InterCity First Class - is there a better layout or another option?

[Bletchleyite]

Discussions on this thread:

Avanti West Coast: Standard Premium

This would be terrible, this would reduce the amount of unreserved seats, I assume. It will (if it works) increase occupancy in 1st, as that's the point of it - to increase income from the First Class provision. Doesn't surprise me that current 1st users don't like it, but you pay for one...

www.railforums.co.uk

...have identified a perennial problem with First Class - most people travel alone and like their own space, but of those who don't travel alone the "table for two" is most popular. So if you help one of those groups (splitting tables for two into two airline seats) you upset the other. And yet you've got the 2 side - nobody likes the double airline seats, but the tables for 4 are unpopular if there are 3 other people there.

So what options are there to improve things?

I suppose one option would be to have a 1+1 "Premium First" or to charge more for the 1 side? Or maybe have two classes, premium 1st (1+1) and premium standard (2+2 but more tables and 1st legroom)?

Another idea I thought of - could you have the 2 side instead set out as a herringbone style layout of single seats replacing the 2 side, as per the CS lounge car? You'd get more seats in that way than with 1+1?

Any more thoughts?

 

[Purple Orange]

Perhaps a split system could work, but I’d look at it from a specific train type and if premium 1st class revenue is significant enough to justify 1st class at all.

• 5-car (or less) Intercity services (TPE, XC, Scotrail)
  • 2+2 seating with more legroom, better quality seats than standard and complimentary tea, coffee, beer, wine, snacks.
• 8-car (or more) Intercity services, with at least 2 or more cars defined for 1st class:
  • 1-car in 1+1 seating, with complimentary meal, drinks, and a chair that can be rotated to another fixed position, so you could talk to another person easily if you are travelling together.
  • All remaining 1st class carriages as per the 2+2 scenario above.

 

[py_megapixel]

The obvious solution to me is to have it all in 2+2, but the booking engine should have an option when reserving seats in First to guarantee that the seat next to you will be unoccupied, for a nominal charge.
(What this would actually do would be to mark said seat reserved in the system to stop it being assigned to another passenger so that the onboard screens don't show it as available, but would not issue a ticket for travel - if anyone was actually going to travel in that seat they would have to buy an extra ticket as normal).

On services which are usually busier in First, this option could be disabled in the system to allow more capacity.

 

[YorksLad12]

As mentioned in that previous thread, adopt the layout from the Mk4 sets of 2+1 with a 1+1 crossover in the middle and more double tables (there's only one in an Azuma, I assume it's the same elsewhere) so that pairs of travellers don't spread out over a table of four diagonally.

Provide an at-seat catering option (even if the hot/warm meals go - though I'd want to keep them), and create a Weekday First upgrade option, available online from one hour until 15 minutes before departure - no more Seatfrog nonsense - to sell any spare seats. Won't work on every journey but will work on most.

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps it's because I tend to travel in first at off-peak times, but I've noticed that the bays of 4 around the table are popular with families and other small groups. Also couples who can have a bit of leg room and sit diagonally opposite eachother.

I therefore contend that the Mk3 1+2 facing layout is probably the optimum.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As mentioned in that previous thread, adopt the layout from the Mk4 sets of 2+1 with a 1+1 crossover in the middle and more double tables (there's only one in an Azuma, I assume it's the same elsewhere) so that pairs of travellers don't spread out over a table of four diagonally.

Must admit I like that one, as it adds an extra two "1 side" seats without knackering the window alignment (80x First crams an extra row in on the 1 side and so the window alignment is off). Costs 2 seats I suppose.

Perhaps it's because I tend to travel in first at off-peak times, but I've noticed that the bays of 4 around the table are popular with families and other small groups. Also couples who can have a bit of leg room and sit diagonally opposite eachother.

True. I'd say the one type of seating that is really not desirable is 2-side airline seats.

 

[yorksrob]

True. I'd say the one type of seating that is really not desirable is 2-side airline seats.

