Are airline style seats the way forward?

[miklcct]

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.

I'd suggest 345-style interior for trains to Haywards Heath.

The 350 is a crap train because it has 3+2 seating.

 

[WesternLancer]

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.

I could not disagree with many of these points of view more strongly. Are we saying that on a 4 coach train you will only get 8 groups of 4 people travelling?

Trains are not full most of the time, it's pointless to maximise seating for every inch for the few occasions that they are full. This maximises discomfort for all of the time the train is not full! Who would choose to travel like that? And leisure travellers have other options (including not bothering to travel at all). You have to create an environment that
a) encourages people to make a journey at all
b) then encourages people to use the mode of travel you offer over the other choices most people have

As with most services provided by govt, the mindset of decision makers is that they only provide (or want to provide) a product or service for those with no choice but to use that offer. But with transport, as opposed to many other services the govt has a hand in, people have plenty of choice, even many commuters - esp now they have the choice to work form home in large numbers - esp the white collar jobs that were the bread and butter of rail commuters.

The reason cramped seating on airlines is deemed acceptable is because the industry has used that as part of a model that delivers the service at much reduced costs over the historical price situation. But the railway has certainly not achieved that with rail fares - so the 'value' calculation made by the potential traveller is very different.

 

[Minstral25]

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.

Strange though that the bays of four are almost always taken first in my experience of Thameslink - people seem to prefer them. Even when travelling alone they are the seats I go to first as well.

Airlines are fine for very short hops, but I prefer a bit more leg room if travelling over 15 minutes.

 

[miklcct]

I could not disagree with many of these points of view more strongly. Are we saying that on a 4 coach train you will only get 8 groups of 4 people travelling?

Trains are not full most of the time, it's pointless to maximise seating for every inch for the few occasions that they are full. This maximises discomfort for all of the time the train is not full! Who would choose to travel like that? And leisure travellers have other options (including not bothering to travel at all). You have to create an environment that
a) encourages people to make a journey at all
b) then encourages people to use the mode of travel you offer over the other choices most people have

As with most services provided by govt, the mindset of decision makers is that they only provide (or want to provide) a product or service for those with no choice but to use that offer. But with transport, as opposed to many other services the govt has a hand in, people have plenty of choice, even many commuters - esp now they have the choice to work form home in large numbers - esp the white collar jobs that were the bread and butter of rail commuters.

The reason cramped seating on airlines is deemed acceptable is because the industry has used that as part of a model that delivers the service at much reduced costs over the historical price situation. But the railway has certainly not achieved that with rail fares - so the 'value' calculation made by the potential traveller is very different.

It's not the average loading which matters. It's the peak loading matters.

If there is even a single train which is overloaded to the extent that people are left behind at the platform, one of the following needs to be done.

1. Run an additional train (expensive)
2. Increase the capacity of the train, either by means of lengthening it (not possible if it is already full-length) or by increasing seating / standing density
3. Increase peak-hour ticket price to drive people away (undesirable and damaging to the economy)

The railways should learn from the model of low-cost airlines in order to deliver the service at much reduced costs than ever before, i.e. by running fewer trains in peak hours while providing more capacity, with a drastic reduction in season ticket prices to encourage commuters back onto the train.

 

[bramling]

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.

This isn’t quite my observation. Pretty much everyone I know prefers facing seats, which may well be because here in the London area if you were used to rail travel in the 80s and 90s facing seats dominated, and if travelling off-peak having strangers sitting with you almost certainly wouldn’t have been a thing as the train wouldn’t have been that busy most of the time. Indeed one of the things which made rail travel more attractive than bus/coach,
or even car for that matter, was the extra space. I realise this might not be the case everywhere, particularly as DMUs have tended to have airline seating.

Because of this being the norm, I prefer facing seats, and indeed feel somewhat shortchanged in airline seats. Almost a feeling of “pay for train, get bus”, as growing up with virtually 100% facing seats this to me is the benchmark.

I certainly have got a sense round here that airline seats have got marginally more popular over time, but a lot of people still go for the facing seats. Indeed when the 365s were reconfigured to remove one third of the facing bays per car (to provide space for priority seats) this started to see seat squabbles occur, which hadn’t been an issue hitherto.

Whether such an expectation is a fair one is of course a matter for debate, however here in Hertfordshire I suspect a good number of people will be miffed if they go for an off-peak journey and don’t get four seats to themselves.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Strange though that the bays of four are almost always taken first in my experience of Thameslink - people seem to prefer them. Even when travelling alone they are the seats I go to first as well.

Airlines are fine for very short hops, but I prefer a bit more leg room if travelling over 15 minutes.

Part of that will be the extremely poor legroom in the airline seats. Some of us only have a choice between facing and standing on those trains.

 

[AM9]

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.

