Are airline style seats the way forward?

[KC1]

Moderator note split from:

Southern Class 313 twilight

Probably a bit premature for a "313 withdrawal thread" but with further reductions in the Southern timetable (from 15th May), e.g. withdrawal of the Brighton - West Worthing stoppers and Hove/Lewes shuttles, will units be placed into warm store or just rotated to keep them serviceable?

www.railforums.co.uk

ah OK - I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying.

But since I strongly dislike airline style seating and is a recipe for no personal space, forward view or leg room I favour seating bays and always avoid uni directional seating. But obv for cleanliness issues re feet on seats you have a point. I'd favour a merseyrail style zero tolerance approach instead.

But the filth is not esp on the seats it is
- ingrained hair grease on headrests
- dirty window interiors
- tired and dirty carpets (why ever have carpets on short distance metro trains - or any trains for that matter...)
- grubby wall panels not wiped clear regularly

They just seem to have a very poor interior cleaning regime, and absence of necessary heavy periodic interior cleans.

Feet on seats just part of the problem.

Airline style seats should be the way forward.

 

[03_179]

Airline seats are bad on stock.
My wife suffers with travel sickness and if she has to go backwards it is hell for her. If all facing ones are taken then it's not a good journey.

Airline seats are restrictive. They never line up with windows properly.

 

[WesternLancer]

Airline style seats should be the way forward.

and they are simply not the way forward if they face backwards

In fact I hate them, avoid them on trains and if forced to use them I'd not bother with a lot of the train travel I do which is mostly discretionary anyway - as I have a comfy car.

The point about a train is you can have a mix if you design things well (something low down the list on UK trains of course)

 

[jackot]

The point about a train is you can have a mix if you design things well (something low down the list on UK trains of course)

Yes, I think having a good mix of both is the best solution really. I would prefer a facing table seat on a quieter train, but would rather have my own airline style seat (and a spare seat next to me) than have to sit on a crowded bay of 4 or 6. There are extremes when it comes to seat configuration on both sides of the argument, with lots of Mk3 stock (e.g. Chiltern) with hardly any airline style, whilst many voyagers have barely any facing table seats at all - very poor choice for a train used mostly by larger groups of leisure travellers.

I think we should be looking for a better mix, rather than picking one extreme or the other. I find the earlier 377s put the balance right, with plenty of table bays between the doors, with more airline style between the doors and the gangway. They also have an even split of seating directions, regardless of which way the train is moving.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Yes, I think having a good mix of both is the best solution really. I would prefer a facing table seat on a quieter train, but would rather have my own airline style seat (and a spare seat next to me) than have to sit on a crowded bay of 4 or 6. There are extremes when it comes to seat configuration on both sides of the argument, with lots of Mk3 stock (e.g. Chiltern) with hardly any airline style, whilst many voyagers have barely any facing table seats at all - very poor choice for a train used mostly by larger groups of leisure travellers.

This is just pure hype used to try and bolster your argument. The reality is that the majority of rail passengers are travelling alone and most of those would far rather have an airline seat than have to share a table with up to 3 strangers. So while I agree a mix of seating types is preferable it would be better to accept that the demand for facing table seats is actually quite low. As such the current balance across the national fleet is reasonable if not perfect.

 

[NoRoute]

I would change the seat covering materials, the use of soft fabrics which easily become dirty and are hard to clean would appear to be an obviously flawed choice for the rough and heavy duty life of train seating, particularly for areas like arms and head-rests. Some of the European trains use a vinyl, leather-like material which can at least be wiped down and cleaned, more suitable to long term use. You see the same in most airplanes. That seems like a simple and rather obvious improvement.

 

[JonathanH]

Some of the European trains use a vinyl, leather-like material which can at least be wiped down and cleaned, more suitable to long term use. You see the same in most airplanes. That seems like a simple and rather obvious improvement.

It would be absolutely horrendous. Firstly it looks uninviting, secondly it looks cheap and it tarnishes just as much as any other seat covering as it gets shiny and then starts to wear out.

No thanks.

 

[NoRoute]

It would be absolutely horrendous. Firstly it looks uninviting, secondly it looks cheap and it tarnishes just as much as any other seat covering as it gets shiny and then starts to wear out.

No thanks.

