Advantages and disadvantages of 3+2 seating

[BenS123]

I was wondering if 3+2 seating actually added more capacity bearing in mind a lot of people do not seem to use the middle seat in a bay of 3. Is there any reason, other than winning franchises, that TOCs have this style of seating and are there any examples of services that need this seating that do not have it or services that do have this seating which should have 2+2?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Capacity in high density stock, seemed to work well in slam door trains with curved sides and less well on modern straight sided trains

 

[Huntergreed]

I was wondering if 3+2 seating actually added more capacity bearing in mind a lot of people do not seem to use the middle seat in a bay of 3. Is there any reason, other than winning franchises, that TOCs have this style of seating and are there any examples of services that need this seating that do not have it or services that do have this seating which should have 2+2?

Any service which has 3+2 seating!

The obvious answer is that it results in a seating capacity increase of 25% compared to 2+2 seating, however the comfort you sacrifice to achieve that isn’t, in my view, worth it (and I’ve rarely ever seen all 6 seats taken, the middle seats are often empty).

Replacing 3+2 with 2+2 seating does result in a seating capacity loss of 20%, however it allows for a good deal more room in the saloon for both standing and sitting and I find the layout much more comfortable.

I would personally rather stand than spend a long period of time sitting in the middle seat in a bay of 6 with 5 strangers (especially as the 2+3 layout often has no tables)

Admittedly this only takes into account commuting purposes and solo travel - groups and families who are not parties of 4 may understandably prefer 3+2.

 

[Kite159]

I find Groups & families like the bay seating, especially on a 350 as those are mostly airline seating, so they can sit together.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I find Groups & families like the bay seating, especially on a 350 as those are mostly airline seating, so they can sit together.

I would echo this. Families and groups prefer 350/2s over /1s etc because they like to sit together. Given that kids don't take up a full seat width, a bay of 6 is the closest railway equivalent to the family car or a European style compartment, and so is quite popular. Commuters prefer /1s (2+2 mostly airline seats) because they are normally alone and not in groups.

The other advantage is that with 3+2 you can have 3 across before anyone has to sit directly next to anyone, whereas with 2+2 you can only have 2 across (assuming everyone is travelling alone).

I actually think there should be some areas on long distance trains with a 3+1 layout, which would offer the same advantages without being really narrow. SNCF's Ouigo TGVs have some of this, though only because of the offset position of the sunken aisle in the former first class coaches, not for good design. The middle seat would be rubbish if travelling alone, but only in a packed train full of people travelling alone would a single traveller end up there.

 

[BenS123]

Personally I'm not going to my upcoming journey between Southampton Central and Cardiff Central on a 165/166 with 3+2 but oh well, just hoping for a 158!

The other advantage is that with 3+2 you can have 3 across before anyone has to sit directly next to anyone, whereas with 2+2 you can only have 1 across (assuming everyone is travelling alone).

I actually think there should be some areas on long distance trains with a 3+1 layout, which would offer the same advantages without being really narrow. SNCF's Ouigo TGVs have some of this, though only because of the offset position of the sunken aisle in the former first class coaches, not for good design.

That's a really good point actually - I also agree with the 3+1 layout as it would suit families of 3 well as well as solo travellers

 

[Bletchleyite]

I did of course mean "you can only have 2 across", I've edited my post

 

[physics34]

3x2 advantages:
capacity numbers look good on paper. Thats it.

Disadvanges, both seats and aisle too narrow.

As another poster said, mk1/2 stock certainly seems a tad wider so it doesnt seem to bad on them

 

[Horizon22]

I've never been a fan of 3+2 seating. Whilst theoretically high on capacity, the number of times, even with high loadings I've seen both middle seats facing each other being used is rare - the personal space lost is significant and many just prefer to stand especially if its less than a 30 minute journey. It also seriously comprises standing room in aisles and ability of people to move in. It is telling that newer stock meant for the London & SE commuter base has tended to move away from this (GA class 720 as a notable outlier) If the whole point of 3+2 is to increase capacity, it is better to do so with standing availability so you might as well just stick with 2+2 which is more suitable for the off-peak anyway.

 

[Snow1964]

Although I no longer commute, (I did for years from Norbiton or Kingston, into Waterloo) and middle seats were always full on rush hour trains.

There was severe unhappiness when SWT down-seated the 455s and converted to 2+2 seating, as the alternative was standing about 30 minutes. Doesn’t sound a lot but when you add time standing waiting for the train (lack of platform seats) and standing on a 15-20 tube journey to/from Waterloo it adds up.

But 3+2 can be cramped, but if the trains are not long enough for everyone to sit with just 2+2 seating then yes it is sensible.

Don’t be fooled by anyone saying there is more standing capacity with 2+2 because inevitably the aisle is not wide enough, or provided with grab handles for 2 rows of standees side by side. You invariably end up with just one row standing even after loosing the extra seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don’t be fooled by anyone saying there is more standing capacity with 2+2 because inevitably the aisle is not wide enough, or provided with grab handles for 2 rows of standees side by side. You invariably end up with just one row standing even after loosing the extra seats.

