When, and why, did a decent view out of the window lose its importance ?

[Justin Smith]

Justin Smith said:
The other issue is massively wide window pillars, which, bearing in mind how rare train crashes are, are NOT needed.

That's just a staggering statement to make.

'Lets not make our trains sturdy enough to be on the railway because i want to look out the window'

Wow

It really isn't.
If you were to work out how much less risk you would be at by having huge window pillars over having slimmer ones it would probably be approx the figures I quoted earlier, i.e. it might make the coach 10% safer ? So your "risk" of serious injury per journey might lessen from one in 100 Million to one in 110 Million. If you really are reassured that smaller windows make the train safer do you also think train seats should all be provided with seat belts ? And if not why not as I am sure they'd make more of a difference (not that I am arguing in favour of such a move, though it will come, sooner or later, as society's risk aversion continues to rise to ever more ludicrous levels.....).
A sense of proportion is called for, and that difference in risk is not, in my view, even worth bothering with. And certainly not by anyone who ever uses the roads or lives in a house with stairs......
The problem is we live in an excessively risk averse society most of whom know very little about risk probability.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Nov 2024 ==

Exactly my point - the Pendos were made with wider pillars to be structurally safe for the job they were doing

I disagree, see above. Quite apart from anything the word "safe" is relative, it needs a benchmark, without that it means nothing.
Safe as in comparison to what ? Compared with, say, car travel for instance ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Nov 2024 ==

Even though the Pacer will bounce you up and down at a frequency designed to stop you focussing on the passing view...

I accept this is a tongue in cheek comment, but, TBH, I never found the Pacer's ride to be unacceptably bad.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Nov 2024 ==

I’m surprised we havent had someone on here draw and share their own detailed window alignment. If it cost any amount more I’d rather that’s spent towards improving the pretty poor state of service passengers currently endure.

I am staggered by that statement.
I doubt that, over the life of the coach, it'd save much money at all, and certainly not enough to make any significant difference to anything, even the rather nebulous concept of "service" you mentioned.
But, taking your thoughts to their logical conclusion, why bother having windows at all ? That'd defn save money, both in the cost of manufacture, and even more so in the fact the non existent windows will never break or need cleaning. It may also make the coach 10% safer so we can all rest easier in our beds........

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Nov 2024 ==

One only has to look at most of the travellers now and it's plain to see that most of them hardly even glance away from their screens when standing on the platform, boarding the train or finding a seat. They hardly ever even so much as glance out of the window even for a fleeting moment during the journey. When the automated announcement mentions their stop, without averting their gaze from their phones they stand, make their way to the door and alight.

If you asked them about the livery of the train, the colour of the seats or to name something notable that the train passed, they most likely wouldn't have a clue.

Designers are aware of this, and views from windows in trains and planes is no longer a priority.

It isn't just constantly looking out of the window though* is it ? It's the fact the ambience of the coach is improved, less claustrophobic and all that.

* I agree most people do not look out of the window as often as I do, but very few never do. I have definitely found that windows with no view get taken last, even by people who rarely look out.

 

[JohnMcL7]

It's not something I even knew was an issue before I joined the forum and there's times I'm not bothered about looking out a window because it's dark, wet or misty with poor visibility or I'm just not that bothered if it's a view I've seen many times before or I'm not in the mood. I'd rather a quiet seat with no window at these times otherwise if I want a view I'll choose a seat with a good view.

 

[Ethano92]

even the rather nebulous concept of "service" you mentioned.

This is a really odd thing to say considering a train service to get people from A to B in a timely, reliable fashion is the entire reason for passenger railways to exist. It’s not a nebulous concept, it’s the reason people are sat on a train in the first place, not for a view out the window.

Also it’s fairly obvious there’s a difference between a restricted window view, and a completely closed-off box with no natural light or concept of where you are at any time. There is a reason for windows, there is also a reason that restricted view is not that big of an issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is a really odd thing to say considering a train service to get people from A to B in a timely, reliable fashion is the entire reason for passenger railways to exist.

I think that's an oversimplification. The car is the most likely thing to achieve that for most journeys and is usually cheaper too. Thus, the railway has to market itself on other benefits, of which the ability to enjoy the scenery is one (other ones being e.g. the ability to work on the train, less stressful etc).

