Seat/Window alignment solution

[davart]

I've wondered whether it would be feasible to install 'fake' internal windows in which an LED panel displays the image from a camera mounted in the external bodywork e.g. in the areas where there are door pockets on say cl. 150.

I'm not sure how well they'd cope with motion blur at high speed but thought it would give the illusion of there being a window.

It would be a complete waste of money in terms of 'does it really do anything' but could be a 'nice to do'.

I wonder if in the future, windows will be replaced by panels and cameras, giving total flexibility on interior fit out.

Any thoughts?

 

[John Webb]

Advantage: You could give people the option of a "Driver's view" looking ahead, as one could get from early DMUs.
Disadvantages:
Cost; potential arguments over what view to watch; likelihood of vandalism; behaviour in an accident; more equipment to maintain; extra energy required to run system.
Unknown: Would weight be greater or less than proper windows?

 

[Bletchleyite]

No thanks. I like natural light.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Such a thing has been supposedly "the future of airliners" for a good while now... and with planes it makes sense on paper because it's easier to keep a solid tube pressurised than it is a tube with lots of little holes in.

 

[Trackman]

Going slightly OT, anyone remember that mock up of a MK1 compo with LED panel in the window to give you the idea you were moving?
I thought that was quite impressive, I think it was to help elderly people with certain conditions.
--
As for the original question it wouldn't work , but I like the idea of a forward facing camera.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

So in order to get seats aligned with windows all kind of techno wizardry should be employed as opposed to just aligning seats with windows.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Presumably the more radical solution of actually having the seating align with the various window locations, (thus also increasing legroom) would, however, result in something of a reduction in potential seating capacity?

 

[OhNoAPacer]

Presumably the more radical solution of actually having the seating align with the various window locations, (thus also increasing legroom) would, however, result in something of a reduction in potential seating capacity?

Yes, but it could be lessened by some seating not being perfectly aligned with the windows. In any case my post was kind of made when my sarcasm dampening circuitry had malfunctioned

 

[Bletchleyite]

Presumably the more radical solution of actually having the seating align with the various window locations, (thus also increasing legroom) would, however, result in something of a reduction in potential seating capacity?

No. It just costs a bit more to have two vehicle structures, one with Standard class spacing and one with First.

 

[Clansman]

So in order to get seats aligned with windows all kind of techno wizardry should be employed as opposed to just aligning seats with windows.

My thoughts exactly.

In a fair chunk of cases where seats aren't aligned on existing rolling stock, this is more down to the choice of where to situate tables and luggae racks, as opposed to anything benefitting seating capacity (such as on Voyagers and Pendolinos).

158/168/170/171/195/331/380/385/395s all spring to mind in this regard. Especially the CAF units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

158s as built have 100% window alignment, and most of them have continued it past refurb other than the EMT ones on which cramming in seats was a priority due to severe overcrowding on Liverpool to Norwich. Priority seats mess with it slightly, but can be done by putting 2 rows in the space of 3 and so only misaligning those two rows. The 158 layout is exceptionally clever as it deals with the airline vs table issue by alternating them and giving the table the window plus both pillars.

Most seats in classes 168 and 170 are aligned with the exception of the high density ex MML units, which just need a row taking out so they are the same as the others as the spacing is unacceptably tight.

195/331 were exceptionally lazy, as are Mk5 coaches - alignment has just been ignored totally, whereas with some thought you could change the layout to give most seats a view. 390s and 22x similarly, which have luggage racks against windows and seats against blank walls, which even the laziest designer should have noticed and swapped over.

The disease, of course, started with BR and the Mk3 coach, which was a considerable downgrade on the Mk2 in almost every way despite the way people enthuse about it. If only the Mk3 had actually been the vastly superior BREL International coach with power doors and window alignment.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I like to take an aisle seat, often has a good view, the pillars are further away, you can look out both sides and can not be blocked in by a stranger.

Perhaps variable seat pitch could be tried, apparently people are getting taller, a few rows could be further apart to avoid discriminating against people 2m plus tall. Might match the seats to the windows at the same time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I like to take an aisle seat, often has a good view, the pillars are further away, you can look out both sides and can not be blocked in by a stranger.

Perhaps variable seat pitch could be tried, apparently people are getting taller, a few rows could be further apart to avoid discriminating against people 2m plus tall. Might match the seats to the windows at the same time.

These exist in the form of priority seats. Technically these are more intended for those who are less mobile, but in my observation such people rarely choose them because the increased pitch means they cannot hold onto the seat in front to help them sit down.

 

[py_megapixel]

To replacing the whole carriage's windows with cameras and screens: no, absolutely not. Several reasons:

1. As mentioned above it's a lazy solution. The actual solution is just to design things properly in the first place.
2. Vast increase energy consumption, as well as to the cost of the rolling stock and its maintainence, for no tangible benefit
3. A train carriage with no natural light would be a horrible environment to be in
4. How long before the TOCs start deciding to use the screens for things other than windows? I don't want "by default you get ads, but for £2.50 you can unlock the window view" to become possible
5. Looking at an illuminated screen is bad enough for eyestrain as it is. Imagine that for a journey of several hours.

Fake ones in door pockets could work in principle, but the technology is not suitable. To replicate the experience of looking out of a window you would need extremely high resolution/refresh rate screens as the user will have it right next to them, and those tend to get warm to the touch, which would be strange. It would also be difficult to get a camera in exactly the correct position to replicate the window view, meaning it would look misaligned with the rest of the windows in the carriage.

Additionally there is the risk of burn-in if the train spends a substantial amount of time looking at a similar view. I imagine over, say, 20 years of life, the average class 800 on the GWML will spend literally hundreds of hours sat in Paddington, for example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The answer to door pockets, if you have to have them (plug doors are better), is to put luggage racks there, or on urban type stock have them either with side facing seats or as standbacks, thus improving standing capacity.

 

[43096]

The disease, of course, started with BR and the Mk3 coach, which was a considerable downgrade on the Mk2 in almost every way despite the way people enthuse about it. If only the Mk3 had actually been the vastly superior BREL International coach with power doors and window alignment.

You don't half over-dramatize it. There's not really anywhere on a Mark 3 that has a blocked view - the deadlights between the windows really aren't that big.

The real villain is the Pendolino where some brain-dead designer decided that the luggage racks needed a window view while several passenger seats have no view whatsoever.

 

[Andyh82]

Now the rail industry is moving away from peak hours being the only consideration, surely the easy way to solve this is just to rearrange the seats, and if one row has to be removed, with less peak hour commuters, so be it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You don't half over-dramatize it. There's not really anywhere on a Mark 3 that has a blocked view - the deadlights between the windows really aren't that big.

They are not small, either.

The real villain is the Pendolino where some brain-dead designer decided that the luggage racks needed a window view while several passenger seats have no view whatsoever.

I do agree this is lazy and ignorant design, and I have said so above.