Table vs. Facing vs. Airline + other proposals: what is the correct balance?

[edwin_m]

Then we had the 'open' coach, as a standard, in which all seats were 'table seats' until some bright spark thought up airline seating, I think in the 80s?

DMUs had face-to-back bus-style seating from introduction in the 1950s, not sure about older ones such as the GWR railcars.

The first for long-distance stock was, I think, the original Mk3 Seconds which had a row of airline seats either side of the central partition. That was what pushed all the tables in the rest of the coach out of alignment with the windows.

 

[Bletchleyite]

DMUs had face-to-back bus-style seating from introduction in the 1950s, not sure about older ones such as the GWR railcars.

The first for long-distance stock was, I think, the original Mk3 Seconds which had a row of airline seats either side of the central partition. That was what pushed all the tables in the rest of the coach out of alignment with the windows.

All to save BR 50p on having two bodyshell layouts.

 

[edwin_m]

All to save BR 50p on having two bodyshell layouts.

The mk3 also introduced the practice of attaching the seats to channels in the floor airline-style, which allowed the spacing and orientation to be varied easily, hence the many interior layouts these coaches have had (not to mention a few conversions between First, standard and even the occasional composite). In earlier builds (maybe not Mk2f) the seats were built as permanent fixtures.

 

[bramling]

It's interesting that in the pre-war days, leaving aside some local 'motor' trains, the only seats that were table seats were the restaurant cars. Compartment coaches meant that you might always end up sitting opposite one another, no tables, yet that never seemed to happen except at rush hours on commuter trains, probably due to far less rail usage. I don't remember anyone longing for 'open' coaches. These were introduced as 'excursion' coaches and thus a clear indication that less comfort was expected.

Then we had the 'open' coach, as a standard, in which all seats were 'table seats' until some bright spark thought up airline seating, I think in the 80s?
I recently travelled on an ICE train where some compartments were provided and found these cramped. The reason for this was that the compartment was full of pax.

That's the essence of it to my mind. In 1955, you usually got a compartment to yourself or with a couple of pax for company, but now it's all like a chicken coop, regardless of seating layout, packed, smelly and very noisy .

Your last paragraph nearly sums up why I prefer to travel by car nowadays. Whilst train journeys can still be very pleasant and civilised at certain times and places, at many times your description is spot on - and for me it’s a total turn-off.

 

[Meerkat]

For me they're second choice on the 350/2 over a vehicle-end airline seat. The spacing is very generous and you can put your foot up on the conduit (at least until they put plug sockets on there in the way).

I wouldn't choose no table over table with everything else being equal, though.

I can’t believe how awkward those plug sockets on the heating duct are! There is nowhere to comfortably put your window side foot!

 

[43096]

All to save BR 50p on having two bodyshell layouts.

And BR made the right decision given the number of conversions between different vehicle types over the last 40 years.

Any seat in a Mark 3 has at least some view out of a window as the window pillars are not that wide. Certainly miles better than the vast majority of post-privatisation IC stock.