LU carriage sizes and layouts

[eoff]

It occured to me while watching a programme discuss a new LU train design that it is all the same, a row of seats each side of the carriage facing inwards with what looks like a lot of space inbetween.
Is this a choice that LU make (minimum seating and cram people in who have to stand) or are the carriages limited in size?
Was in Stockholm a couple of weeks ago and the carriages in the metro have mostly 2+2 seat layouts in most of the carriages.

Wikipedia is telling me track guage is pretty standard across many systems so that can't be relevant.

 

[hexagon789]

It occured to me while watching a programme discuss a new LU train design that it is all the same, a row of seats each side of the carriage facing inwards with what looks like a lot of space inbetween.
Is this a choice that LU make (minimum seating and cram people in who have to stand) or are the carriages limited in size?
Was in Stockholm a couple of weeks ago and the carriages in the metro have mostly 2+2 seat layouts in most of the carriages.

Wikipedia is telling me track guage is pretty standard across many systems so that can't be relevant.

The deep tube lines have a far smaller structure gauge than the mainline, the the cut-and-cover lines such as the Metropolitan have nearer to usual clearances so can generally take larger rolling stock.

Most LU line's rolling stock have only transverse seating, the Metropolitan Line S8 stock has a mix due to the more outer suburban nature of part of its operations.

The UK on the whole has a very restricted structure gauge compared to other countries, even those whose usual track gauge is narrower than 4ft 8.5in -legacy of the UK having the earliest passenger railways.

If you want truly small Underground trains though, see the Glasgow Subway where even someone of 5ft 10in will struggle to stand up fully in the middle of the carriage.

 

[Dstock7080]

Most LU line's rolling stock have only transverse seating, the Metropolitan Line S8 stock has a mix due to the more outer suburban nature of part of its operations.

Longitudinal?

Tube Stock are mostly restricted to longitudinal seating near the car ends as the wheels penetrate the car floor slightly.

 

[hexagon789]

Longitudinal?

Tube Stock are mostly restricted to longitudinal seating near the car ends as the wheels penetrate the car floor slightly.

Yes, sorry I meant exactly that - I should have said 'they don't have transverse seating' or phrased it something like that instead.

 

[announcements]

I remember once working it out that if you replaced the transverse seating with longitudinal on the Bakerloo line, you'd have four fewer seats per car. I personally don't see what the issue is with transverse seating; it doesn't eat into the standing space that significantly. In general people will stand single file in the seating areas for both longitudinal and transverse seating - but at least with the latter you get more seats out of it. I am not proposing making the cars fully transverse, but I do think having a mix isn't a bad thing.

 

[OscarH]

I remember once working it out that if you replaced the transverse seating with longitudinal on the Bakerloo line, you'd have four fewer seats per car. I personally don't see what the issue is with transverse seating; it doesn't eat into the standing space that significantly. In general people will stand single file in the seating areas for both longitudinal and transverse seating - but at least with the latter you get more seats out of it. I am not proposing making the cars fully transverse, but I do think having a mix isn't a bad thing.

I definitely feel some of my journeys on the northern/central/jubilee during busy hours would have felt a lot more cramped and unpleasant (and it's already very unpleasant!) on the bakerloo line stock with that many people due to the transverse seating

 

[Ken H]

I seem to remember 1938 tube stock with transverse seats. They were bus seats. No headrests etc.

Does sub surface stock have transverse seats. London - Amersham on a transverse sounds like hell.

Not been on TfL trains for a long while.

 

[notverydeep]

Longitudinal seating has two key benefits. Firstly, it allows for a higher capacity and secondly it helps to reduce dwell time by making it easier to move into the car and away from the doors.

Both of these features allow faster journeys by reducing the chance of being left behind at busy times and speeding up running times, particularly in the off peak.

The trade off is that more passengers have to stand at busy times. This is OK when the average passenger spends less than 15 minutes on board. Where average journeys are longer, this downside begins to offset the advantages of longitudinal seating hence some transverse seats on the Metropolitan line which has a longer average journey length. Transverse seating is the norm on National Railway trains for this reason.

 

[Mikey C]

Leaving aside dwell time issues I don't miss the transverse seating on the deep level tubes (other than the ancient 72s), as it was very cramped anyway. I miss it more on the Overground trains, especially the radial ones like the services out of Liverpool Street, which are commuter trains where people take quite long journeys.