It's the standard material on many airline seats and people don't mind, it is far more appealing than the typical soft railway fabric seat bearing the imprint and accumulated sweat and dirt from tens of thousands of passengers. The dirt and grease on the typical railway headrest doesn't bear thinking about...

As for looking cheap, generally leather seating is the premium product, in cars, cinemas, desk chairs etc. Fabric seating is the budget choice.

 

[jackot]

This is just pure hype used to try and bolster your argument. The reality is that the majority of rail passengers are travelling alone and most of those would far rather have an airline seat than have to share a table with up to 3 strangers.

I realise the majority of rail passengers are travelling alone, and I for one think airline seats are a good idea and should make up most of a trains' seats, especially one doing mostly commuter work. However, I feel a train like a Class 220 should have more than 2 bays of 4 per carriages (as shown in the attached seating plan), as Crosscountry undeniably have a vast proportion of leisure and group passengers compared to other TOCs. I'm not suggesting the whole train should have tables, but maybe 4 per carriage instead.

As such the current balance across the national fleet is reasonable if not perfect.

I wouldn't say this is the case, as different units can vary dramatically from almost zero tables to almost all tables, as I was highlighting in my first post.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's the standard material on many airline seats and people don't mind, it is far more appealing than the typical soft railway fabric seat bearing the imprint and accumulated sweat and dirt from tens of thousands of passengers. The dirt and grease on the typical railway headrest doesn't bear thinking about...

I don't like sticky leatherette seats, but a leatherette headrest on a moquette seat both avoids that problem and looks classy, so this would be my preference.

As for airline vs table I would go half and half. The original Class 158 layout is a good one.

 

[gg1]

Airline seats are bad on stock.
My wife suffers with travel sickness and if she has to go backwards it is hell for her. If all facing ones are taken then it's not a good journey.

That's not really an airline seat issue though.

As long as there are an equal number of seats facing each direction (which I appreciate there aren't in all stock and is something I believe should be stipulated as a design requirement in all new build stock) it doesn't matter whether they're all bays, all airline or a mix, your chances of facing the wrong direction are the same.

 

[gabrielhj07]

As such the current balance across the national fleet is reasonable if not perfect.

It’s less about the overall balance and more about each train being suited to its route.

People commuting through the Thameslink core are not going to be that interested in bays of 4, while holidaymakers on their way to Scarborough will appreciate them.

Accordingly, TPE’s Mk Vs feature a majority bay layout, whereas the 700s use them sparingly.

 

[JonathanH]

As for looking cheap, generally leather seating is the premium product, in cars, cinemas, desk chairs etc. Fabric seating is the budget choice.

Yes, weird that. Seems to be a view put forward based on real leather straight off a cow, rather than what is actually used which is a thin covering of leather fibres spread over a synthetic base material that wears out over time.

Anyway ultimately it is a matter of personal taste. My personal prejudice about vinyl and moquette seat coverings stems from the 1980s, when new buses generally had moquette seats and the older ones had 1970s vinyl. I hated the utilitarian look of the vinyl seated buses and indeed the stickiness. It is strange that buses have gone backward to the look of the 1970s. All of the major bus fleets (First, Stagecoach and Arriva) had attractive moquette patterns before switching to single colour leather.

Done properly, a moquette interior is much brighter and inviting than one with a single colour vinyl covering. Even better if the seat coverings are removed regularly for cleaning.

As for unidirectional seating, a mix of forward and backward facing seats is more inviting to look at than all seats facing the same way.

 

[edwin_m]

If you have airline seats facing in both directions on the same side of the coach, then you will end up with at least one facing bay unless they are all facing outwards from the middle - something I've never seen. If there is more than one facing bay on a side, then there will also be a back-to-back where luggage might be stored, although it's often taken up by a bin or an equipment case.

As a regular user of a laptop, I normally go for a table, as the pitch of airline seats is usually too tight to use it there.

 

[WesternLancer]

It’s less about the overall balance and more about each train being suited to its route.

People commuting through the Thameslink core are not going to be that interested in bays of 4, while holidaymakers on their way to Scarborough will appreciate them.

well in the core you need to get in and out speedily if on short distance journey - and facing bays (not airline style) albeit without tables actually favour that (as does plenty of standing room).