In the determination of train interior features including cosmetic, aesthetic and passenger facilities (e.g. toilets, tables, lighting, door locations and on-board services), actual distance is irrelevant. It's all about the journey time of the majority of passengers. Typically:

class 395 based on a majority of journeys St Pancras via HS1 to Ashford (c. 45mins) as a premium std class only service​

class 700 based on a majority of journeys outer suburban to nearest London Thameslink stations - St Albans/Luton & Gatwick/East Croydon as a mixed commuting and regional leisure service​

class 378 based on a majority of journeys of less than 20 minutes with high density requirements​

class 80x based on a majority of journeys of 60 to 120 minutes (Swindon/Bristol/Cardiff) with seasonal leisure journeys between 150 and 300 minutes (Torbay/Plymouth/Cornwall stops to Penzance)​

HS2 trains based on a journey time of around 30 mins London to Birmingham, around 60 mins London to Manchester/Liverpool, 120-150 mins to Yorkshire/North East etc. *

* This is why HS2 will not be offered as a luxury service and probabbly much like the 395s do on HS1

 

[WesternLancer]

* This is why HS2 will not be offered as a luxury service and probabbly much like the 395s do on HS1

Which may well be a poor marketing decision since it will almost certainly be at a premium / luxury price!

So the trade off for the passenger will be one of comfort versus shorter journey time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which may well be a poor marketing decision since it will almost certainly be at a premium / luxury price!

So the trade off for the passenger will be one of comfort versus shorter journey time.

If it's like the 395 I will be more than happy - those are very comfortable indeed.

 

[miklcct]

Which may well be a poor marketing decision since it will almost certainly be at a premium / luxury price!

So the trade off for the passenger will be one of comfort versus shorter journey time.

I'd pay for a shorter journey time, as in the case of HS1.

 

[AM9]

Which may well be a poor marketing decision since it will almost certainly be at a premium / luxury price!

So the trade off for the passenger will be one of comfort versus shorter journey time.

They might be more expensive but as we know saved time can be expensive so the public can make their choice. The 395 on HS2 are perfectly comfortable for the journeys I've made on them, London to Dover, (102 mins).
edit: I see Bletchleyite has beaten me to it with the same sort of comment.

 

[XAM2175]

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 know it looks stupid, but there's an argument that it prevents having an entirely-windowless airline row.

 

[Bikeman78]

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.

The standard Belgian EMUs had this for 50 years or so. The link below has some photos. They were generally in good condition but very hard to sit on. No idea how I spent hundreds of hours sitting on them. That said, I often got a first class seven day pass. As you can see from the photos, the first class seats were basically sofas! Very comfy.

vagonWEB » Fotogalerie » Belgie » SNCB » AM 62 - AM 74 SNCB

www.vagonweb.cz

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.

If a family invades the bay of 4, they tend to move! I usually offer to move before it reaches that stage.

 

[WesternLancer]

They might be more expensive but as we know saved time can be expensive so the public can make their choice. The 395 on HS2 are perfectly comfortable for the journeys I've made on them, London to Dover, (102 mins).
edit: I see Bletchleyite has beaten me to it with the same sort of comment.

Yes, indeed, but the ideal would be to have a 1st class option that people who wish to pay more can opt to choose.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, indeed, but the ideal would be to have a 1st class option that people who wish to pay more can opt to choose.

I expect there will be - on that sort of journey it's money for old rope. I'd more expect Standard Premium style without complex catering, though, as self-upgrade and leisure travel is now its main business.

 

[WesternLancer]

I expect there will be - on that sort of journey it's money for old rope. I'd more expect Standard Premium style without complex catering, though, as self-upgrade and leisure travel is now its main business.

Yes, I hope so. Of course with Avanti getting the service provision contract we know how good it will be (ahem....)

Tho I'd tend to think the only complex catering still offered on the railway is that from GWR Pullman Dining and I assume TfW on the Gerald Service (which I've not yet personally sampled).

 

[gabrielhj07]

I know it looks stupid, but there's an argument that it prevents having an entirely-windowless airline row.

I wouldn’t want to sit there, but if capacity is the driving factor behind the layout then it wouldn’t make any difference.

Alternatively, that is just the sort of space that a luggage rack would love to fill.

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”?

Edited to say luggage rack, thanks.

 

[XAM2175]

I wouldn’t want to sit there, but if capacity is the driving factor behind the layout then it wouldn’t make any difference.

No, I wouldn't either, but the for people who aren't very fussed that set-up is better than a windowless airline row because you aren't completely closed in.

Alternatively, that is just the sort of space that a luggage rack would love to fill.

It's an SWR 701, yes? Much greater call for seats on them than there is for luggage racks, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[gabrielhj07]

It's an SWR 701, yes? Much greater call for seats on them than there is for luggage racks, to the best of my knowledge.

I’d happily exchange a couple of seats for less luggage in the aisles / on seats.

I'd suggest 345-style interior for trains to Haywards Heath.

Not such a good idea when the trains will continue for some distance past Haywards Heath. If they stopped there then I’d be inclined to agree with you.

The 350 is a crap train because it has 3+2 seating.

Not all of them. There’s a decent probability that a /1 unit will turn up, with 2+2 throughout.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

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.

