Commuter seat choices - interesting observation

[XmaX]

So, I commuted between Cambridge and King's Cross with mostly Great Northern and occasionally Thameslink for over three years. I'd travel at different times, usually after 9 in the morning and therefore skip the busiest times, but would often take busy trains back in the afternoon. Either way, those trains very rarely go full, and if you're on the train 5-ish minutes before departure, you'd have a seat, even in rush hours.

What I'm slightly perplexed about though, is how people select where to sit on those trains. For those unfamiliar, there is no seat booking and the seat layout is standard 2x2, with both airline-style and 4 seats around a table (for Thameslink, I would be in the declassified section of the first class). The way I'd select seats (as a single traveller), in order from the best to worst in terms of comfort (and let's ignore which carriage we're in, direction of travel and window/aisle here):
1. Table seat, with the remaining 3 seats vacant
2. Airline seat, with the other seat vacant
3. Table seat, with a seat diagonally from me occupied
4. Airline seat, next to someone
5. Table seat with 2 seats already occupied
6. Table seat with 3 seats already occupied

Now, I'm pretty sure most people will agree with me that being the only person at the table seat is the nicest. I'm sure some would switch number 2 and 3, especially if they need a proper table.

However, what I noticed, is that most people much prefer option 5 and even 6 to option 4, and that really perplexes me - not only you then have to sit next to someone, but you then have a very limited legroom. For this reason, I would never choose a table seat, even if completely empty - because I'd be risking being surrounded by people when the train fills up.

The only reason I can think of is that people really need their tables for work or food, but trust me - table is almost unusable if 4 people take out their laptops, and foldable tables on airline seats on those trains are actually very usable.

Does anyone agree? Or am I the crazy one?

 

[bramling]

So, I commuted between Cambridge and King's Cross with mostly Great Northern and occasionally Thameslink for over three years. I'd travel at different times, usually after 9 in the morning and therefore skip the busiest times, but would often take busy trains back in the afternoon. Either way, those trains very rarely go full, and if you're on the train 5-ish minutes before departure, you'd have a seat, even in rush hours.

What I'm slightly perplexed about though, is how people select where to sit on those trains. For those unfamiliar, there is no seat booking and the seat layout is standard 2x2, with both airline-style and 4 seats around a table (for Thameslink, I would be in the declassified section of the first class). The way I'd select seats (as a single traveller), in order from the best to worst in terms of comfort (and let's ignore which carriage we're in, direction of travel and window/aisle here):
1. Table seat, with the remaining 3 seats vacant
2. Airline seat, with the other seat vacant
3. Table seat, with a seat diagonally from me occupied
4. Airline seat, next to someone
5. Table seat with 2 seats already occupied
6. Table seat with 3 seats already occupied

Now, I'm pretty sure most people will agree with me that being the only person at the table seat is the nicest. I'm sure some would switch number 2 and 3, especially if they need a proper table.

However, what I noticed, is that most people much prefer option 5 and even 6 to option 4, and that really perplexes me - not only you then have to sit next to someone, but you then have a very limited legroom. For this reason, I would never choose a table seat, even if completely empty - because I'd be risking being surrounded by people when the train fills up.

The only reason I can think of is that people really need their tables for work or food, but trust me - table is almost unusable if 4 people take out their laptops, and foldable tables on airline seats on those trains are actually very usable.

Does anyone agree? Or am I the crazy one?

I suspect you're looking for a logic which isn't necessarily there. Some people are quite odd when it comes to choosing seats.

There's the small subset who just take the first seat they see, so they might sit opposite you at a table even when the whole train is empty. Then there's the particularly annoying ones who will sit opposite you at a table even when the diagonally opposite seat is free - I regard that (on a lightly loaded train) as exceptionally rude, and won't make any effort to move my stuff or legs in that situation, and if they start huffing then I will have a right go at them. Cambridge people seem particularly prone to the latter for some reason.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On a commuter train I will pick a seat based on what it will be like when the train has got busy, not what it's like now. Thus I wouldn't take a single seat at a table because likely people will come to join me. I'm more likely to sit next to someone at a priority airline seat row, because I'm happy there when the train is completely full. I've known someone take exception to that, and I invited them to move elsewhere if they didn't like it, though they didn't.