Yes, their appeal would be quite limited I should imagine. And also too similar to steerage to justify the upgrade.

 

[bramling]

Perhaps it's because I tend to travel in first at off-peak times, but I've noticed that the bays of 4 around the table are popular with families and other small groups. Also couples who can have a bit of leg room and sit diagonally opposite eachother.

I therefore contend that the Mk3 1+2 facing layout is probably the optimum.

Whatever one does with first it will annoy people, as many first passengers (especially those paying the full whack) expect space, which in practice means empty seats around them.

Whether that’s a reasonable expectation is of course a matter of personal opinion. Certainly in the 1980s and 1990s at off-peak times it was pretty much normal to get four seats to one’s self on many services, first class or standard. That’s one reason I used to enjoy rail travel then, and why I enjoy it much less nowadays (pre-Covid at any rate!).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whether that’s a reasonable expectation is of course a matter of personal opinion. Certainly in the 1980s and 1990s at off-peak times it was pretty much normal to get four seats to one’s self on many services, first class or standard. That’s one reason I used to enjoy rail travel then, and why I enjoy it much less nowadays (pre-Covid at any rate!).

That, to be fair, is why I like First Class single seats - even with every seat taken nobody impinges on my space. I'd happily have a table for 4 to myself, but that's not viable.

 

[bramling]

That, to be fair, is why I like First Class single seats - even with every seat taken nobody impinges on my space. I'd happily have a table for 4 to myself, but that's not viable.

Why isn’t it viable? If there are people prepared to pay the cost of a full-fare walkup ticket, they will be contributing many times the price of the cheapest standard-class advance tickets.

The railway wants its cake and eat it too on this - they want to charge the former, and then fill the empty seats with advance tickets. This simply doesn’t work with first, as it won’t take many Jeremy Kyle journeys for people to decide they’re not going to bother paying the full fare.

 

[yorksrob]

Whatever one does with first it will annoy people, as many first passengers (especially those paying the full whack) expect space, which in practice means empty seats around them.

Whether that’s a reasonable expectation is of course a matter of personal opinion. Certainly in the 1980s and 1990s at off-peak times it was pretty much normal to get four seats to one’s self on many services, first class or standard. That’s one reason I used to enjoy rail travel then, and why I enjoy it much less nowadays (pre-Covid at any rate!).

Indeed. I suppose that if you're travelling on business, you just need the extra room to be a bit more comfortable and get the lap top out, so sharing a table with another suit probably isn't as much of an issue. Conversely, if you're travelling back in your leisure time and want to unwind with a beer or two, the empty seats around become more important - but being off-peak, they're presumably more likely to be empty anyway (theoretically at least).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why isn’t it viable? If there are people prepared to pay the cost of a full-fare walkup ticket, they will be contributing many times the price of the cheapest standard-class advance tickets.

The railway wants its cake and eat it too on this - they want to charge the former, and then fill the empty seats with advance tickets. This simply doesn’t work with first, as it won’t take many Jeremy Kyle journeys for people to decide they’re not going to bother paying the full fare.

If First Class was only for First Anytime payers, then yes, you'd be right. But that isn't going to be commercially viable, particularly in these days of much tighter company expenses policies.

Indeed. I suppose that if you're travelling on business, you just need the extra room to be a bit more comfortable and get the lap top out, so sharing a table with another suit probably isn't as much of an issue. Conversely, if you're travelling back in your leisure time and want to unwind with a beer or two, the empty seats around become more important - but being off-peak, they're presumably more likely to be empty anyway (theoretically at least).

2 people in a table for 4 is OK. I find, being of "broad gauge"*, that even in 1st I'll end up elbow-fighting with people if trying to work with someone alongside me. Though not everyone is of "broad gauge" I guess

* OK, I'm a bit fat. But even if I wasn't a bit fat, I'm still pretty massive, think rugby player type shape.