 

[Blackpool boy]

Justin Smith said:
The other issue is massively wide window pillars, which, bearing in mind how rare train crashes are, are NOT needed.


It really isn't.
If you were to work out how much less risk you would be at by having huge window pillars over having slimmer ones it would probably be approx the figures I quoted earlier, i.e. it might make the coach 10% safer ? So your "risk" of serious injury per journey might lessen from one in 100 Million to one in 110 Million. If you really are reassured that smaller windows make the train safer do you also think train seats should all be provided with seat belts ? And if not why not as I am sure they'd make more of a difference (not that I am arguing in favour of such a move, though it will come, sooner or later, as society's risk aversion continues to rise to ever more ludicrous levels.....).
A sense of proportion is called for, and that difference in risk is not, in my view, even worth bothering with. And certainly not by anyone who ever uses the roads or lives in a house with stairs......
The problem is we live in an excessively risk averse society most of whom know very little about risk probability.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Nov 2024 ==


I disagree, see above. Quite apart from anything the word "safe" is relative, it needs a benchmark, without that it means nothing.
Safe as in comparison to what ? Compared with, say, car travel for instance ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Nov 2024 ==


I accept this is a tongue in cheek comment, but, TBH, I never found the Pacer's ride to be unacceptably bad.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Nov 2024 ==


I am staggered by that statement.
I doubt that, over the life of the coach, it'd save much money at all, and certainly not enough to make any significant difference to anything, even the rather nebulous concept of "service" you mentioned.
But, taking your thoughts to their logical conclusion, why bother having windows at all ? That'd defn save money, both in the cost of manufacture, and even more so in the fact the non existent windows will never break or need cleaning. It may also make the coach 10% safer so we can all rest easier in our beds........

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Nov 2024 ==


It isn't just constantly looking out of the window though* is it ? It's the fact the ambience of the coach is improved, less claustrophobic and all that.

* I agree most people do not look out of the window as often as I do, but very few never do. I have definitely found that windows with no view get taken last, even by people who rarely look out.

Amazing. You really do want to put the structural integrity of a train just so that you could look out of a bigger window just because trains dont crash that often?

Outstanding attitude to have, truly special.

 

[dosxuk]

Outstanding attitude to have, truly special.

Not really, the OP has long held views that health & safety is over the top in this country, and has often stated that because people aren't dying all over the place it proves that we don't need the level of regulation that exists.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not really, the OP has long held views that health & safety is over the top in this country, and has often stated that because people aren't dying all over the place it proves that we don't need the level of regulation that exists.

That isn't really key to this, anyway. The Class 397 has very narrow pillars and is certified for 125mph running (and seats fully aligned to windows in Standard). The error, which is an error in these terms, is having purchased 140mph stock that wasn't ever going to run at 140mph (which includes the utterly fanciful WCML PUG2* which wasn't viable from day one). This had other downsides, such as the loss of almost half a vehicle at each end on Pendolinos in which seats weren't allowed at that speed.

* Passenger UpGrade.

 

[Blackpool boy]

Not really, the OP has long held views that health & safety is over the top in this country, and has often stated that because people aren't dying all over the place it proves that we don't need the level of regulation that exists.

Ahh i see - thats pretty poor then

That isn't really key to this, anyway. The Class 397 has very narrow pillars and is certified for 125mph running (and seats fully aligned to windows in Standard). The error, which is an error in these terms, is having purchased 140mph stock that wasn't ever going to run at 140mph (which includes the utterly fanciful WCML PUG2* which wasn't viable from day one). This had other downsides, such as the loss of almost half a vehicle at each end on Pendolinos in which seats weren't allowed at that speed.

* Passenger UpGrade

Stop comparing to other trains - im pretty sure ( correct me if im wrong), that the wider pillars on the pendos were there because the metal tubes may have become more bendy due to the tilt function of the trains too.

However , surely you must agree that trains that are built to be as safe as they can for passengers in the event of a crash are much more beneficial to passengers rather than a bigger window or not?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Stop comparing to other trains - im pretty sure ( correct me if im wrong), that the wider pillars on the pendos were there because the metal tubes may have become more bendy due to the tilt function of the trains too.

Absolute nonsense, there is no way that the tilt could "make the metal tubes more bendy". And Voyagers have huge windows.