 

[The exile]

Being the last person to occupy a table of four gives you a chance to “vet” your companions - you’re less likely to get a nasty surprise at the last minute.
Doesn’t work where there’s a lot of churn, though.

 

[Mojo]

I suspect you're looking for a logic which isn't necessarily there. Some people are quite odd when it comes to choosing seats.

Agreed. I occasionally travel on Chiltern's Class 165 units and often see people sitting in the airline seats which don't have a window (in the old first class area where there used to be a luggage rack), even where the bays of four which are perfectly aligned with the windows are empty.

 

[185143]

I'd rather have a table seat with two seats opposite occupied than share a pair of airline seats. Legroom is no issue to me

 

[XmaX]

On a commuter train I will pick a seat based on what it will be like when the train has got busy, not what it's like now. Thus I wouldn't take a single seat at a table because likely people will come to join me. I'm more likely to sit next to someone at a priority airline seat row, because I'm happy there when the train is completely full. I've known someone take exception to that, and I invited them to move elsewhere if they didn't like it, though they didn't.

That's exactly what I was doing, and very often when I took an exception to that because I thought the train might be fairly empty, I ended up being surrounded by 3 people at my table.

Being the last person to occupy a table of four gives you a chance to “vet” your companions - you’re less likely to get a nasty surprise at the last minute.

I agree, but I'd much rather just vet a single person at an airline seat than 3 at a table set!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd rather have a table seat with two seats opposite occupied than share a pair of airline seats. Legroom is no issue to me

Whereas I'm the complete opposite - legroom (and footsie) IS very much an issue.

I would only want a table if the train is quiet enough that nobody will sit opposite.

 

[waveyswirley]

I've also noticed this and agree - sharing a table with strangers can be cramped and a little awkward. I often travel with my girlfriend and we prefer to occupy a pair of airline-style seats. That way we have the whole space to ourselves and can get comfortable. The only time we sit at a table is if we're fairly certain the service will be quiet for our whole journey.

 

[JackS]

If I'm travelling alone, I tend to pick an airline seat and leave tables/bays of 4 seats for larger groups (even if the train is likely to be quiet), both so that it's more convenient for them and so that I don't end up with people that know each other joining me at a table and chatting away.

Legroom isn't something that really matters to me so with limited seating choice, I would go with option 5 or 6 over option 4, as it feels more 'personal' sitting next to one individual in an airline seat, and a table or bay feels like it allows for more personal space overall.

 

[Peter0124]

Then there's the particularly annoying ones who will sit opposite you at a table even when the diagonally opposite seat is free - I regard that (on a lightly loaded train) as exceptionally rude, and won't make any effort to move my stuff or legs in that situation

What if you want to be by the window though?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What if you want to be by the window though?

On a lightly loaded train, sit somewhere else; if there aren't other window seats it's not a lightly loaded train. I'd agree this is a bit off to be honest, though if someone did it I'd probably just huff and move to the aisle. If they then moved to the aisle then there's clearly a personality disorder going on

 

[Peter0124]

On a lightly loaded train, sit somewhere else; if there aren't other window seats it's not a lightly loaded train. I'd agree this is a bit off to be honest, though if someone did it I'd probably just huff and move to the aisle. If they then moved to the aisle then there's clearly a personality disorder going on

True, though with the sparse amount of tables on some trains (eg Pendolinos and Voyagers) that might be the only one free, as my laptop doesn't fit on the airline tray

 

[Bletchleyite]

True, though with the sparse amount of tables on some trains (eg Pendolinos and Voyagers) that might be the only one free, as my laptop doesn't fit on the airline tray

If you're going to work on your laptop, you don't want to be plonking yourself opposite someone as you're only going to have half a table then.

If you want to look out of the window, then the table isn't an issue.

 

[185143]

On a lightly loaded train, sit somewhere else; if there aren't other window seats it's not a lightly loaded train. I'd agree this is a bit off to be honest, though if someone did it I'd probably just huff and move to the aisle. If they then moved to the aisle then there's clearly a personality disorder going on

I'm glad someone said that to be honest, as it is something I occasionally do. I can't say it's ever really occurred to me this might be an issue for taller people. If someone has a laptop out or something then I will sit diagonally opposite, otherwise I often don't.

