despite both being 140mph units. Common sense winning out over bullsh*t? I *really really* hope so.

There is no regulation for window size, there is a overall body strength requirement, and different manufacturers have different ways of meeting that ie Siemens use the standard German method of making everything thicker and heavier (much like the older pre 1990s Mercedes), Fiat (who designed the 1990s model Pendolino that the UK one is based on) meanwhile have been more creative with their engineering.

UK and Older European Pendolinos have a structure with spars running the length of the coach, there are spars above and below the windows. This gives the coaches immense strength for their weight. Roger Ford calculated that a 26m hauled coach based on the Pendolino would be similar in weight per seat to the Mk3! The New Alstom designed Europendos (from about 2010 onwards) have much larger windows so presumably there has been a change in construction methods.

[michael769]

Windows do not have to be a source of weakness. Glass is actually stronger than steel when under compression and it is perfectly possible to construct windows in a way that they contribute to the structural strength of a vehicles.

Modern cars are a good example of this, where the windscreen forms a critical component in the vehicle's rollover protection.

[All Line Rover]

395's don't tilt, and after having travelled on one again yesterday, I consider the window alignment to be just as poorly designed as Pendolinos and Voyagers.