The primary reason is just that the UK Pendolino is a squashed Euro-Pendolino and the windows are already small on those! (Roughly 80x sized on Euro-Pendolinos).

However , surely you must agree that trains that are built to be as safe as they can for passengers in the event of a crash are much more beneficial to passengers rather than a bigger window or not?

Are you alleging that the Class 397 is not adequately safe for 125mph running? As that is quite a big statement.

 

[Blackpool boy]

Absolute nonsense, there is no way that the tilt could "make the metal tubes more bendy". And Voyagers have huge windows.

The primary reason is just that the UK Pendolino is a squashed Euro-Pendolino and the windows are already small on those! (Roughly 80x sized on Euro-Pendolinos).



Are you alleging that the Class 397 is not adequately safe for 125mph running? As that is quite a big statement.

Well i would imagine in my mind that the forces on the structure would be a bit more as it tilts - im guessing youre an engineer and can clarify that for me then.

I didnt claim one was less safe than another - I have merely stated, more than once that the wider pillars on the pendos are there for structual integrity.

I wait for you to prove me wrong that this isnt the case

 

[Justin Smith]

This is a really odd thing to say considering a train service to get people from A to B in a timely, reliable fashion is the entire reason for passenger railways to exist. It’s not a nebulous concept, it’s the reason people are sat on a train in the first place, not for a view out the window.

Also it’s fairly obvious there’s a difference between a restricted window view, and a completely closed-off box with no natural light or concept of where you are at any time. There is a reason for windows, there is also a reason that restricted view is not that big of an issue.

You neglected to mention exactly what you meant by "customer service".
If you mean a "better service on the railways" my point still stands, i.e. that the additional cost of having different window spacings on 1st and 2nd class rolling stock would, over the lifetime of the coaches, be trifling and the money being invested elsewhere would have almost no effect on "better service on the railways".

that restricted view is not that big of an issue.

If you'd have said that to me that time I had to travel all the way from Edinburgh to Doncaster looking at 12" of grey plastic I may not have reacted too well.....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2024 ==

Amazing. You really do want to put the structural integrity of a train just so that you could look out of a bigger window just because trains dont crash that often?

Outstanding attitude to have, truly special.

There you go again, using relative words.
What exactly do you mean by "structural integrity" ? I mean relative to what ?
Are you saying the APT, or Mk3 coaches, did not have "structural integrity" ?
But "structural integrity" is a means to an end : safety. Can you define what you mean by safe ? How safe do you want to be ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2024 ==

Not really, the OP has long held views that health & safety is over the top in this country, and has often stated that because people aren't dying all over the place it proves that we don't need the level of regulation that exists.

With the exception of the term "dying all over the place" (which is emotive and subjective language, as well as being meaningless if not quantified) then yes, that's exactly what I think.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2024 ==

However , surely you must agree that trains that are built to be as safe as they can for passengers in the event of a crash are much more beneficial to passengers rather than a bigger window or not?

How safe do you want people to be ?
Do you think trains should have seat belts and there use mandated ? That'd definitely save a few lives, every decade that is.
Except it probably wouldn't, because it'd just put a lot of people off travelling by train so they'd choose far more dangerous car travel instead.

 

[duffield]

We're probably getting close to the point where the cheapest solution would be a uniform structure with no windows, but with UHD screens showing the exterior view instead. No pillars or other obstructions apart from maybe some minimal struts with jacket pegs or similar.

There is already a plane concept based on this idea. Link below is to website showing impression of the interior of a windowless plane.
Quote:

The Future of Aerospace​

Imagine a cabin where the windows are display screens, relaying a choice of views from around the aircraft. If you’re not sitting in a window seat, your large seat-back display becomes your window on the world as well as a source of entertainment.

The Windowless Plane | CPI

Discover how CPI's technologies will change the future of flight

www.uk-cpi.com

Of course there is the question of the use of windows as a breakable emergency exit.

 

[sh24]

We're probably getting close to the point where the cheapest solution would be a uniform structure with no windows, but with UHD screens showing the exterior view instead. No pillars or other obstructions apart from maybe some minimal struts with jacket pegs or similar.

There is already a plane concept based on this idea. Link below is to website showing impression of the interior of a windowless plane.
Quote:

The Windowless Plane | CPI

Discover how CPI's technologies will change the future of flight

www.uk-cpi.com

Of course there is the question of the use of windows as a breakable emergency exit.