A pet hate of mine: people who sit in the aisle seat leaving a window seat free, then gets reluctant to move when someone needs that seat. I'm very much a "just sit by the window" type if both seats are free.

 

[Peter0124]

If you're going to work on your laptop, you don't want to be plonking yourself opposite someone as you're only going to have half a table then.

If you want to look out of the window, then the table isn't an issue.

Not necessarily, what if I want to do both? I often do pomodoro technique or timed studying on trains alternated with breaks to look out the window and observe the opposite line.

And the laptop can fit on the table as the trackpad area can hang off a bit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A pet hate of mine: people who sit in the aisle seat leaving a window seat free, then gets reluctant to move when someone needs that seat. I'm very much a "just sit by the window" type if both seats are free.

This is often done to keep the window free. But I don't think they should have to sit in the window - there are many reasons to prefer an aisle seat. As long as they let you in if you say "can I sit there please?" I see no issue.

Not necessarily, what if I want to do both? I often do pomodoro technique or timed studying on trains alternated with breaks to look out the window and observe the opposite line.

This is getting very close to wheeling out the Standard Minority to be honest. For most people it's either-or.

I think if I did want to take the window opposite someone already in the window at a table I would say "sorry, do you mind if I sit by the window" and give a genuine reason e.g. travel sickness or something. If someone said that to me I'd shift to the aisle on my side. Generally politeness and reasonableness wins.

 

[Sleepy]

Then you get those regulars that will sit next to anyone in their desired coach because it is closest to the platform exit at destination, even if 50% of the train has 4 passengers per coach !

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If you're going to work on your laptop, you don't want to be plonking yourself opposite someone as you're only going to have half a table then.

Kinda depends. If it's opposite someone who is clearly not using the table then all you need to do is ask them, 'Are you Ok if I put my laptop here' and then you probably will find you have much more room to open out your laptop than if you're at an airline seat. Like @Peter0124 I find it's next to impossible to use a laptop effectively in an airline seat.

In practice my choice of seat depends not only on how crowded the train is (or is likely to get) but on how long I'll be on it for and what I'm planning to do. If I intend to use a laptop than a table seat will be a priority, but if I'm intending to read a book then I'm more likely to choose an airline seat. If I'm intending to admire the view, then I'll look for a window seat, but with a slight preference for airline ones. Another factor is, if I have much luggage, I'll be looking for a seat that allows me to be reasonably close to my luggage and to keep an eye on it. Occasionally, if it's a train that I expect to get exceptionally crowded and it's a shortish journey, my priority will be a seat by the door that means I don't have to wait too long to get off the train.

One thing that surprises me is that number of people who will choose to sit next to the toilet even on lightly loaded trains. I will always try to avoid that area if possible just because of the likely smells.

 

[Zomboid]

My preference used to be for a window seat facing backwards, but I was commuting into London on the SWML and forwards would always mean facing into the sun. Airline preferred, but a table seat (or bay if it was a 450) were ok so long as it was facing backwards.

Now I don't commute on that line, I try to figure out which side of the train the sun will mostly be on (South/ east/ west) and avoid sitting there. Still prefer to be facing backwards, but the sun is my biggest concern.

 

[Peter0124]

Also I don't always pick the window, if it's night-time, a regular commuting journey or I really need to crack on with things then I relax seat preferences.

However on long distance services I mostly like a window table preferably on the RHS of travel aswell. A lot of preferences I know! I do long distance travel for study purposes aswell as I find it a good way to motivate my work, I'm not sure if its a neurodiverse thing but yeah, there's something soothing about watching the other track and the overhead stanchions pass by.

I will take advice onboard though eg from @Bletchleyite and politely ask if I'd have the window opposite, the only thing is some people question why or get lippy and it really puts you off asking! Then you have those who are sat in your reserved seat, complicating things!