Have you ever been on a crush loaded 700?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I've never been a fan of 3+2 seating. Whilst theoretically high on capacity, the number of times, even with high loadings I've seen both middle seats facing each other being used is rare - the personal space lost is significant and many just prefer to stand especially if its less than a 30 minute journey. It also seriously comprises standing room in aisles and ability of people to move in. It is telling that newer stock meant for the London & SE commuter base has tended to move away from this (GA class 720 as a notable outlier) If the whole point of 3+2 is to increase capacity, it is better to do so with standing availability so you might as well just stick with 2+2 which is more suitable for the off-peak anyway.

The ideal layout for a regional train would be mostly 2+2, but with a few 3+2 (or 3+1) sections for groups and families. We have occasional threads about the possibility of family sections, so those areas (say half a coach length in a 4-car set) could serve that purpose too. DB have 2-car units with room for both 1st class and a family area. Sure, they have a bit more space to work with due to the more generous loading gauge, but it isn't that much more space.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The ideal layout for a regional train would be mostly 2+2, but with a few 3+2 (or 3+1) sections for groups and families. We have occasional threads about the possibility of family sections, so those areas (say half a coach length in a 4-car set) could serve that purpose too. DB have 2-car units with room for both 1st class and a family area. Sure, they have a bit more space to work with due to the more generous loading gauge, but it isn't that much more space.

Chiltern's 165s have sections of both, FWIW. I've also seen reports that the C2C 720s aren't quite the same as the GA ones and do have some more areas of 2+2 other than just the cab ends where the third seat would obstruct the cab door.

 

[Blindtraveler]

My Vue, if you want high density then you do a London Overground purple train tube style layout with lots of standing room, maybe some areas with wall mounted USB points and padded bits to lean against to encourage longer distance passengers to move down the train and 3 + 2 seating all together. On a regional service that might come into contact with heavy commuter loads of points you could maybe have a middle carriage of a 3 car unit dedicated to this layout with the two end cars being regional 2 + 2.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Chiltern's 165s have sections of both, FWIW.

I knew some units did, but couldn't remember if they had been changed, or which classes did. It's been a good while since I've been in those necks of the woods.

 

[lxfe_mxtterz]

Chiltern's 165s have sections of both, FWIW.

Don't some Class 377s also have sections of both? (Middle section 3+2, and end sections 2+2 with armrests)

 

[physics34]

Don't some Class 377s also have sections of both? (Middle section 3+2, and end sections 2+2 with armrests)

Yes. Very odd. The layout must have been designed by someone on the vodka at the time.

 

[Class360/1]

As other users have mentioned, families love 3+2 seating; commuters not so much.

One thing I would like to mention was when the TL class 319’s were replaced. According to passenger research about the new (at the time) class 700’s, most people preferred the ambience and extra spaces created by the 2+2 configuration, as opposed to the 319’s 2+3’s.

 

[Horizon22]

As other users have mentioned, families love 3+2 seating; commuters not so much.

One thing I would like to mention was when the TL class 319’s were replaced. According to passenger research about the new (at the time) class 700’s, most people preferred the ambience and extra spaces created by the 2+2 configuration, as opposed to the 319’s 2+3’s.

Yes I can see how sticking a kid in the middle between two parents would be a good use of space. Unfortunately rolling stock is fixed and cannot adapt depending on the day and time of the week (and is normally on the route for 20+ years and can't adapt to rail market changes) and therefore you'll have to benefit the main user, whomever that is (or is perceived) to be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't some Class 377s also have sections of both? (Middle section 3+2, and end sections 2+2 with armrests)

Yep, while others have 2+2 in the end vehicles and 3+2 in the middle vehicles (the idea of that I think being that they could vary the amount of First Class). Southern's Electrostars are rather a mixed bunch of layouts!

Yes I can see how sticking a kid in the middle between two parents would be a good use of space. Unfortunately rolling stock is fixed and cannot adapt depending on the day and time of the week (and is normally on the route for 20+ years and can't adapt to rail market changes) and therefore you'll have to benefit the main user, whomever that is (or is perceived) to be.

If the TOC has a mix of stock that can sometimes be achieved - for instance WMT might benefit from diagramming 350/2s onto the Crewes and through Birminghams at weekends (particularly Sundays) due to the very high amount of group leisure travel. In practice however it's just a "random unit generator", or seems that way.

 

[Horizon22]

Yep, while others have 2+2 in the end vehicles and 3+2 in the middle vehicles (the idea of that I think being that they could vary the amount of First Class). Southern's Electrostars are rather a mixed bunch of layouts!



If the TOC has a mix of stock that can sometimes be achieved - for instance WMT might benefit from diagramming 350/2s onto the Crewes and through Birminghams at weekends (particularly Sundays) due to the very high amount of group leisure travel. In practice however it's just a "random unit generator", or seems that way.