Emirates have actually have this in some First class seats that don't have a window. It's...unusual

Unreal: A Private Flight In Emirates' New First Class

I just flew Emirates' unbelievably good new first class from Washington to Dubai. The best part? We had the cabin to ourselves.

onemileatatime.com

As a habitual on board laptop user , I'm not too worried about the specific alignment of seat to window so long as there is light, a way of blocking out very strong sun (IET blinds are a hopeless idea) and that I don't have just a blank sheet of plastic instead of a window.

 

[Justin Smith]

We're probably getting close to the point where the cheapest solution would be a uniform structure with no windows, but with UHD screens showing the exterior view instead. No pillars or other obstructions apart from maybe some minimal struts with jacket pegs or similar.

There is already a plane concept based on this idea. Link below is to website showing impression of the interior of a windowless plane.
Quote:

The Windowless Plane | CPI

Discover how CPI's technologies will change the future of flight

www.uk-cpi.com

Of course there is the question of the use of windows as a breakable emergency exit.

I cannot tell you how much I would hate that whole concept.
I want to see real life directly, not through a TV screen.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2024 ==

Emirates have actually have this in some First class seats that don't have a window. It's...unusual

Unreal: A Private Flight In Emirates' New First Class

I just flew Emirates' unbelievably good new first class from Washington to Dubai. The best part? We had the cabin to ourselves.

onemileatatime.com

As a habitual on board laptop user , I'm not too worried about the specific alignment of seat to window so long as there is light, a way of blocking out very strong sun (IET blinds are a hopeless idea) and that I don't have just a blank sheet of plastic instead of a window.

I suppose it would be better than having no window at all, as in some planes have gaps with no window. But, to me, it would never be an adequate replacement for a window.

 

[duffield]

I cannot tell you how much I would hate that whole concept.
I want to see real life directly, not through a TV screen.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2024 ==


I suppose it would be better than having no window at all, as in some planes have gaps with no window. But, to me, it would never be an adequate replacement for a window.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating this and it feels instinctively wrong to me; I'm a heritage rail nut and I not only want proper windows with a decent view, I want windows that open so I can hear and smell the outside world and the loco (and also slam doors)!

But I know that on the national rail that age has largely passed so we're already in sealed AC environments in most coaches, and that it's possible eventually we may end up in some sort of simulated environment whether we like it or not.

Although given the glacial rate at which our rolling stock is updated and the fact that none of the currently being built coaches are windowless, I'd probably give it a few decades at least before this sort of thing becomes common (if it ever does).

 

[Pigeon]

I don't think a view out of the window has ever lost its importance. I don't want to be transported about the place in a plastic box that tries to pretend it exists in isolation from the world outside. Even if it's night-time I want to be able to see the occasional scattered lights and things going past outside, to keep my sense of place up to the mark; even if on a well-known route I choose to read a book, I will still be spending about as much time looking out of the window as looking at the page.

It's a matter of proportion though isn't it ? How far would you go to reduce your chances of being seriously injured from, say, 1 in 100 Million*, to 1 in 110 Million ? If there was no cost to that reduction, either financial or in terms of your enjoyment of the journey, then yes it'd be worthwhile. But if there is any cost whatsoever it would not be worthwhile, not to me anyway.

* I am not sure what the chances of being seriously injured per train journey is but would have thought it would probably be even less than my guesstimate.

To me that's at the level where even the effort of having to read about it makes it not worth while. Years and years ago I came across some statistic that said the chance of being struck by lightning was about 1 in 6000. (I don't think it's very accurate, but it's within an order of magnitude or so.) Ever since then I have taken the view that since being struck by lightning never actually seems to happen to anyone and nobody ever worries about it, it's ineffably nesh to fret about any of the other appallingly terrifying dangers that we are exposed to at similar or lower levels of probability, no matter how much propaganda instructing us to fear them we are exposed to by politicians and other forms of windbag seeking to justify their existence by doing something whether it needs doing or not. I actually do/did know someone who died from falling down the stairs, but it doesn't inspire me to soil myself and move to a bungalow stat.

The rot set in with the original seating arrangement in the Mk3s, where the bodyshells were the same for 1st and 2nd, with windows spaced for 1st, and the bays for 2nd gradually worse from end to centre of the coach, ending with an airline pair in the centre.