 

[Snow1964]

As built the 1967 Victoria line stock, 1972 stock, and Piccadilly line stock all had 2 bays of 4 seats each side in the middle (where wheels don't encroach and need raised floor) giving 16 seats.

The transverse seats were far fewer in number, but could get more standees and luggage in.

I lived near Northfields 1991-95 and Osterley 1995-98 and hated the refurbished trains as could get a seat peak hour for 30minute plus journey, but normally had to stand after they took loads of seats out. I subsequently moved to Norbiton & Kingston area and SWR did same few years later, took out lots of seats making people stand for 30 mins in peak hour

 

[announcements]

Longitudinal seating has two key benefits. Firstly, it allows for a higher capacity and secondly it helps to reduce dwell time by making it easier to move into the car and away from the doors.

The gangsways aren't that much narrower for transverse seating on Tube stock, however I do agree dwell times would increase as the seated people manoeuvre in and out of the transverse bays - and indeed have to make human interaction/negotiation, which isn't ideal on London Underground at the best of times!

 

[etr221]

As built the 1967 Victoria line stock, 1972 stock, and Piccadilly line stock all had 2 bays of 4 seats each side in the middle (where wheels don't encroach and need raised floor) giving 16 seats.

The transverse seats were far fewer in number, but could get more standees and luggage in.

I lived near Northfields 1991-95 and Osterley 1995-98 and hated the refurbished trains as could get a seat peak hour for 30minute plus journey, but normally had to stand after they took loads of seats out. I subsequently moved to Norbiton & Kingston area and SWR did same few years later, took out lots of seats making people stand for 30 mins in peak hour

My understanding was that for tube stock, longitudinal seats were (are) required at the end of cars, to provide space under the seats for the wheels to protude above floor level, and at least up to the 1972/73 tube stock, transverse seats in the middle of the car (at least on motors) to provide equipment space under the seats.

 

[Ken H]

My understanding was that for tube stock, longitudinal seats were (are) required at the end of cars, to provide space under the seats for the wheels to protude above floor level, and at least up to the 1972/73 tube stock, transverse seats in the middle of the car (at least on motors) to provide equipment space under the seats.

I remember little transfer letters (like in an airfix) kit with some indication of what was under the seats, stuck to the pillars between windows.

 

[Ediswan]

From memory, longitudinal seating has armrests between seats (transverse does not). It is harder for somebody to occupy more than one seat. Also, it feels less intrusive to sit down between two occupied longitudinal seats when there are armrests.

 

[Ken H]

From memory, longitudinal seating has armrests between seats (transverse does not). It is harder for somebody to occupy more than one seat. Also, it feels less intrusive to sit down between two occupied longitudinal seats when there are armrests.

The victoria line 1967 stock had specal armrests at 2 levels to stop passengers fighting for the armrest.

 

[bluegoblin7]

Not necessarily - the Bakerloo and the Central don’t have armrests on the longitudinal seating, just notional ‘people dividers’… which is really what arm rests are anyway.

 

[Mikey C]

Not necessarily - the Bakerloo and the Central don’t have armrests on the longitudinal seating, just notional ‘people dividers’… which is really what arm rests are anyway.

The Central 92 stock had thin armrests when they were first introduced, but they were removed due to them being broken, or something. The Waterloo and City trains still have them.

The Bakerloo 72 stock had their armrests removed 20 years ago due to breakages as well, which seemed odd as they were never removed from the 67s.

 

[3141]

As built the 1967 Victoria line stock, 1972 stock, and Piccadilly line stock all had 2 bays of 4 seats each side in the middle (where wheels don't encroach and need raised floor) giving 16 seats.

The transverse seats were far fewer in number, but could get more standees and luggage in.

The first Piccadilly Line stock built to that layout of transverse seating was the prototype 1956 stock, followed by the 1959 stock.

The 1938 stock had a different layout in the centre section (between the double doors). There were two pairs of seats facing in one direction and two in the other. There was thus one pair which today might be called "airline seats", then the bay with a pair of seats facing each other, and then the second "airline seats". Getting out of the inner "airline" seat was difficult as the person sitting next to the aisle had to get up to let you out. That's why they changed to the layout of two transverse bays.