Having a variety of ranging stock (for the same route) is generally not a very efficient method though. Most operators should aim to standardise to have a "long-distance" (if applicable) stock, a regional / outer suburban stock, and metro stock (and probably another dependent on diesel only areas) and stick to it. Class /x can be used if there's some local factors. It's not as easy to be flexible, but I don't think there's an easy answer when what the average commuter wants compared to what the average leisure traveller wants. This can be somewhat problematic when aiming for complete standardisation and the nature of the travel changes mid-route (see Thameslink issues pleasing everyone with 700s on Eliazbeth Line and 345s on the GWML).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having a variety of ranging stock (for the same route) is generally not a very efficient method though. Most operators should aim to standardise to have a "long-distance" (if applicable) stock, a regional / outer suburban stock, and metro stock (and probably another dependent on diesel only areas) and stick to it. Class /x can be used if there's some local factors. It's not as easy to be flexible, but I don't think there's an easy answer when what the average commuter wants compared to what the average leisure traveller wants. This can be somewhat problematic when aiming for complete standardisation and the nature of the travel changes mid-route (see Thameslink issues pleasing everyone with 700s on Eliazbeth Line and 345s on the GWML).

The idea of the 350s is that /2s run the MK and Tring stoppers and the slower Birminghams and /1, /3 and /4 do the longer distance/faster stuff. However, they are just run as one pool, like a less varied version of Northern (West)'s classic random 142/15x generator. Ironically they'd be more use the other way round for the reasons noted above.

 

[MattRat]

3+2 works in theory, not in practice. Just try asking if you can sit next to someone on public transport. It may shock you.

 

[Magdalia]

I have done a huge amount of travelling on trains with 3+2 seating. First gen DMUs were mostly 3+2 and I've done a lot of commuting on EPBs, class 312s and class 317s.

On a standard 20m vehicle (or a 57' DMU) there's no problem width wise with 3+2 seating, though it is probably fair to say that there are more wide people now than there used to be.

But the class 720 demonstrates that the narrower body required for 23m stock, combined with 3+2 seating, makes the aisle too narrow.

What makes 3+2 a bad thing is when it is combined with cramped legroom. Compare a class 317 with a class 321 while you still have the chance. People won't sit cramped in a bay of 6 if the seats are so close together that their knees have to fit together like tines of a zip. If the seats are far enough apart so that someone seated by the window can get out without touching their fellow passengers, then everything is fine.

 

[gabrielhj07]

On a standard 20m vehicle (or a 57' DMU) there's no problem width wise with 3+2 seating, though it is probably fair to say that there are more wide people now than there used to be.

But the class 720 demonstrates that the narrower body required for 23m stock, combined with 3+2 seating, makes the aisle too narrow.

This is an interesting point. I find 450s to be considerably more spacious than 720s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What makes 3+2 a bad thing is when it is combined with cramped legroom. Compare a class 317 with a class 321 while you still have the chance. People won't sit cramped in a bay of 6 if the seats are so close together that their knees have to fit together like tines of a zip. If the seats are far enough apart so that someone seated by the window can get out without touching their fellow passengers, then everything is fine.

One thing going for the 350/2 is that the legroom in the bays is excellent, probably the best facing Standard class legroom in the country (other than the extra-legroom cab end tables on the /1s etc which are I think about the same). Thus no games of kneesie even if a tall person sits opposite a tall person.

This is an interesting point. I find 450s to be considerably more spacious than 720s.

720s are awful cattle trucks with a nice colour scheme. Narrow seats* and a lack of legroom. 450s and 350/2s at least have good legroom on the 3 side (bit tight on the 2 side as an extra row is crammed in).

It does appear the WCML is heading for a massive downgrade.

* In the 350s the seats are all the same width (though the ones in /1, /3 and /4 have bigger headrests), the 2+2 layout just adds armrests. The 720/730 ones appear to be narrower.

 

[gabrielhj07]

720s are awful cattle trucks with a nice colour scheme. Narrow seats and a lack of legroom. 450s and 350/2s at least have good legroom on the 3 side (bit tight on the 2 side as an extra row is crammed in).

At least the seats are somewhat more comfortable than the usual Fainsa. It's especially bad as there's no 2+2 section near the vestibules, as there is on many other units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At least the seats are somewhat more comfortable than the usual Fainsa.

I personally find them worse. They are curved the wrong way for my back and are VERY hard.

I found the 720 to be the most uncomfortable UK train I have ever experienced. And I tried a 717 on the way back for a comparison, definitely preferred that in every way bar the bland colour scheme.

It's especially bad as there's no 2+2 section near the vestibules, as there is on many other units.

And there are 3-side airline seats, only other place you get those is the utterly awful 150/2. The only decent bit is by the cabs, where there are 2 facing bays of 2+2 at each end because a third seat would block the door.

 

[gabrielhj07]

I tried a 717 on the way back for a comparison, definitely preferred that in every way

Doubt that has ever been said before!

And there are 3-side airline seats.

This is a particular catastrophe.

The 720s occupy a strange middle ground - not enough standing space for high-density commuting (eg. 700s), while having too cramped an environment for any longer journeys.

 

[Magdalia]

And there are 3-side airline seats.

First gen DMUs had these, though they weren't called that then. They were probably considered luxury compared to bench seats for 4 upstairs on lowbridge double decker buses.

The only decent bit is by the cabs, where there are 2 facing bays of 2+2 at each end because a third seat would block the door.

Thanks. I've made a mental note of that.