For what luggage? It's going to work journeys from London to just outside London, plus a bit further to Reading.

 

[WesternLancer]

For what luggage? It's going to work journeys from London to just outside London, plus a bit further to Reading.

Reading Railair link Heathrow passenger luggage

Tho seriously, short distance trains can have passengers that have a bit of luggage (eg passenger travelling from home in the inner suburbs of SW London to University in Newcastle at start and end of term might well commence / end their journey on one of these trains and have luggage they need to stow for the SWR leg of such a journey.

 

[jackot]

Tho seriously, short distance trains can have passengers that have a bit of luggage (eg passenger travelling from home in the inner suburbs of SW London to University in Newcastle at start and end of term might well commence / end their journey on one of these trains and have luggage they need to stow for the SWR leg of such a journey.

Yes, although luggage racks will obviously not be used by most, it annoys me when people say certain trains are 'simply for commuters', and therefore should have all airline style seats and no luggage provisions whatever, when in reality people use 'commuter' services for all sorts of journeys with all sorts of luggage on all sorts of occasions, during more hours in the day than actual commuters. Not saying the 701s necessarily need luggage racks, though.

I think that just because a train like a Class 700 is used by many solo-travelling London commuters in the peaks, it doesn't mean that the holidaymakers travelling to Brighton or the groups of people heading to the capital for the night should be completely ignored when it comes to interior arrangements, and even more so on TOCs like Crosscountry with a huge demographic of group travellers and leisure travellers.

 

[miklcct]

Yes, although luggage racks will obviously not be used by most, it annoys me when people say certain trains are 'simply for commuters', and therefore should have all airline style seats and no luggage provisions whatever, when in reality people use 'commuter' services for all sorts of journeys with all sorts of luggage on all sorts of occasions, during more hours in the day than actual commuters.

I use the 378 for all sorts of leisure journeys. Does it mean that the 378 warrants table seats and luggage racks?

Therefore your argument is flawed. 378 is well known to do its job well with only longitudinal seats and without any luggage provisions. The 378 is a short-distance metro train, and its layout fits the purpose.

 

[WesternLancer]

I use the 378 for all sorts of leisure journeys. Does it mean that the 378 warrants table seats and luggage racks?

Therefore your argument is flawed. 378 is well known to do its job well with only longitudinal seats and without any luggage provisions. The 378 is a short-distance metro train, and its layout fits the purpose.

well, it was pretty annoying having to go on the tube from Victoria to Kings Cross with a load of luggage in the days before thameslink was built both for me and I should think other tube passengers. I'm not suggesting that tube trains should be built for lots of luggage, but you seem to suggest that luggage space is not required on trains that don't go very far even if some passengers on them may be using them as part of a longer journey.

Tables are not an issue for these trains, but the point was facing seats, not table seats. Tho as it happens I always head for the declassified rear 1st class area on Thameslink as the presence of some tables is helpful. IIRC the rest of the train does not even have anywhere apart from the floor to put a drink down on that you may have bought at a kiosk on the platform at East Croydon for a trip as short as to London Bridge.

 

[JohnRegular]

Commuter trains may benefit from having longitudinal seating adjacent to the vestibules, much like the SWR 455s have currently. Better for accomodating crush loads and churn in the peaks, and if at least some of it is tip-up seating, larger items of luggage (possibly also bikes) can be put there at quieter times.

 

[AM9]

Yes, although luggage racks will obviously not be used by most, it annoys me when people say certain trains are 'simply for commuters', and therefore should have all airline style seats and no luggage provisions whatever, when in reality people use 'commuter' services for all sorts of journeys with all sorts of luggage on all sorts of occasions, during more hours in the day than actual commuters. Not saying the 701s necessarily need luggage racks, though.

I think that just because a train like a Class 700 is used by many solo-travelling London commuters in the peaks, it doesn't mean that the holidaymakers travelling to Brighton or the groups of people heading to the capital for the night should be completely ignored when it comes to interior arrangements, and even more so on TOCs like Crosscountry with a huge demographic of group travellers and leisure travellers.

Welll as you mention 700s, they are predominately high capacity outer suburban trains capable of carrying very large numbers of 'commuters', but they also have excellent luggage carrying capability, which suits their serving two major London airports.

 

[6Gman]

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.

You do realise there are things called families? Typically two parents with one or more children who tend to want to sit as a group?

I'd suggest 345-style interior for trains to Haywards Heath.

The 350 is a crap train because it has 3+2 seating.

The 350 is an excellent train.

And only the 350/2s have 3+2 seating.

 

[gabrielhj07]

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.

There seems to be a conflict here between maximum capacity and leaving empty space.

 

[WideRanger]

Would Japanese-style reversible seats (where passengers can choose to set them as airline or banks of 4) be uneconomic?

 

[gordonthemoron]

Would Japanese-style reversible seats (where passengers can choose to set them as airline or banks of 4) be uneconomic?

They have similar in Sydney NSW