Notable that airline seat comments on here favour having both of the seats in a pair to yourself - after that you are with a stranger just as you would be with strangers on a bay of 4 or 6 .

 

[A0]

It’s less about the overall balance and more about each train being suited to its route.

People commuting through the Thameslink core are not going to be that interested in bays of 4, while holidaymakers on their way to Scarborough will appreciate them.

Accordingly, TPE’s Mk Vs feature a majority bay layout, whereas the 700s use them sparingly.

Bit in bold - commuters are usually using trains 48 weeks a year, holidaymakers twice a year. That's why seating should be optimised for the former, not latter.

 

[Hadders]

Thameslink trains don't just servie the core. Take a look at trains heading to Brighton - huge leisure market.

My view is that there needs to be a mix of airline seats and seats in bays of 4.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bit in bold - commuters are usually using trains 48 weeks a year, holidaymakers twice a year. That's why seating should be optimised for the former, not latter.

Depends on the train. Commuters are not, for instance, the majority users of Avanti West Coast or LNER.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Part of the issues with bays of 4 in the UK is they are often taken up by single travellers meaning family groups end up having to use airline seating anyway.

I do like the Amtrak philosophy where bays of 4 are only available to groups of 3 or more.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Notable that airline seat comments on here favour having both of the seats in a pair to yourself - after that you are with a stranger just as you would be with strangers on a bay of 4 or 6 .

Yes, as soon as someone sits next to you, I find a bay preferable - less more personal space.

 

[WesternLancer]

Bit in bold - commuters are usually using trains 48 weeks a year, holidaymakers twice a year. That's why seating should be optimised for the former, not latter.

But the commuter market is clearly in massive decline (in some cases gone forever) - at my place they are in the process of changing contracts to actually make people work from home - even if they don't want to - so the employer can sell the buildings off. This isn't because of covid - it's just that the work from home instructions given at the time of the lockdowns turbocharged a drift of office based workers (the bulk of the commuter market) to stop doing the 5 days a week commute to accelerate a change that was already underway.

On another mode I was given a voucher for a 10% off a bus season ticket a couple of months ago (a 7 day season ticket not a flexi season) I literally can not find anyone in my circle of contacts who wants this voucher as none of them commute 5 days a week anymore.

The leisure market has to be the growth market for rail - designing the train interiors for a declining market that uses the services for a small percentages of the day is a very daft business decision.

And it's not 'holiday makers using the train once per year' is it - that's a ridiculous point - it's 8 friends going out hiking/rambling on a Sunday / a mum and 2 kids in the school hols taking the kids to the local town to visit a museum / 3 lasses on shopping trip to the big smoke that they do once a month / 6 mates going away for a stag weekend / a group of friends going to the football etc etc. That's modern leisure market - not some 1950s throw back to a family holiday by train once a year in Newquay....

Yes, as soon as someone sits next to you, I find a bay preferable - less more personal space.

Yes, exactly my point. Of course, and everyone wants more personal space (one of the key attractions of the car after all) - but the train companies (with DfT instruction) desire to cram more seats in does not of course help.

Obv there are people for whom the airline seat is the preference of choice - but we have trains made up of lots of carriages - it should be entirely possible to have a variety of mixed designed space.

The mantra 'we provided 100s more seats' is in many cases spin (ought to say 'we've reduced leg room by hundreds of inches')

 

[43096]

Yes, I think having a good mix of both is the best solution really. I would prefer a facing table seat on a quieter train, but would rather have my own airline style seat (and a spare seat next to me) than have to sit on a crowded bay of 4 or 6.

Fully agreed: that’s my preference, too.

There are extremes when it comes to seat configuration on both sides of the argument, with lots of Mk3 stock (e.g. Chiltern) with hardly any airline style

I’d say the BR mid-1980s Mark 3 refurbishment had it correct: a mix of airline (36 seats) and bays of four (40 seats).

 

[gabrielhj07]

it's 8 friends going out hiking/rambling on a Sunday / a mum and 2 kids in the school hols taking the kids to the local town to visit a museum / 3 lasses on shopping trip to the big smoke that they do once a month / 6 mates going away for a stag weekend / a group of friends going to the football etc etc. That's modern leisure market - not some 1950s throw back to a family holiday by train once a year in Newquay....