 

[parkender102]

Commuted 12 Years (Solo) to and from Crewe to London on Monday Mornings for a Midday Start and back on Friday after Lunch. Virgin then it changed to Avanti. Monday mornings it was always a Table seat by thw window for 4 facing direction of travel as the train was pretty empty - sometimes having a whole Pendolino Coach to myself. Returning on a Friday it was always Aisle Seat Airline - not really bothered which way I faced as long as I wasn't on the sunny (West Side) heading North. I prefer Aisle seats as easy to get out without disturbing anyone and more leg and elbow room. Quite happy for someone to sit in the Window Seat next to me but 9 times out of 10 no-one ever occupied that seat due light loading early afternoon and plenty of space elsewhere or not wanting to have to ask me to move.

 

[devon_belle]

I could speak at length about what I've observed from other commuters on my regular journey (and modulations thereof), but the most important thing I've noticed is that evening commuters (to home, away from London) will prefer to sit in the most convenient carriage for the exits/footbridge/subway at their destination station. For example, the train will empty out differently depending on whether I sit in carriage 1, 4, or 8, etc.

Carriage by carriage (I only travel in the table-seat carriages of 377s where possible), the precedence seems to be:

1. Vacant table or airline pair
2. Diagonal on table with 1 person (oftentimes to get off without having to move another person, I find)
3. Next to window-person on diagonal table or next to person on airline pair
4. Stand*
5. Ask person to move/move bag for 3-person table or aisle-occupied airline pair

*usually at intermediate stations rather than at the London terminal, or when only going 1 stop from London.

On the morning commute (to work), people tend to fill up the train with a mixed priority of closest carriage to the origin point and destination. In my case, these transpire to produce a very busy first few carriages with an almost-empty rear. Some stations having short platforms adds to this. Generally, people seem to care less, but I commute on a slightly later train than most, so I'm usually travelling with day-trippers and people travelling between intermediate stations (especially Clapham Junction!) rather than other commuters.

Personally, outbound I always take a table window seat, which I will usually have to myself for 80-100% of the journey. The rear of the train is quietest, and involves the most walking, so I take that. Inbound, I sit at the doors which give me the fastest escape home, but I take a window on a table seat (directed to avoid the Sun depending on the time of year) as I know 90% of the time I will end up on my own by the time we reach my destination.

 

[tumbledown]

I always choose an aisle seat for the legroom - and if the window seat is empty, make sure my stuff is off it during stops so it is clear the seat is available.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think the main thing this thread shows is that different people often have completely different preferences for the kind of seating they want, and that something that is important to one person might be completely irrelevant to someone else. And that's a good argument for train carriages to always contain a mixture of different types of seating - as the best way to accommodate the varying needs of different passengers.

 

[XmaX]

I could speak at length about what I've observed from other commuters on my regular journey (and modulations thereof), but the most important thing I've noticed is that evening commuters (to home, away from London) will prefer to sit in the most convenient carriage for the exits/footbridge/subway at their destination station. For example, the train will empty out differently depending on whether I sit in carriage 1, 4, or 8, etc.

Carriage by carriage (I only travel in the table-seat carriages of 377s where possible), the precedence seems to be:

1. Vacant table or airline pair
2. Diagonal on table with 1 person (oftentimes to get off without having to move another person, I find)
3. Next to window-person on diagonal table or next to person on airline pair
4. Stand*
5. Ask person to move/move bag for 3-person table or aisle-occupied airline pair

*usually at intermediate stations rather than at the London terminal, or when only going 1 stop from London.

On the morning commute (to work), people tend to fill up the train with a mixed priority of closest carriage to the origin point and destination. In my case, these transpire to produce a very busy first few carriages with an almost-empty rear. Some stations having short platforms adds to this. Generally, people seem to care less, but I commute on a slightly later train than most, so I'm usually travelling with day-trippers and people travelling between intermediate stations (especially Clapham Junction!) rather than other commuters.

Personally, outbound I always take a table window seat, which I will usually have to myself for 80-100% of the journey. The rear of the train is quietest, and involves the most walking, so I take that. Inbound, I sit at the doors which give me the fastest escape home, but I take a window on a table seat (directed to avoid the Sun depending on the time of year) as I know 90% of the time I will end up on my own by the time we reach my destination.