 

[yorksrob]

2 people in a table for 4 is OK. I find, being of "broad gauge"*, that even in 1st I'll end up elbow-fighting with people if trying to work with someone alongside me. Though not everyone is of "broad gauge" I guess

* OK, I'm a bit fat. But even if I wasn't a bit fat, I'm still pretty massive, think rugby player type shape.

Yes, with lockdown I find that I'm going the Brunel way as well !

 

[route101]

Single seats in first for me. The 390s have two many bays of 2, can imagine sharing with a stranger awkward.

Single airline seat has good access to aisle yet strangely I feel exposed especially when a trolley passes etc. Quite like an empty seat next to me in standard as a buffer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Single seats in first for me. The 390s have two many bays of 2, can imagine sharing with a stranger awkward.

Single airline seat has good access to aisle yet strangely I feel exposed especially when a trolley passes etc. Quite like an empty seat next to me in standard as a buffer.

The lack of other single seats (only 1 other in a 9-car or 2 others in an 11-car) on Pendolinos is the root of the Coach K issue. People wouldn't care about the staff hogging coach K if there were enough single seats in the rest of it.

 

[mark-h]

The obvious solution to me is to have it all in 2+2, but the booking engine should have an option when reserving seats in First to guarantee that the seat next to you will be unoccupied, for a nominal charge.

I can see that causing conflict on busy trains with people trying to sit in seats that people have paid to remain empty.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can see that causing conflict on busy trains with people trying to sit in seats that people have paid to remain empty.

Yes, true. Would only work in a reservation-only context.

 

[YorksLad12]

I can see that causing conflict on busy trains with people trying to sit in seats that people have paid to remain empty.

Yes, true. Would only work in a reservation-only context.

Well if you've bought the tickets in advance I'd expect the reservations system to show this. Stick a spare cup on that part of the table so it looks occupied

Don't think it should be a nominal charge though; if you've booked two seats because you want the extra space (because you *want* the space, not because you *need* it for good reason) then you pay the going rate.

 

[Furrball]

The lack of other single seats (only 1 other in a 9-car or 2 others in an 11-car) on Pendolinos is the root of the Coach K issue. People wouldn't care about the staff hogging coach K if there were enough single seats in the rest of it.

Yet ironically with new stock it has gone to far the other way with very limited "tables for two". Post COVID it will be interesting to see if there is a re-arranging on the layout as business travel may remain low but leisure travel rebounds quicker. If I am travelling with my partner I may as well have an airline seat "for 2" in standard rather than sharing a 4 with 2 others

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet ironically with new stock it has gone to far the other way with very limited "tables for two".

The reason for that is that you can cram an extra row in, whereas if you only have half the seats airline you can't. This is visible by the window alignment being off on the 1 side but not on the 2 side.

Doensn't mean I agree with it - messing things up for 1 seat is not great.

I'd go 50-50, i.e. 4 tables for 2 and 8 airline rows per coach if you assume the fairly standard 8 window bays in a 1st coach.

 

[py_megapixel]

I'd go 50-50, i.e. 4 tables for 2 and 8 airline rows per coach if you assume the fairly standard 8 window bays in a 1st coach.

In which case, could they just split the whole train into "airline coaches" and "table coaches"?
It would make it easier for people to find their preferred type of seat and might (especially if extended to Standard Class) also create some natural separation between large groups of travellers who might be quite loud, and people travelling in small groups or alone who would prefer not to listen to them!

 

[Bletchleyite]

In which case, could they just split the whole train into "airline coaches" and "table coaches"?

That might also make some sense, and is how some of those dastardly Europeans do it. You do need one table to reverse the seat direction in the middle otherwise someone just gets to face a wall, though (having said that, that can be a wheelchair space, at least at one end).

If you use the Class 158 layout (alternate table bays and 2 rows of airline seats) you get more usable legroom, though, as almost no space is lost behind seat backs. Yes, I know nominally luggage can go there, but it hardly ever does, to the point I'd say it isn't even a consideration, particularly in 1st where there tends to be enough space anyway due to the lower density of passengers.