I reckon the best layout for this market is probably something like the Chiltern Mk IIIs, just with folding armrests. When I was younger holidays were always taken on a Class 159, which has a decent variety of bay and airline seats.

 

[6Gman]

This is just pure hype used to try and bolster your argument. The reality is that the majority of rail passengers are travelling alone and most of those would far rather have an airline seat than have to share a table with up to 3 strangers. So while I agree a mix of seating types is preferable it would be better to accept that the demand for facing table seats is actually quite low. As such the current balance across the national fleet is reasonable if not perfect.

And yet my experience is that the table seats tend to be the first to be taken.

 

[WesternLancer]

I reckon the best layout for this market is probably something like the Chiltern Mk IIIs, just with folding armrests. When I was younger holidays were always taken on a Class 159, which has a decent variety of bay and airline seats.

Indeed - a good example.

And yet my experience is that the table seats tend to be the first to be taken.

I always think it's funny that in railway operator PR pics it's always a bay of 4 / table seats that feature prominently in the pics for this or that new train (or 1st class seats), but not a pic to give the idea that the majority of the seats you might encounter are not what they think looks good in the pictures. If people liked them so much they would feature more prominently in such images methinks....

 

[gabrielhj07]

On the subject of airline seats vs bays, I was disheartened to see this design masterclass from SWR. The bay could be moved forward one row to provide 2 airline seats or a luggage rack. Not to mention the lack of leg space in the middle.

I‘m sure this sort of layout will appeal to neither commuters nor leisure travellers.

 

[miklcct]

My view is that, airline style seats maximise the capacity in a carriage where seating is the norm, i.e. long-distance stock.

The standard class carriage of a long-distance train should all consist of airline style seats, with only two tables, one on each side of the carriage where forward and backward facing seats meet. It should also contain a large multi-purpose space, where bikes and luggage can be stored.

In first class carriage, seats should all be 1+2 layout with tables to create the luxury differential compared to standard class (i.e. cattle class).

On a regional train, the seats should stay the same, but the table should be removed in standard class, with a large standing place placed between the forward and the backward-facing seats.

On a suburban train, the majority of seats should be longitudinal seats where maximising standing space should be the first priority, similar to a metro train where there are only longitudinal seats.

In the above, a long-distance train refers to anything longer than approximately 144 km, i.e. starting from London, going further than Southampton, Swindon, Coventry, Corby, Peterborough or Ipswich, while suburban trains refer to trains running within approximately 64 km from a major city centre, i.e. London, Birmingham or Manchester.

 

[WesternLancer]

On the subject of airline seats vs bays, I was disheartened to see this design masterclass from SWR. The bay could be moved forward one row to provide 2 airline seats or a seating rack. Not to mention the lack of leg space in the middle.

I‘m sure this sort of layout will appeal to neither commuters nor leisure travellers.

View attachment 122943

shockingly bad. Pointless too. Imagine a car designer doing that for back seat passengers.

 

[43096]

On the subject of airline seats vs bays, I was disheartened to see this design masterclass from SWR. The bay could be moved forward one row to provide 2 airline seats or a seating rack. Not to mention the lack of leg space in the middle.

I‘m sure this sort of layout will appeal to neither commuters nor leisure travellers.

View attachment 122943

Why does it make any difference if it’s a bay of four or not? A blank wall is a blank wall regardless.

Oh, and what’s a “seating rack”?

 

[gabrielhj07]

On a suburban train, the majority of seats should be longitudinal seats where maximising standing space should be the first priority, similar to a metro train where there are only longitudinal seats.

In the above, a long-distance train refers to anything longer than approximately 144 km, i.e. starting from London, going further than Southampton, Swindon, Coventry, Corby, Peterborough or Ipswich, while suburban trains refer to trains running within approximately 64 km from a major city centre, i.e. London, Birmingham or Manchester.

Haywards Heath is 37 miles from Victoria, are we really suggesting that a Class 378 layout is suitable for such a journey?

North of London, Leighton Buzzard is 40 miles from Euston. While the 350/2 interior leaves some things to be desired, mixed with the /1 & /4 fleet, it does the job rather well.

Longitudinal seating is really only good on the tube, but even then I massively prefer the Bakerloo & Met lines.