The topic of how the trains fill up is something I could write another post, because I also have a lot of observations. Like you, I also commuted to London a bit later normally (generally the earliest train would be departing Cambridge at 8:42, though nowadays I tend to take earlier ones), but return in the usual peak. Not sure if I understand you correctly, but I think what I experienced is quite different from you:
- on the morning train to London (which originates in King's Lynn usually), mid-section of the train would be the busiest, followed by the front, and by far the least busy was the back. That always surprised me, because that's the section directly next to where the platform stairs are - in other words, people actively choose carriages at the front to be closer to the King's Cross exit. I do find that quite surprising, because in most cases people are lazy, though of course that's closer to the exit at King's Cross. I personally suspect that people don't realise last carriage is half-standard, half-first, and just assume it's first.

On the way back, patterns were a bit more harder to find. Rear was the busiest because of the latecomers, but front was confusing. I would normally aim for the 2nd or 3rd carriage, as people would walk to the front in search of a nice seat, then get to the front and decide they can't be bothered to go back two or three carriages, even if emptier.

 

[lachlan]

I always go for a table which already has one or two people on it. Then its unlikely other people will sit down and it feels less enclosed than an airline seat.

What puzzles me is everyone who likes to stand despite there being many free seats available. I find it rather annoying having to move past them to board and leave the train.

 

[Snow1964]

I commuted many years into London, initially into Liverpool Street on 305s and 315s on Chingford line from 1988. The first people on normally sat by a window, then everyone else took any remaining seat, including middle seat of 2+3, standing was last resort (presumably because standing on platform, waiting for train, and walking other end was norm)

Later used line from Norbiton to Waterloo in 1990s, again middle seat would be taken (before they removed them from 455s), the norm on return journey from Waterloo was people would get on part of train nearest the exit and their destination and only sit in the carriages not near an exit once the other carriages were nearly full.

Had a period in late 1990s to early 2000s from Richmond (when they still ran trains with only 1-2 stops) to Waterloo, it was a case of trying to guess which doorway might have space to squeeze on to stand (they would usually be rammed at about 150-200% of seats).

Then from 2002 travelled from Kingston to Waterloo, generally could get seat at Waterloo (until they started taking out the middle seats forcing people to stand), again window seats taken first and aisles less popular as always got knocked by people trying to get past, especially as it moved to crush loaded status around Wimbledon or Earlsfield). The Kingston loop trains were always preferred to the ex Shepperton ones, and many would time their journey to get these as never any seats on the ex Shepperton peak hour trains.

So my experience is window seats taken first, carriage nearest exit at destination preferred, then whatever is left, with middle seats also used, and bias to avoid any train that was expected to arrive with no seats available. Never had the luxury of tables, or expectation that many standing wouldn't be the norm.

 

[devon_belle]

That always surprised me, because that's the section directly next to where the platform stairs are - in other words, people actively choose carriages at the front to be closer to the King's Cross exit.

I think this is the main difference between mine and your experience, but that is possibly because most of the platform entrances at the major stations where people embark are in the front 1-4 coaches for me. So these end up busiest due to savvy commuters and laziness at the point of departure. I, as a not-so-savvy commuter, choose the quieter portion of the train which I can use as a rolling office and get a few hundred more steps on the way in. It does not help that my morning train is as much as 15 minutes slower than my evening one, which means it takes forever regardless of where I sit!

On the return journey from London Victoria, most people walk up the train to convenient doors. At Clapham Junction (the only other station where many people embark on the commute home), they get on the carriages closest to the stairs. The main stations where people disembark are different in this direction (possibly because its in the normal evening peak, whereas most outer commuters may be travelling later or earlier than this), and the train is busy enough at Victoria that the rear (near ticket barriers) is full up regardless. Peak passenger numbers have gone up a lot in the last few months, possibly as more people are discovering that this extra peak service exists, which removes the benefit of sitting at the front to avoid having a neighbour.

 

[bramling]

What if you want to be by the window though?

Suck it up, or find another seat somewhere else - which is what I would do out of courtesy to others. I should emphasise that I did say lightly loaded trains, so numerous alternatives available.