This is why I was unable to enthuse about the HSTs when they came out. I only regard them as rateable these days because instead of the stock being unique by reason of its thoughtless failings of alignment, it's now unique as being the best of what's left...

But I'd say the rot really took hold when they decided that instead of designing new stock with a bodyshell adapted to its function, they were just going to use the Mk3 for everything and botch the design of the stock to adapt it to the bodyshell. So we got the abysmal interior layout of the Splinters with big plastic walls everywhere and a higgledy-piggledy arrangement of seats which meant that basically none of them got any kind of decent view. And then they sort of stopped, and stuck us with such layouts ever since. The original DMUs may have been manky and knackered, but they were far better (as long as the windows had been cleaned) for appreciating the scenery on the lines they served than the bodge-up which replaced them.

The other rot that set in with the Mk3s/HSTs was of course stunted formations. It used to be very noticeable at Paddington how many carriage-lengths further the loco-hauled sets stuck out at the country end than the HSTs did (coyly shrinking back under the station roof). It was also noticeable how much easier it was to get a seat on them. We should have continued providing capacity in that way, but instead we got this obsession with formations of inadequate length crammed with an excessive density of seating; we should revert to the traditional method. (Everyone will say we "can't", but omit specific mention of the implied qualification "...while keeping everything else exactly the same as it is at this moment", which I would consider obvious enough to negate the point of making the statement in the first place.)

(Of course it also doesn't help that seat designers persist in assuming that the occupants will always sit "to attention" and with their backside shoved right back into the angle of the seat. Nobody sits like that for more than five minutes and the legroom required to adopt a more comfortable posture is not available with seats spaced according to the invalid assumption, even if you're only 1.75m.)

 

[vuzzeho]

I don't think windowless planes/trains/whatever are coming anytime soon simply for safety reasons. If all electrical systems fail, then the screen 'windows' will stop working and you will, essentially, just be enveloped in darkness in an emergency situation. Windows allow you to see what's going on outside and carry out appropriate measures.

 

[boiledbeans2]

The Class 450, despite its cramped 3+2 seating, has good window alignment.

See the bay seats on the left of this photo, all perfectly aligned to the windows:

Class 450 Interior

Standard class saloon interior of South Western Railway unit 450086. 13th July 2024.

www.flickr.com

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Glass is not structural. Crashworthiness improves with less window?

 

[Llanigraham]

Glass is not structural. Crashworthiness improves with less window?

Not sure about trains, but certainly in other vehicles and even in buildings glass can indeed be structural.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Not sure about trains, but certainly in other vehicles and even in buildings glass can indeed be structural.

True But Not in the sense of carrying major loads. Toughened glass including car windscreens can be quite tough and shatter resistant as you point out.

 

[Llanigraham]

True But Not in the sense of carrying major loads. Toughened glass including car windscreens can be quite tough and shatter resistant as you point out

Toughened grass hasn't been used for vehicle windscreens for many years, nowadays they use laminated glass, and that is most definetely considered structural. I note that many train windows are laminated so suspect they are considered structural.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Toughened grass hasn't been used for vehicle windscreens for many years, nowadays they use laminated glass, and that is most definetely considered structural. I note that many train windows are laminated so suspect they are considered structural.

I have learned something new.

 

[Grecian 1998]

Other than Pendolinos, I can't think of many trains where a significant number of seats per carriage have no views. For all the grumbling about Voyagers, only a relatively small proportion of seats have little to no view. Voyagers have significantly larger and more substantial windows than Pendolinos. There are a few seats on IETs next to the door pockets, but this is an even smaller proportion.

Anecdotally, I have noticed double seats next to pillars tend to be the last to go. For all that many people may not want to look out of the window regularly, they do want to be able to look up to see if they've reached their stop.

If anyone asserts that 'normals' never look out of the window, they should see the effect on westbound long-distance trains passing Langstone Rock and on to the Dawlish seawall... An abnormal case perhaps, but scenery can still have an effect on passengers.

 

[boiledbeans2]

With all the discussion about Pendos, consider the early generation Pendos, such as the ETR460/470/480.