Driving motors in 1938 and 1959 stocks seated 42. There were 7 longitudinal seats each side nearest the driver's cab and 6 at the other end. Trailers and non-driving motor cars had six each side at both ends giving a total of 40.

 

[urbophile]

I don't know why LU and especially the Overground have gone for all-longitudinal seating. Yes it is an advantage on crowded underground routes where there is nothing to see through the windows. But it is different on overground sections, most of which are outside the busy and crowded areas anyway. LU has recognised this by providing partially transverse seating on the Metropolitan line. I can't see why this policy wasn't applied on more or even all lines. It feels more comfortable to be travelling forwards or backwards rather than sideways, and while I know that most people nowadays prefer to watch their phones rather than the passing scene, for those of us who like window gazing longitudinal seats are a pain.

Conversely, Merseyrail's new 777 units which are otherwise comparable to the LU surface stock, have almost entirely transverse seating, but mostly of the bus type (all facing the same way) rather than the facing bays which we were used to. The busy central sections of Merseyrail are a much smaller proportion of the network than they are in London, so the need for standing space is less, but a compromise to my mind would be longitudinal near the doors, and four-seat bays elsewhere. But apparently the present design is the result of a popular survey.

 

[Sunil_P]

I don't know why LU and especially the Overground have gone for all-longitudinal seating. Yes it is an advantage on crowded underground routes where there is nothing to see through the windows. But it is different on overground sections, most of which are outside the busy and crowded areas anyway. LU has recognised this by providing partially transverse seating on the Metropolitan line. I can't see why this policy wasn't applied on more or even all lines. It feels more comfortable to be travelling forwards or backwards rather than sideways, and while I know that most people nowadays prefer to watch their phones rather than the passing scene, for those of us who like window gazing longitudinal seats are a pain.

Conversely, Merseyrail's new 777 units which are otherwise comparable to the LU surface stock, have almost entirely transverse seating, but mostly of the bus type (all facing the same way) rather than the facing bays which we were used to. The busy central sections of Merseyrail are a much smaller proportion of the network than they are in London, so the need for standing space is less, but a compromise to my mind would be longitudinal near the doors, and four-seat bays elsewhere. But apparently the present design is the result of a popular survey.

Railway photography is particularly difficult when sitting sideways!

 

[PeterC]

On zone 1 I have seen situations where passengers were unable to board despite transverse seats being free.

 

[Transilien]

The Metropolitan line is supposed to be an exception in long journey times but what about the Central line which goes almost as far outside London as the Metropolitan line does. Why doesn’t it get any transversal seating?

 

[announcements]

I think I commented on another thread that transverse seating on the deep-level stock doesn't take up that much standing space compared to longitudinal. If anything, it's the same, as people to stand single file in the passenger saloons regardless. The transverse at least allows for more seating.

Regarding Merseyrail airline seating, I take it there is still a mixture of both directions being faced? Otherwise it would be unfortunate if everyone has to face backwards for a given direction! I say unfortunate, I do recognise that some people (albeit a minority) do prefer to face backwards on train travel.

 

[urbophile]

Regarding Merseyrail airline seating, I take it there is still a mixture of both directions being faced? Otherwise it would be unfortunate if everyone has to face backwards for a given direction! I say unfortunate, I do recognise that some people (albeit a minority) do prefer to face backwards on train travel.

Yes, there is a mixture, but it tends to be all one way for most of a carriage.

 

[RacsoMoquette]

The Central 92 stock had thin armrests when they were first introduced, but they were removed due to them being broken, or something. The Waterloo and City trains still have them.

The Bakerloo 72 stock had their armrests removed 20 years ago due to breakages as well, which seemed odd as they were never removed from the 67s.

The type of customer on the Bakerloo north of Queens Park tended to have a slightly less behaved clientele than on the Victoria Line. Apparently the sluvenly disposioned wished to walk and kick the armrests! Exactly what year did the oblong seat dividers start to appear? Was it the late 90s or 2001/2?

 

[Mikey C]

The type of customer on the Bakerloo north of Queens Park tended to have a slightly less behaved clientele than on the Victoria Line. Apparently the sluvenly disposioned wished to walk and kick the armrests! Exactly what year did the oblong seat dividers start to appear? Was it the late 90s or 2001/2?

I doubt it, considering the areas the Victoria Line serves

However the Victoria Line extremities are a LOT busier, so you don't have empty trains where vandals can run amok.