 

[AMR]

Discussions on this thread:

Avanti West Coast: Standard Premium

This would be terrible, this would reduce the amount of unreserved seats, I assume. It will (if it works) increase occupancy in 1st, as that's the point of it - to increase income from the First Class provision. Doesn't surprise me that current 1st users don't like it, but you pay for one...

www.railforums.co.uk

...have identified a perennial problem with First Class - most people travel alone and like their own space, but of those who don't travel alone the "table for two" is most popular. So if you help one of those groups (splitting tables for two into two airline seats) you upset the other. And yet you've got the 2 side - nobody likes the double airline seats, but the tables for 4 are unpopular if there are 3 other people there.

So what options are there to improve things?

I suppose one option would be to have a 1+1 "Premium First" or to charge more for the 1 side? Or maybe have two classes, premium 1st (1+1) and premium standard (2+2 but more tables and 1st legroom)?

Another idea I thought of - could you have the 2 side instead set out as a herringbone style layout of single seats replacing the 2 side, as per the CS lounge car? You'd get more seats in that way than with 1+1?

Any more thoughts?

In Italy they have a more luxurious 1st class then here, with meeting rooms and singular swivel chairs as seats this not only means you can have a better quality seat if your on your own but also able to face the other direction for a little more privacy with tables equipped. Here's a picture.

 

[YorksLad12]

The reason for that is that you can cram an extra row in, whereas if you only have half the seats airline you can't. This is visible by the window alignment being off on the 1 side but not on the 2 side.

Doensn't mean I agree with it - messing things up for 1 seat is not great.

I'd go 50-50, i.e. 4 tables for 2 and 8 airline rows per coach if you assume the fairly standard 8 window bays in a 1st coach.

I'm working from memory and the seat layout diagram of LNER's 9-car Azuma, but: I think you could turn seats 25 and 34 around so that you would have three sets of facing singles instead of just the one. That would also give seats 20 and 40 more window compared to now. The table for seats 26 & 27 don't exactly match up with the table for seats 28-31; which is odd, unless you assume it's to squeeze in seat 58, which ought to go as it doesn't have a window at all and should be a second luggage rack at that end.

 

[mark-h]

could they just split the whole train into "airline coaches" and "table coaches"?
It would make it easier for people to find their preferred type of seat and might (especially if extended to Standard Class)

That might also make some sense, and is how some of those dastardly Europeans do it. You do need one table to reverse the seat direction in the middle otherwise someone just gets to face a wall

That is how the Avanti Voyagers are setup in standard class

 

[py_megapixel]

That is how the Avanti Voyagers are setup in standard class

It sort of is, but it's completely useless as it isn't advertised anywhere on the outside of the train, so passengers just have to guess.
For it to work properly, it needs to be written on the outside of the carriages.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It sort of is, but it's completely useless as it isn't advertised anywhere on the outside of the train, so passengers just have to guess.
For it to work properly, it needs to be written on the outside of the carriages.

Never quite knew why (other than "not invented here") we didn't follow the European approach of having the little "service logos" by the door, showing the class, seat numbers and facilities in that coach.

 

[yorksrob]

Never quite knew why (other than "not invented here") we didn't follow the European approach of having the little "service logos" by the door, showing the class, seat numbers and facilities in that coach.

I'm sure we have those on the ECML and MML stock.

 

[YorksLad12]

That is how the Avanti Voyagers are setup in standard class

From memory, the coach second-furthest away from the loco is all tables apart from a couple of airlines. But not marked as such anywhere.

Never quite knew why (other than "not invented here") we didn't follow the European approach of having the little "service logos" by the door, showing the class, seat numbers and facilities in that coach.

I'm sure we have those on the ECML and MML stock.

The Mk4s certainly have stickers next the doors so that you know which seats you reach first from that door, I'd imaging LNER's Mk3s did as well for uniformity. It's been a long time since I've seen an Azuma close-up so can't say if they follow suit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most UK stock has stickers showing the seat numbers, but what I'm talking about is a panel by the door with more than just that - icons for the class, aircon, sockets, airline seat layout etc.