If you look at the side profile, they look quite similar to the Class 390s (similar small windows, similar doors):

https://www.shutterstock.com/shutterstock/photos/621802079/display_1500/stock-photo-pisa-italy-circa-april-trenitalia-frecciabianca-etr-train-is-passing-from-the-station-621802079.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Etr-460-frecciabianca-riomaggiore3.jpg

Interior wise, they are much more airy. Here's an old picture, with all table seats perfectly aligned with the windows.

https://railtrain.pro/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/ETR-460-salon.webp

In contrast, here is the Class 390, with seats packed to the brim. The seats are high-backed, blocking sunlight.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Refurbished_interior_of_390_148.jpg/1024px-Refurbished_interior_of_390_148.jpg

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Nov 2024 ==

The newer ETR600/610 series also have good alignment.

The side profile, with similar small windows and doors to the Class 390:

https://scalaenne.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/etr600.02.6.jpg

2nd class interior with perfectly aligned windows:

https://www.seat61.com/images/frecciargento-train-2nd-large.jpg

 

[Falcon1200]

I personally always want to have a view out of the window (and preferably a better one than on those dreadful sets with longitudinal seating), yet I have seen passengers choose, on 80x sets, to sit in a seat with no view whatsoever despite many other places being available. Similarly, on the buses I use people regularly sit in the seat immediately behind the Driver, with no forward view at all, and a side view only possible by constantly turning their heads by 90 degrees.

 

[Mogz]

With all the discussion about Pendos, consider the early generation Pendos, such as the ETR460/470/480.

If you look at the side profile, they look quite similar to the Class 390s (similar small windows, similar doors):

https://www.shutterstock.com/shutterstock/photos/621802079/display_1500/stock-photo-pisa-italy-circa-april-trenitalia-frecciabianca-etr-train-is-passing-from-the-station-621802079.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Etr-460-frecciabianca-riomaggiore3.jpg

Interior wise, they are much more airy. Here's an old picture, with all table seats perfectly aligned with the windows.

https://railtrain.pro/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/ETR-460-salon.webp

In contrast, here is the Class 390, with seats packed to the brim. The seats are high-backed, blocking sunlight.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Refurbished_interior_of_390_148.jpg/1024px-Refurbished_interior_of_390_148.jpg

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Nov 2024 ==

The newer ETR600/610 series also have good alignment.

The side profile, with similar small windows and doors to the Class 390:

https://scalaenne.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/etr600.02.6.jpg

2nd class interior with perfectly aligned windows:

https://www.seat61.com/images/frecciargento-train-2nd-large.jpg

Another example of better that’s available on the continent but for which there’s always a “reason” why we can’t have it in the UK.

See also- dining cars, family carriages, couchettes, compartments, longer trains etc etc ad nausium.

 

[Western Lord]

it's not just trains that have smaller windows, check out cars from the late fifties through the sixties and most are nearly all glass with skinny pillars above the waist. Great for sightseeing, not so much if you turn one over.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another example of better that’s available on the continent but for which there’s always a “reason” why we can’t have it in the UK.

See also- dining cars, family carriages, couchettes, compartments, longer trains etc etc ad nausium.

To be fair many of us don't want an all-tables arrangement. I think in preference terms about 50:50 is probably closer to what people want (as per for instance the 158 or the 76 seat Mk3 interior). The Class 195/331 for instance (which is very bad for alignment) has far too many tables.

It's quite interesting that Avanti did such a low density and quite-well-aligned* (though a couple of airline rows are off per coach) layout in the 80x but didn't change that in the Pendolinos to be similar, though I think they didn't want to pay the cost of moving the reservation displays.

* And *roughly* 50:50 airline to table if you consider all of Standard - the layout of a full coach is 40 airline, 48 table, though some coaches have a smaller proportion of tables so it's probably bang-on 50:50 in the whole train as far as Standard goes, but I can't be bothered counting them all!

 

[norbitonflyer]

it's not just trains that have smaller windows, check out cars from the late fifties through the sixties and most are nearly all glass with skinny pillars above the waist. Great for sightseeing, not so much if you turn one over.

The difference between primary and secondary safety (preventing accidents in the first place, as opposed to reducing their effects) - the bigger the windows, the better view you have of your surroundings (including other cars). But it does affect crashworthiness if you do turn over.

Too many modern cars seem to have letterboxes for rear windows, and solid metal where the rear quarterlight should be, like this.